Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Micah 5:2

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting.

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 Mat 2:6; comp. Joh 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 (1Sa 17:12, Rth 1:2; Rth 4:11, 1Ch 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 Isa 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 (Jos 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 (Gen 35:16) and the Davidic kingdom (Rth 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, Neh 11:25. It is also spoken of in Joh 7:42 as . 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 clitus

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 Num 1:16; Num 10:4, Jos 22:14; Jos 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 Isa 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 Isa 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 Mic 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 Psa 114:2 (literally rendered), and ‘habitations’ for ‘habitation’ in Isa 54:2. The passage will then become a statement either of the pre-existence of the Messiah in the eternal purposes of God (comp. Isa 22:11; Isa 37:26); or, which is more obvious and perfectly suitable to the context, of his descent from the ancient Davidic family comp. Amo 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 Mic 7:14; Mic 7:20, where Auth. Vers. rightly has, ‘the days of old.’

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

But – (And) thou, Bethlehem Ephratah With us, the chequered events of time stand in strong contrast, painful or gladdening. Good seems to efface evil, or evil blots out the memory of the good. God orders all in the continuous course of His Wisdom. All lies in perfect harmony in the Divine Mind. Each event is the sequel of what went before. So here the prophet joins on, what to us stands in such contrast, with that simple, And. Yet he describes the two conditions bearing on one another. He had just spoken of the judge of Israel smitten on the cheek, and, before Mic 4:9, that Israel had neither king nor counsellor; he now speaks of the Ruler in Israel, the Everlasting. He had said, how Judah was to become mere bands of men; he now says, how the little Bethlehem was to be exalted. He had said before, that the rule of old was to come to the tower of the flock, the daughter of Jerusalem; now, retaining the word, he speaks of the Ruler, in whom it was to be established.

Before he had addressed the tower of the flock; now, Bethlehem. But he has greater things to say now, so he pauses , And thou! People have admired the brief appeal of the murdered Caesar, Thou too, Brutus. The like energetic conciseness lies in the words, And thou! Bethlehem Ephratah. The name Ephratah is not seemingly added, in order to distinguish Bethlehem from the Bethlehem of Zabulon, since that is only named once Jos 19:15, and Bethlehem here is marked to be the Bethlehem Judah , by the addition, too little to be among the thousands of Judah. He joins apparently the usual name, Bethlehem, with the old Patriarchal, and perhaps poetic Psa 132:6 name Ephratah, either in reference and contrast to that former birth of sorrow near Ephratah Gen 35:19; Gen 48:7, or, (as is Micahs custom) regarding the meaning of both names.

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

It had been rich in the fruitfulness of this world; rich, thrice rich, should it be in spiritual fruitfulness. : Truly is Bethlehem, house of bread, where was born the Bread of life, which came down from heaven Joh 6:48, Joh 6:51. : who with inward sweetness refreshes the minds of the elect, Angels Bread Psa 78:25, and Ephratah, fruitfulness, whose fruitfulness is God, the Seed-corn, stored wherein, died and brought forth much fruit, all which ever was brought forth to God in the whole world.

Though thou be little among the thousands of Judah – Literally, small to be, that is, too small to be among etc. Each tribe was divided into its thousands, probably of fighting men, each thousand having its own separate head Num 1:16; Num 10:4. But the thousand continued to be a division of the tribe, after Israel was settled in Canaan Jos 22:21, Jos 22:30; 1Sa 10:19; 1Sa 23:23. The thousand of Gideon was the meanest in Manasseh. Jdg 6:15. Places too small to form a thousand by themselves were united with others, to make up the number . So lowly was Bethlehem that it was not counted among the possessions of Judah. In the division under Joshua, it was wholly omitted . From its situation, Bethlehem can never have been a considerable place.

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

As a garrison, it was fortified and held by the Philistines 2Sa 23:14 in the time of Saul, recovered from them by David, and was one of the 15 cities fortified by Rehoboam. Yet it remained an unimportant place. Its inhabitants are counted with those of the neighboring Netophah, both before 1Ch 2:54 and after Neh 7:26 the captivity, but both together amounted after the captivity to 179 Ezr 2:21, Ezr 2:2, or 188 Neh 7:26 only. It still does not appear among the possessions of Judah Neh 11:25-30. It was called a city (Rth 1:19; Ezr 2:1, with 21; Neh 7:6, with 26), but the name included even places which had only 100 fighting men Amo 5:3. In our Lords time it is called a village Joh 7:42, a city, Luk 2:4, or a strong . The royal city would become a den of thieves. Christ should be born in a lowly village. : He who had taken the form of a servant, chose Bethlehem for His Birth, Jerusalem for His Passion.

Matthew relates how the Chief Priest and Scribes in their answer to Herods enquiries, where Christ should be born, Mat 2:4-6, alleged this prophecy. They gave the substance rather than the exact words, and with one remarkable variation, art not the least among the princes of Judah. Matthew did not correct their paraphrase, because it does not affect the object for which they alleged the prophecy, the birth of the Redeemer in Bethlehem. The sacred writers often do not correct the translations, existing in their time, when the variations do not affect the truth .

Both words are true here. Micah speaks of Bethlehem, as it was in the sight of men; the chief priests, whose words Matthew approves, speak of it as it was in the sight of God, and as, by the Birth of Christ, it should become. : Nothing hindered that Bethlehem should be at once a small village and the Mother-city of the whole earth, as being the mother and nurse of Christ who made the world and conquered it. : That is not the least, which is the house of blessing, and the receptacle of divine grace. : He saith that the spot, although mean and small, shall be glorious. And in truth, adds Chrysostom, the whole world came together to see Bethlehem, where, being born, He was laid, on no other ground than this only. : O Bethlehem, little, but now made great by the Lord, He hath made thee great, who, being great, was in thee made little. What city, if it heard thereof, would not envy thee that most precious Stable and the glory of that Crib? Thy name is great in all the earth, and all generations call thee blessed. Glorious things are everywhere spoken of thee, thou city of God Psa 87:3. Everywhere it is sung, that this Man is born in her, and the Most High Himself shall establish her.

Out of thee shall He come forth to Me that is to be Ruler in Israel – (Literally, shall (one) come forth to Me to be Ruler.) Bethlehem was too small to be any part of the polity of Judah; out of her was to come forth One, who, in Gods Will, was to be its Ruler. The words to Me include both of Me and to Me. Of Me, that is, , by My Power and Spirit, as Gabriel said, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God Luk 1:35. To Me, as God said to Samuel, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite; for I have provided Me a king among his sons 1Sa 16:1. So now, one shall go forth thence to Me, to do My Will, to My praise and glory, to reconcile the world unto Me, to rule and be Head over the true Israel, the Church. He was to go forth out of Bethlehem, as his native-place; as Jeremiah says, His noble shall be from him, and his ruler shall go forth out of the midst of him Jer 30:21; and Zechariah, Out of him shall come forth the cornerstone; out of him the nail, out of him the battle-bow, out of him every ruler together Zec 10:4. Before, Micah had said to the tower of Edar, Ophel of the daughter of Zion, the first rule shall come to thee; now, retaining the word, he says to Bethlehem, out of thee shall come one to be a ruler. The judge of Israel had been smitten; now there should go forth out of the little Bethlehem, One, not to be a judge only, but a Ruler.

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

The Hebrew names, here used, express as much as our thoughts can conceive or our words utter. They mean literally, from afore, (that is, look back as far as we can, that from which we begin is still before,) from the days of that which is hidden. True, that in eternity there are no divisions, no succession, but one everlasting now; one, as God, in whom it is, is One. But man can only conceive of Infinity of space as space without bounds, although God contains space, and is not contained by it; nor can we conceive of Eternity, save as filled out by time. And so God speaks after the manner of men, and calls Himself the Ancient of Days Dan 7:9, , being Himself the age and time of all things; before days and age and time, the Beginning and measure of ages and of time. The word, translated from of old, is used elsewhere of the eternity of God Hab 1:12. The God of before is a title chosen to express, that He is before all things which He made. Dweller of afore Psa 55:20 is a title, formed to shadow out His ever-present existence.

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

Equally so is every other, From everlasting to everlasting Psa 90:2; Psa 103:17; from everlasting (Psa 93:2, and of Divine Wisdom, or God the Son, Pro 8:23); to everlasting Psa 9:8; Psa 29:10; from the day Isa 43:13, that is, since the day was. For the word, from, to our minds implies time, and time is no measure of eternity. Only it expresses pre-existence, an eternal Existence backward as well as forward, the incommunicable attribute of God. But words of Holy Scripture have their full meaning, unless it appear from the passage itself that they have not. In the passages where the words, forever, from afore, do not mean eternity, the subject itself restrains them. Thus forever, looking onward, is used of time, equal in duration with the being of whom it is written, as, he shall be thy servant forever Exo 21:6, that is, so long as he lives in the body. So when it is said to the Son, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever Psa 45:6, it speaks of a kingdom which shall have no end. In like way, looking backward, I will remember Thy wonders from old Psa 77:12, must needs relate to time, because they are marvelous dealings of God in time. So again, the heavens of old, stand simply contrasted with the changes of man Psa 68:34. But God of old is the Eternal God Deu 33:27. He that abideth of old Psa 55:20 is God enthroned from everlasting In like manner the goings forth here, opposed to a going forth in time, (emphatic words being moreover united together,) are a going forth in eternity.

The word, from of old, as used of being, is only used as to the Being of God. Here too then there is no ground to stop short of that meaning; and so it declares the eternal going-forth, or Generation of the Son. The plural, goings forth, may here be used, either as words of great majesty, God, Lord, Wisdom, (that is, divine Pro 1:20; Pro 9:1) are plural; or because the Generation of the Son from the Father is an Eternal Generation, before all time, and now, though not in time, yet in eternity still. As then the prophet saith, from the days of eternity, although eternity has no parts, nor beginning, nor from, so he may say goings forth, to convey, as we can receive it, a continual going-forth. We think of Eternity as unending, continual, time; and so he may have set forth to us the Eternal Act of the Going Forth of the Son, as continual acts.

The Jews understood, as we do now, that Micah foretold that the Christ was to be born at Bethlehem, until they rejected Him, and were pressed by the argument. Not only did the chief priests formally give the answer, but, supposing our Lord to be of Nazareth, some who rejected Him, employed the argument against Him. Some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? Joh 7:41-42. They knew of two distinct things: that Christ was:

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

(2) out of the town of Bethlehem.

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

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

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Mic 5:2

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah

Bethlehem and its Babe

The Jews regarded this text as a prophecy of Messiahs birthplace.

Micah, though a prophet of Divine wrath, is also a prophet of Divine promise. Next to Isaiah, he is richest in Messianic prediction.

I. Concerning Bethlehem. Micah is noted for his rapid transitions from one topic to another–from threats to promises. The prophet addresses the village by both its names, Bethlehem Ephratah. The patriarchal name Ephratah means fruitfulness. It was one of the most fertile parts of Palestine, and its natural fruitfulness was a prophecy of its spiritual fruitfulness. Bethlehem means the house of bread, and points to its specific form of fertility, its rich corn land. The prophet marks with wonder its insignificance. It was too remote ever to become a place of importance.

II. Concerning christ. We cannot select our birthplace and circumstances, but Christ could. The Saviour came to teach humility, and to reverse the maxims of the world. Bethlehem was the city of David, and Christ was to be of the seed of David. We have also the description of Christs office. Ruler in Israel. He came to found a kingdom. The description of Christs person, the eternity of God the Son, is also contained in the text.

III. Lessons.

1. We are taught the grace of lowliness.

2. The name house of bread reminds us of the great Sacrament.

3. The prophetic description helps us to realise the two natures in one Divine Person.

4. Obedience to our King is the way to reach up to the higher mystery of His timeless generation (Joh 7:17). (The Thinker.)

The littleness of Bethlehem, and the greatness of Christ

Bethlehem cannot account for Jesus. Do mangers bring forth Messiahs? Things bring forth after their kind. It is true that genius often arises from lowliest station, and the great human powers seem to make way for themselves through narrowest surroundings.

1. Consider the meaning of this fact, that from the lowliest of peasants sprang the soul that has swayed the mightiest intellects of the world. The moving powers of the eighteen centuries have been themselves moved by Jesus Christ.

2. That out of the most materialistic of religions came the most spiritual of teachers. Judaism clung with almost ferocious tenacity to external signs and symbols.

3. That out of the narrowest of races came the most universal of teachers. The characteristic of Judaism, ancient and modern, is its refusal to recognise the universal element in religion or in humanity.

4. That out of an age which exalted power as supreme, came One who exalted love as supreme in God and in man. The symbol of Rome was the rapacious, unwearied eagle. Military virtues were supreme. The Jews wanted a conquering general as Messiah. Out of such environment and atmosphere came One who exalted the feminine virtues, and proclaimed that the meek should inherit the earth. And as Bethlehem could not produce Christ, it could not confine Christ. (W. H. P. Faunce.)

Prophecy of the Nativity

One great use of prophecy is to give authority and weight to the doctrines delivered by the prophet. In order that the evidence arising from prophecy may be perfectly convincing, it seems necessary that the meaning of the prediction should be somewhat obscure at first; otherwise the friends and followers of the prophet might perhaps find means to bring about a fulfilment of it; or his opposers might, in some cases, prevent its accomplishment. It must, however, be sufficiently precise to verify the event when it comes to pass. However obscure and mysterious, a prophets words could not fail to be striking and interesting. The text pro vides an excellent specimen of prophetic methods. Suppose you had never heard of any event which could be regarded as a fulfilment of Micahs prediction, in what light would it appear to you? However perplexing, there is one thing you would understand. A town is distinctly referred to. There the Person foretold by Micah was born seven hundred years later.

I. The human birth of Jesus. It is a human birth that is foretold. The place where David was born was to be the birthplace of a second David, the Saviour of the world. Observe how singularly the prediction was fulfilled, without the least suspicion of human contrivance, merely by Gods secret overruling providence.

II. The eternal Godhead of Christ. Whose goings forth have been from everlasting. To those who first heard this language, how strange it would appear! Something more than human is here described. Words like these are never applied to any creature; but to God the Creator they are frequently applied. The language of Micah gives the twofold character of the Messiah.

III. His mediatorial dignity. He is–

1. Our Ruler.

2. Our Restorer.

3. Our Shepherd.

His administration of all these offices shall one day be universal. (J. Jowett.)

Christ

I. His birth as the Son of Man.

1. He was born in obscurity. As a protest to the ages against the popular and influential opinion that human dignity consists in birth and ancestral distinctions.

2. He was born according to Divine plan. Out of thee shall He come forth unto Me. Who? Jehovah. The fact of His birth, the scene of His birth, the object of His birth, were all according to a Divine plan. He shall come forth unto Me.

(1) According to My will.

(2) To do My will.

3. He was born to an empire. To be Ruler in Israel. He is the Prince of Peace on whose shoulder the government is laid. He is a Ruler. Not a temporal ruler, temporal rule is but a shadow. He is to rule thought, intelligence, soul. He is the greatest king who governs mind; and no one has obtained such a government over mind as He who, eighteen centuries ago, came forth out of Bethlehem Ephratah. His kingdom is increasing every day.

II. His history as the Son of God. Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, or, as Delitzsch says, Whose goings forth are from olden time, from the days of eternity. (Homilist.)

Of the Nativity

There is no applying this verse to any but to Christ.

I. The place of His birth. Bethlehem; spoken of as little, and Ephrata fruitful. There were two Bethlehems. One in the tribe of Zebulon. It was a sorry poor village.

II. The Person that cometh from this place.

III. Of both His natures. As Man from Bethlehem; as God from everlasting.

IV. His office. Go before us, and be our Guide. He not only leads, He feeds. (Launcelot Andrewes, D. D.)

The King of Zion

I. The promised Messiah in His true nature. A Man. Come out of Bethlehem. He was born there. More than man. The prophet speaks of a twofold going forth, of Bethlehem, and from everlasting. True God as well as true Man.

II. Jesus in His character as Ruler. What are regal acts? The exercise of legislative and judicial authority. The legislative consists in making and repealing laws. The judicial in executing or applying laws.

III. Jesus in His character as Shepherd. Who are His sheep? First the Jews, then the Gentiles. As a shepherd His care is constant–He changes not. It is tender and discriminating care. It is effectual. He gives us life. (J. Summerfield, A. M.)

Christs birthplace

This passage has always been regarded as one of the clearest and most striking of the ancient prophecies of the Messiah. The gradations in the revelations of Christ have always awakened the attention of Bible readers. First, we have the old word in Eden from the lips of the Lord God to the serpent about his seed and the seed of Eve: It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Out of which dim Messianic germ grows the whole wonderful mediatorial history, its conflicts, its alterations, its reversals, and its eternal triumph in the endless overthrow of its great adversary. Then, about 1600 years later, the Shemitic division of the human race is indicated as the favoured one, rather than Japhet or Ham. By and by Abraham was selected from the sons of Shem to be the head of the Hebrew race, from whom the Redeemer should come. Two hundred years later Jacob, on his dying bed, points out the particular tribe of Israel from whom the Shiloh or Prince of Peace shall be born. No further revelation was then made for about seven hundred years, when the house of David, of the tribe of Judah, was declared to be the favoured family, and about three hundred years after that, in the days of Hezekiah, the prophet Micah reveals the place where Messiah shall be born. This was all that was known for the next seven hundred years, but every intelligent Jew knew that the coming Messiah was to be the Son of David, and was to be born in Bethlehem of Judah. Thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah. So unimportant was Bethlehem in the old times, that Joshua in his enumeration of the cities and villages of Judah gives it no mention: Rehoboam made it a sort of outlying fortress to Jerusalem, and the Philistines at one time had a garrison there, the place being a strong natural position. But it never grew to size, or became of any national importance, except for its associations. Although the birthplace of David, the great king, yet it never rose above the grade of an obscure Jewish village. In the list of Judean villages which Nehemiah gives after the Captivity it is not named, and in the New Testament, after the birth of Jesus and in that connection, its name never once occurs. So little was Bethlehem Ephratah. And it did not seem destined to any more commanding place in history when, in later times, a plain-looking couple drew near the village, a young wife and her husband, travelling on foot, because very poor, although both of the lineage of David. For not only was Bethlehem little, but the exceeding low condition to which the family of the great king had sunk appears from the fact that Joseph and Mary, who could trace their pedigree up to David through a long line of kings, were thus poor, and received no sort of recognition in the crowded village. But Bethlehem Ephratah was now to be immortalised indeed. Athens, Ephesus, Alexandria, Rome, all were extant, some of them at the very pinnacle of their glory, but the glory of Bethlehem was henceforth to surpass them all. You will mark here the words unto Me. The birth of Christ was an event whose relations were chiefly Godward. Christs coming to the earth is inconceivably the greatest of all events to us; but, after all, God the Father, and the eternal glory of the Godhead, are concerned in it in a way we cannot now fully understand, but of which the Scriptures give us distinct intimations. It would be quite in accordance with the choice of little Bethlehem as the birth place of the Divine Lord, and the passing by of the great places of the world, if God should have chosen our small earth, this little globe, to be the scene of the wondrous Incarnation, passing by those far mightier worlds in space whose magnitude dwarfs into insignificance this minute planet; here, in a world whose absence would hardly be missed from the vast system, to enact scenes of unparalleled importance to all worlds, illustrating all the principles of the Divine government and the most precious attributes of the Divine Nature. The word Ruler is suggestive. The usual Old Testament idea of Christ is that of the head of a kingdom or dynasty. The representations of Isaiah, chapter 53, and of the prophet Zechariah, are exceptions to the general Old Testament thought of the Messiah. Elsewhere it, is the Shiloh or Prince, the King in Zion, the son of David enthroned–He upon whose shoulders has been laid the government, who is to reign over the house of Jacob forever, and to whose kingdom there is to be no end. The connection of these last words with the former words of the prophecy are wonderfully instructive; He shall come forth out of thee, little Bethlehem, and the words, He whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Have they not great suggestions of the nature of the coming Messiah? Does the Old Testament know nothing of the mystery and the miracle of the Saviours birth, of the human and the divine, of the advent in time and the glory with the Father before the makest the outgoings of the morning and evening to rejoice. It is used to denote that which proceeds out from any one, as speech or language. Deu 8:3, By every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God doth man live. Thus it comes to have the meaning of origin, descent, an outgoing of existence, which is its import in our text The old divines declare it to be a proof text of the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Second Person of the Trinity. Without feeling called on to adopt that phrase, yet I fully agree with one of them who says, We have here Christs existence from eternity; the phrase, His goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, is so signal a description of Christs eternal generation, or His going forth as the Son of God begotten of the Father before all worlds, that this prophecy must belong only to Him, and could never, be verified of any other. We embrace the mysterious truth of Christs humanity and divinity as herein declared; one of the clearest prophecies of this sublime foundation doctrine of the Scriptures which they anywhere contain. With what greatness does this invest the birth of the Babe of Bethlehem! If He had indeed come to little Bethlehem, whose goings forth were from everlasting, then all the miracles He performed were the simplest outstretching of His hand; the obedience to Him of demons, of nature, of death, were mere matters of course; the attendant angels, the awaiting legions ready at His call, were but the renewed services of cherubim and seraphim who had of old listened to His commands standing round His heavenly throne. There is not time even to glance at the triumphs which this birth in Bethlehem has already won. How it has given the era to all human history, guided the life of nations, subjected the intellects of the greatest of men, moulded the sentiments of civilised society, yea, made true society a possibility; rescued women and the family from degradation, uplifted the poor, guarded the rights of the weak; won the deep, unquenchable love of millions upon millions of true human hearts; stood by the martyrs rack, walked with him in the furnace; put the arms of support beneath dying pillows, and uplifted to the eternal hills the successive generations of the believing children of God. All these things have been done through that birth in Bethlehem Ephratah. There can be no greater things in kind, but there are yet to be greater in the extent of the victory. (R. Aikman, D. D.)

Advent

The thought of the prophet is, that God is about to restore the monarchy in Israel by a return to its original starting point, the ancestral house and home of David, and to restore it in surpassing greatness and power. As in the days of Sauls apostasy and the kingdoms peril, He had taken from thence a man to sit upon the throne, so again when wickedness with its long train of miseries had brought the nation low, a Deliverer was to come forth from the place that had given David to Israel. The prophet had asked (Mic 4:9) as he beheld the desolation of his country, Is there no king in thee? And here the answer is given. Isaiah and Micah were contemporaries. The former was the prophet of the city, the latter of the country. The power and wealth of the kingdoms had become centralised in the two cities, Samaria and Jerusalem. The condition of the country was like France in the years before the Revolution, when Paris was France, and the provinces were despised and oppressed; pillaged to feed the luxuries and vices of the metropolis; It was joy to the rural prophet to know that God would pass by the pomp and pride of the city, and bring forth the king from a place that was little among the thousands of Judah. A parallel is plainly instituted between what God had once done in Israels history and what He is about to do. Bethlehem, that had already furnished one king, the typical king, should furnish yet another. The scene of Christs advent, its significance concerning Himself.

1. It declared His advent to be the advent of a King. Bethlehem was identified in every mind With the throne of Israel, with the royal house of David. Insignificant in itself, it was famous through its association with Israels great king. The kingly idea was enshrined in Bethlehem. It is a prediction of His royalty.

2. It declared His advent to be not according to human ideas and expectations. It was a surprise to Samuel when he was sent to Bethlehem to anoint the son of Jesse, and his surprise deepened as the stalwart elder brethren were rejected. The wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, naturally expecting to find the new king in the great city. But they found him not at Jerusalem, but at Bethlehem. He is to be a King after Gods mind, and not according to human thought. His royalty is to be the royalty of His own nature, and not of earthly circumstance and rank.

3. It declared the character of His kingly rule. He chose David also His servant, and took him from the sheepfolds. He brought him to feed Jacob His people, and Israel His inheritance. It intimated that his shepherd life was the preparation and the pattern of his kingly life, that as a shepherd with his flock so was the king over his people; ruling them for their good, defending them from their enemies, risking his life for them, carrying into the affairs of his kingdom the spirit of a shepherd with his sheep. In like manner when we hear that another King is to rise from Bethlehem we conclude that His rule will be of the same kind. He too will be a Shepherd King, ruling not by force but by gentleness, seeking not His own gain but the good of His people, caring for the weak, recovering the lost.

4. It declared that His advent was demanded by the condition of others, by the need, the misery of those to whom He came. Men have sought sovereignty at the bidding of their own ambition. The Bethlehem King was called to it by God Himself, called to it by the national crisis, by the misery of the people, the degradation of the land. The prophet sees everywhere anarchy and confusion, oppression and wrong, weakness and suffering. The advent of Christ is the advent of a King whose presence is demanded by the need and misery of men. He does not come to set up a kingdom for Himself, that is, for personal ends. He comes into the world because the world cannot do without Him.

5. The unprecedented greatness of the future King, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Coming into the world centuries after David had fallen on sleep, He is yet before David. He is Davids Lord as well as Davids Son. His advent is the manifestation of One whose nature knows neither youth nor age, whose sovereignty has no beginning and no end. From of old, from everlasting. The scene of His advent teaches chiefly the greatness of His condescension and humiliation. He whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, links Himself with time, enters into human history, associates Himself with earthly places. (W. Perkins.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 2. But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah] I have considered this subject in great detail in Clarke’s notes on “Mt 2:6“, to which the reader will be pleased to refer. This verse should begin this chapter; the first verse belongs to the preceding chapter.

Bethlehem Ephratah, to distinguish it from another Beth-lehem, which was in the tribe of Zebulun, Jos 19:15.

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

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

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

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

But, Heb.

And. Beth-lehem; not in the tribe of Zebulun Jos 19:15, but in the tribe of Judah, styled therefore Beth-lehem of Judah, Matt. 2:1,6.

Ephratah; so called, say some, from Calebs wife; but that is not probable, for it had the name long before Calebs wife was thought of, as appears, Gen 35:19. It is more likely to be called Ephratah from the richness and fruitfulness of the land where it was situate, the Hebrew word whence this is derived importing fruitfulness, whence also it was called Bethlehem, the house of bread.

Though thou be little: some read this as an interrogation, Art thou little? which ought to be resolved by a negative, Thou art not little, and so reconcile Mat 2:6 to this of the prophet. Some read it in the neuter gender, It is a little thing for thee to be among the thousands, to have a captain, or ruler of a thousand in Judah; it is much greater honour, which shall be put upon thee; out of thee shall come he that is to be chief Ruler and Head of all the people of God, the Messiah. Much like phrase is, that 2Ki 20:10; Isa 49:6; there is an exposition of the word Tsair in the text, as denoting the contrary to our usual notion of it: so Jer 48:4. The Chaldee paraphrase explains it by sultans or princes, but I question whether one instance from the Scriptures can be given in which Tsair signifies great, notable, or chief; our translators have better rendered it with supplying the adversative though, and make the sense plain and easy: As for Beth-lehem Ephratah, she is so little that she is scarce to be ranged among the cities of Judah which go out by a thousand, or are led out by one that is head, prefect, or captain of a thousand.

Among the thousands of Judah: this was the royal tribe from which the Messiah was to rise; this (as other tribes) was divided into thousands, and a head appointed to each thousand; and of these the thousand, or, in our language, the regiment, of Bethlehem was one of the least to the eye.

Out of thee shall he come forth; out of the tribe of Judah, and out of the city Bethlehem, shall he come, i.e. be born.

Unto me; for to do that great work God hath designed to do by the Messiah.

That is to be ruler, King and Sovereign, in Israel; amidst the Israel of God, the whole Israel, as well that after the faith as that after the flesh. Christ the Lord in the midst of them, Mic 4:7.

Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting; whose generation, as he is the Son of God equal with his Father, is eternal: this asserts the eternity of his Divine nature.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

2. Beth-lehem Ephratah (Ge48:7), or, Beth-lehem Judah; so called to distinguish it fromBeth-lehem in Zebulun. It is a few miles southwest of Jerusalem.Beth-lehem means “the house of bread”; Ephratahmeans “fruitful”: both names referring to the fertility ofthe region.

though thou be littleamongthough thou be scarcely large enough to be reckonedamong, c. It was insignificant in size and population so that inJos 15:21, c., it is notenumerated among the cities of Judah nor in the list in Ne11:25, c. Under Rehoboam it became a city: 2Ch11:6, “He built Beth-lehem.” Mt2:6 seems to contradict Micah, “thou art not theleast,” But really he, by an independent testimony of theSpirit, confirms the prophet, Little in worldly importance,thou art not least (that is, far from least, yea, the verygreatest) among the thousands, of princes of Judah, in thespiritual significance of being the birthplace of Messiah (Joh7:42). God chooses the little things of the world to eclipse inglory its greatest things (Jdg 6:15Joh 1:46; 1Co 1:27;1Co 1:28). The low state ofDavid’s line when Messiah was born is also implied here.

thousandsEach tribewas divided into clans or “thousands” (each thousandcontaining a thousand families: like our old English division ofcounties into hundreds), which had their several heads or”princes”; hence in Mt 2:6it is quoted “princes,” substantially the same as in Micah,and authoritatively explained in Matthew. It is not so much thisthousand that is preferred to the other thousands of Judah, but theGovernor or Chief Prince out of it, who is preferred to the governorsof all the other thousands. It is called a “town” (ratherin the Greek, “village”), Joh7:42; though scarcely containing a thousand inhabitants, it isranked among the “thousands” or larger divisions of thetribe, because of its being the cradle of David’s line, and of theDivine Son of David. Moses divided the people into thousands,hundreds, fifties, and tens, with their respective “rulers”(Ex 18:25; compare 1Sa10:19).

unto meunto God theFather (Lu 1:32): to fulfil allthe 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 Isa42:1). God’s glory is hereby made the ultimate end of redemption.

rulerthe “Shiloh,””Prince of peace,” “on whose shoulders the governmentis laid” (Gen 49:10; Isa 9:6).In 2Sa 23:3, “He thatruleth over men must be just,” the same Hebrew wordis employed; Messiah alone realizes David’s ideal of a ruler. Also inJer 30:21, “theirgovernor shall proceed from the midst of them”; answeringclosely to “out of thee shall come forth the ruler,“here (compare Isa 11:1-4).

goings forth . . . fromeverlastingThe plain antithesis of this clause, to “comeforth out of thee” (from Beth-lehem), shows that theeternal generation of the Son is meant. The terms convey thestrongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrewlanguage is capable (compare Psa 90:2;Pro 8:22; Pro 8:23;Joh 1:1). Messiah’s generation asman coming forth unto God to do His will on earth is fromBeth-lehem; but as Son of God, His goings forth are fromeverlasting. The promise of the Redeemer at first was vaguelygeneral (Ge 3:15). Then theShemitic division of mankind is declared as the quarter in which Hewas 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 (Ge12:3); then the particular tribe, Judah (Ge49:10); then the family, that of David (Psa 89:19;Psa 89:20); then the very town ofHis 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 thescattered rays of prophecy concentrate in Jesus, as their focus(Heb 1:1; Heb 1:2).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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 Mt 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, Ge 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 Ru 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”, Mt 2:6, as it might, and yet be little; besides, it might be little at one time, in Micah’s time, yet not little at another time; in Matthew’s; it might be little with respect to some circumstances, as to pompous buildings, and number of inhabitants, and yet not little on account of its being the birth place of great men, as Jesse, David, and especially the Messiah: or the words may be rendered with an interrogation, “art thou little?” c. d thou art not: or thus, it is a “little [thing] to be among the thousands of Judah” e; a greater honour shall be put upon thee, by being the place of the Messiah’s birth. Moreover, Mr, Pocock has shown out of R. Tanchum, both in his commentary on this place, and elsewhere f, that the word signifies both “little” and “great”, or of great note and esteem. The tribes of Israel were divided into tens, hundreds, and thousands, over which there was a head or prince; hence, in Matthew, these are called “the princes of Judah”, Mt 2:6;

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

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

Jarchi’s note is,

“out of thee shall come forth unto me Messiah, the son of David;”

and so he says, “the stone which the builders refused”, c. Ps 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 Ge 10:14; and here our Jesus, the true Messiah, was born, as appears from Mt 2:8; and this is not only certain from the evangelic history, but the Jews themselves acknowledge it. One of their chronologers k affirms that Jesus the Nazarene was born at Bethlehem Judah, a parsa and a half from Jerusalem; that is, about six miles from it, which was the distance between them: and even the author of a blasphemous book l, pretending to give the life of Jesus, owns that Bethlehem Judah was the place of his nativity: and it is clear not only that the Jews in the times of Jesus expected the Messiah to come from hence, even both the chief priests and scribes of the people, who, in answer to Herod’s question about the place of the Messiah’s birth, direct him to this, according to Micah’s prophecy, Mt 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, Ge 35:19; Jonathan ben Uzziel, in his Targum of Ge 35:19, says of the tower of Edar, this is the place from whence the King Messiah shall be revealed in the end of days; nay, some of them say he is born already, and was born at Bethlehem. An Arabian, they say m, told a Jew,

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

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

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

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

whose goings forth [have been] of old, from everlasting; which is said of him, not because his extraction was from David, who lived many ages before him; for admitting he was “in [him], in his loins”, as to his human nature, so long ago, yet his “goings forth” were not from thence: nor because he was prophesied of and promised very early, as he was from the beginning of the world; but neither a prophecy nor promise of him can be called his “going forth”; which was only foretold and spoken of, but not in actual being; nor because it was decreed from eternity that he should come forth from Bethlehem, or be born there in time; for this is saying no more than what might be said of everyone that was to be born in Bethlehem, and was born there: nor is this to be understood of his manifestations or appearances in a human form to the patriarchs, in the several ages of time; since to these, as to other of the above things, the phrase “from everlasting” cannot be ascribed: but either of his going forth in a way of grace towards his people, in acts of love to them, delighting in those sons of men before the world was; in applying to his Father on their account, asking them of him, and betrothing them to himself; in becoming their surety, entering into a covenant with his Father for them, and being the head of election to them, receiving all blessings and promises of grace for them: or else of his eternal generation and sonship, as commonly interpreted; who the only begotten of the Father, of the same nature with him, and a distinct person from him; the eternal Word that went forth from him, and was with him from eternity, and is truly God. The phrases are expressive of the eternity of his divine nature and person; Jarchi compares them with Ps 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.

d “parvulane es?” Drusius; “parvane sis?” Grotius; “parva es?” Cocceius. e “Parum est ut sis inter chiliarchas Judae”, Osiander, Grotius; “vile, ignominiosum est, esse inter millia Judae”, De Dieu. f Not. Misn. in Port. Mosis, p. 17, 18. g Mashmiah Jeshuah, fol. 62. col. 2. h Not. in Miclol Yophi in loc. i Chizzuk Emuuah, par. 1. p. 279. k R. David Ganz, Tzemach David, par. 2. fol. 14. 2. l Toldos Jesu, p. 7. Ed. Wagenseil. m T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 5. 1. n Echa Rabbati, fol. 50. 1. o Pirke Eliezer, c. 3. fol. 2. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The previous announcement of the glory to which Zion is eventually to attain, is now completed by the announcement of the birth of the great Ruler, who through His government will lead Israel to this, the goal of its divine calling. Mic 5:2. “And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, too small to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee will He come forth to me who will be Ruler over Israel; and His goings forth are from the olden time, from the days of eternity.” The , with which this new section of the proclamation of salvation opens, corresponds to the in Mic 4:8. Its former government is to return to Zion (Mic 4:8), and out of little Bethlehem is the possessor of this government to proceed, viz., the Ruler of Israel, who has sprung from eternity. This thought is so attached to Mic 5:1, that the divine exaltation of the future Ruler of Israel is contrasted with the deepest degradation of the judge. The names Bethlehem Ephratah ( ‘Ephrath and ‘Ephrathah , i.e., the fertile ones, or the fruit-fields, being the earlier name; by the side of which Beth – lechem , bread-house, had arisen even in the patriarchal times: see Gen 35:19; Gen 48:7; Rth 4:11) are connected together to give greater solemnity to the address, and not to distinguish the Judaean Bethlehem from the one in Zebulun (Jos 19:15), since the following words, “among the thousands of Judah,” provide sufficiently for this. In the little town the inhabitants are addressed; and this explains the masculines , , and , as the prophet had them in his mind when describing the smallness of the little town, which is called in Joh 7:42. , literally “small with regard to the being among the ‘alaphm of Judah,” i.e., too small to have a place among them. Instead of the more exact , is probably chosen, simply because of the following .

(Note: The omission of the article before , and the use of instead of , do not warrant the alteration in the text which Hitzig proposes, viz., to strike out as erroneous, and to separate the from and connect it with = ; for the assertion that , 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 ‘alaphm 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.)

‘Alaphm , thousands – an epithet used as early as Num 1:16; Num 10:4, to denote the families, mishpachoth , 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 sare ‘alaphm , 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 ‘alaphm , not because the number of individuals in them numbered a thousand, but because the number of their families or heads of families was generally somewhere about a thousand (see my biblische Archologie, 140). Notwithstanding this smallness, the Ruler over Israel is to come forth out of Bethlehem. does not denote descent here, as in Gen 17:6 for example, so that Bethlehem would be regarded as the father of the Messiah, as Hofmann supposes, but is to be explained in accordance with Jer 30:21, “A Ruler will go forth out of the midst of it” (cf. Zec 10:4); and the thought is simply this, “Out of the population of the little Bethlehem there will proceed and arise.” (to me) refers to Jehovah, in whose name the prophet speaks, and expresses the thought that this coming forth is subservient to the plan of the Lord, or connected with the promotion of His kingdom, just as in the words of God to Samuel in 1Sa 16:1, “I have provided me a King among his sons,” to which Micah most probably alluded for the purpose of showing the typical relation of David to the Messiah. is really the subject to , the infinitive being used as a relative clause, like in Hos 2:11, in the sense of “who is destined to be ruler.” But instead of simply saying , 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. , not in, but over Israel, according to the general meaning of . The article is omitted before moshel , because the only thing of primary importance was to give prominence to the idea of ruling; and the more precise definition follows immediately afterwards in . The meaning of this clause of the verse depends upon our obtaining a correct view not only of , but also of the references to time which follow. , the fem. of , 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 occurs most frequently, and in which even the form is used in the keri in 2Ki 10:27, which is the only other passage in which this form occurs, does not suit the predicate here, since the days of eternity cannot be called places of departure; nor is it required by the correlate , i.e., out of Bethlehem, because the idea which predominates in Bethlehem is that 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 in the sense of goings forth, exits, as the meaning “times of going forth” cannot be supported by a single passage. Both and 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 (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 (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 , 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 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 of the first hemistich. As this expresses primarily and directly nothing more than His issuing from Bethlehem, and leaves His descent indefinite, 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 memory: , , , , The deviations from the original text may be accounted for from the endeavour to give the sense clearly, and bring out into more distinct prominence the allusion in the words to David. The , in the place of the Ephrata of the original, has sprung from 1Sa 17:12, where Bethlehem is distinguished from the town of the same name in Zebulun in the account of the anointing of David as king, as it frequently is in the Old Testament, by the addition of the word Judah; and , “land of Judah,” is attached loosely in apposition to the name Bethlehem, in the place of the more precise definition, “in the land of Judah.” The alteration of the expression, “too small to be among the thousands of Judah,” into , … , does not constitute a discrepancy, but simply alters the thought with an allusion to the glorification which Bethlehem would receive through the fact of the Messiah’s springing from it. “Micah, looking at its outward condition, calls it little; but Matthew, looking at the nativity of Christ, by which this town had been most wondrously honoured and rendered illustrious, calls it very little indeed” (C. B. Mich.). The interpretation of (among the thousands) by (among the princes) was very naturally suggested by the personification of Bethlehem, and still more by the thought of the about to follow; and it does not alter the idea, since the families ( ‘alaphm ) had their heads, who represented and led them. The last clause, , … , is simply a paraphrase of , probably taken from v. 3, and resting upon 2Sa 5:2, and pointing to the typical relation existing between the David born in Bethlehem and the second David, viz., the Messiah. The second hemistich of the verse is omitted, because it appeared superfluous so far as the immediate object of the quotation was concerned.)

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Thou Bethlehem Ephratah, art small, that thou shouldest be among the thousands of Judah As Matthew quotes this passage differently, some think that it ought to be read as a question, And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, art thou the least among the provinces of Judah? Matthew says “Thou art by no means the least, thou excellest. (142) ” But what need there is of distorting the words of the Prophet, as it was not the design of the Evangelist to relate the expressions of the Prophet, but only to point out the passage. As to the words, Matthew had regards to the condition of the town Bethlehem, such as it was at the coming of Christ. It then indeed began to be eminent: but the Prophet represents here how ignoble and mean a place Bethlehem then was, Thou, he says, art the least among the thousands of Judah. Some, not very wisely, give this explanation, “Thou art the least among the thousands of Judah”; that is, “Though there might be a thousand towns in the tribe of Judah, yet thou couldest hardly have a place among so great a number.” But this has been said through ignorance of a prevailing custom: for the Jews, we know, were wont to divide their districts into thousands or chiliads. As in the army there are centurions, so also in the divisions of every nation there are hundreds; there are also in an army tribunes, who preside over a thousand men. Thus the Prophet calls them thousands, that is, tribunes; for the districts are so arranged, that the town, which, with its villages, could bring forth three thousand men, had three prefectures; and it had three tribunes, or four or five, if it was larger. The Prophet then, in order to show that this town was small and hardly of any account, says, Thou, Bethlehem, art hardly sufficient to be one province. And it was a proof of its smallness that hardly a thousand men could be made up from Bethlehem and its neighboring villages. There were not, we know, many towns in the tribe of Judah; and yet a large army could be there collected. Since then the town of Bethlehem was so small, that it could hardly attain the rank of a province, it is hence no doubt evident that it was but a mean town. We now perceive what the Prophet had in view.

Thou, Bethlehem, he says, art small among the cities of Judah; yet arise, or go forth, for me shall one from thee, who is to be a Ruler in Israel. He calls it Bethlehem Ephratah; for they say that there was another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulon, and we know that Ephratah in meaning is nearly the same with Bethlehem; for both designate an abundance of fruit or provisions: and there David was born.

I will now proceed to the second clause, From thee shall go forth for me one who is to be a Ruler Here the Prophet introduces God as the speaker, go forth, he says, shall one for me. God declares in this passage that it was not his purpose so to destroy his people, but that he intended, after a season, to restore them again. He therefore recalls the attention of the faithful to himself and to his eternal counsel; as though he said, — “I have thus for a time cast you away, that I may yet manifest my care for you.” For me then shall go forth one who is to be a Ruler in Israel. Now there is no doubt but that the Prophet at the sable time recalls the attention of the faithful to the promise which had been given to David. For whence arises the hope of salvation to the chosen people, except from the perpetuity of that kingdom? The Prophet now says, — “There is indeed a reason, according to the perception of the flesh, why the faithful should despond; for whence does their confidence arise, except from the kingdom of David? and from what place is David to arise? Even from Bethlehem; for Bethlehem has been called the city of David; and yet it is an obscure and a small town, and can hardly be considered a common province. Since it is so, the minds of the faithful may be depressed; but this smallness shall be no hindrance to the Lord, that he should not bring forth from thence a new king.”

Even before the time of David Bethlehem was a small town, and one of the most common provinces. Who could have expected that a king would have been chosen from such a hamlet, and then, that he should come from a hut? for David belonged to a pastoral family; his father was a shepherd, and he was the least among his brethren. Who then could have thought that light would have arisen from such a corner, yea, from so mean a cottage? This was done contrary to the expectations of men. Hence the Prophet sets here before the faithful a similar expectation for their comfort; as though he said, — “Has not God once formed a most perfect state of things by making David a king, so that the people became in every respect happy and blessed? And whence did David come? It was from Bethlehem. There is then no reason why your present miseries should over-much distress you; for God can again from the same place bring forth a king to you, and he will do so.”

Thou then Bethlehem, small art thou, etc. The prophet doubtless intended here that the faithful should consider of what kind was the beginning of that most perfect state, when David was chosen king. David was a shepherd, a man in humble life, without reputation, without influence, and even the humblest among his brethren. Since then God had drawn light out of darkness there was no cause for the faithful to despair of a future restoration, considering what had been the beginning of the previous happy condition of the people. We now understand the Prophet’s meaning. But the rest I cannot finish today; I must therefore defer it till tomorrow.

(142) This does not follow; for to say that it was “not the least,” is not to deny that it was “small.” There is, in fact, no contradiction in the expressions. Matthew quotes literally neither the Hebrew nor the Septuagint version. The latter, in this case, agrees with the former. He gives the sense, but not the words, even in two instances besides this. Instead of “Ephratah,” he has, “in the land of Judah;” and instead of “Ruler,” he has, “Governor that shall rule,” or feed. The meaning in these three instances is the same, though the words are different. The place was, in former times, called Bethlehem-Judah, and also Ephratah. See Gen 35:19; Jud 17:7; and Rut 4:11.

The attempt by a question to produce similarity of expressions in the second line, according to what is done by Marckius and Newcome, is by no means to be approved. The literal rendering is the following: —

And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah! Small to be among the thousands of Judah, — From thee shall one to me come forth, To be a Ruler in Israel: And his going forth has been From of old, from the days of ages.

The word for “going forth” is plural, which, as Calvin says, is sometimes used for the singular; but two MSS. Have it in the singular number, מצאתו. The last line in the Septuagint is as follows, — απ αρχης, εξ ημερων αιωνος

“

In every age, from the foundation of the world, there has been some manifestation of the Messiah. He was the hope, as he was the salvation, of the world, from the promise to Adam in paradise, to his manifestation in the flesh four thousand years after.” — Adam Clarke. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

FOCUS ON THE MESSIAH . . . Mic. 5:2-6

RV . . . But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel. And he shall stand, and shall feed his flock in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his God: and they shall abide; for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. And this man shall be our peace. When the Assyrian shall come into our land, and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men. And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: and he shall deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our border.
LXX . . . And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity. Therefore shall he appoint them to wait till the time of her that travails: she shall bring forth, and then the remnant of their brethren shall return to the children of Israel. And the Lord shall stand, and see, and feed his flock with power, and they shall dwell in the glory of the name of the Lord their God: for now shall they be magnified to the ends of the earth. And she shall have peace when Assur shall come into your land, and when he shall come up upon your country; and there shall be raised up against him seven shepherds, and eight attacks of men. And they shall tend the Assyrian with a sword, and the land of Nebrod with her trench: and he shall deliver you from the Assyrian, when he shall come upon your land, and when he shall invade your coasts.

COMMENTS

(Mic. 5:2) In the Hebrew text this verse is the first verse in chapter five. In the Septuagint it appears, as in all subsequent texts as verse two of this chapter. Actually, Mic. 5:1 belongs with the last paragraph, beginning with verse nine, of chapter four.

When the bloodied-handed Herod sent to the rabbis to ask the place of Messiahs birth, he was pointed to Bethlehem. (Mat. 2:4-6) It was on the strength of this passage (Mic. 5:2 -ff) of Micahs prophecy. No prophecy concerning His coming is more clear. No predictive Scripture is more universally agreed upon as to its meaning.

Having described the nature of the Messianic age (Mic. 4:1-13) and having inserted a reminder of the punishment which must come first (Mic. 5:1), Micah now focuses our attention on the birth and work of the Messiah Himself.

Bethlehem! Birthplace of David. Ancient Ephratah of the Gentiles. (Gen. 35:16) The entire race of men have an acute interest in what will happen there. To the Jew first but also to the Greek, there will be born in the city of David a Saviour who is Christ the Lord.

As villages go, Bethlehem is no more nor less than average. Nestling on the eastern slopes of a ridge some five miles southwest of Jerusalem, this was, among other things, the traditional home of many whose trade was carpentry. Compared to many districts in Judea, the prophet calls Bethlehem little.
We might have expected the Son of God to be born in Jerusalem, or the King of Kings to be born in Rome, or some other center of power and influence. Instead, He came to a peaceful little Judean town, so insignificant in worldly eyes that Josephus doesnt bother to mention it. Nor for that matter, is it included in the catalogue of Joshua in late Hebrew manuscripts.
Jerome suggested Bethlehem was stricken from the later Hebrew texts to obscure the evidence of Jesus Messiahship. In light of the fact that the Septuagint does include Bethlehem in the text of Joshua, Jerome may have been right.

In any event, the selection of this humble village of shepherds and carpenters as the birthplace of Gods Messiah speaks volumes concerning the value of human status symbols and pride of ancestry. (Luk. 1:52)

It is also not without significance that the sheep tended on the slopes of Bethlehems hills were traditionally those intended for temple sacrifice. He who was born there was the lamb of God! The shadow of a cross fell across the manger bed.
So firmly fixed was Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah in the minds of the Jews that Hadrian would allow none of them to live in or near the town.

ONE . . . THAT IS TO BE RULER IN ISRAEL . . .

Perhaps no other single term in the Old Testament has been more grossly misunderstood or the subject of more theological controversy. To the post-exilic Jewish mind it conjured up dreams of one who would establish the Jewish nation as the final world power. Upon this dream was based most of the nationalistic pride, the religious narrowness and the racial bigotry which marked the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus.
It was this ambitious vision of world conquest and Gentile enslavement that brought about the death of Jesus (humanly speaking) for He would have no part of such an earthly kingdom. It was this same racio-nationalistic ambition that brought about the death of the first Christian martyr, and which hounded Paul across three continents.
It is this same materialistic concept of Messiahs kingdom which today preoccupies many Christians with eschatological charts and prooftexts whose time might more profitably be spent preaching the Gospel.
On the other hand, it is the failure of many to recognize the kingly office and authority of Jesus that has brought about the spiritual uncertainty of the modern church. It was a king who, was to be born in Bethlehem, not merely a Galilean carpenter or a pale religious philosopher.

So aware was Jesus of His royal office that even He was tempted by Satan to fulfill the Jewish dream of power by setting up a worldly kingdom. This is the meaning of Jesus temptations at the opening of His public ministry (Luk. 4:1-12), His awareness of His kingship was so intense that His preaching is termed the gospel of the kind-dom. (Mar. 1:14-15) (cp. Luk. 4:43) It requires more than a little carnal imagination to force Jesus Gospel of the kingdom into the rabbinical doctrine of an earthly kingdom. Regrettably, since the advent of the Plymouth Brethren (1830), the teaching of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) and the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible, many preachers (particularly of the faith only persuasion) have spent a great deal of time and energy doing just that.

The real issue here is the assurance that, just as the return of the remnant will insure the fulfillment of Gods promise to Abraham to bless all the nations of the earth, so the one who shall rise out of Bethlehem shall assure the fulfillment of His promise to David. (Cf. 2Sa. 7:16) Peter saw the fulfillment of this promise in the resurrection of Jesus. (Act. 2:30-31; Act. 2:34-36)

He was to be ruler in Israel. He was to rule over the house of Jacob forever. (Luk. 1:1-2)

The Jews object that Jesus could not be Messiah because He was so far from being ruler in Israel that Israel ruled over Him . . . put Him to death. But He Himself answered this objection, and in doing so put the lie to all who would claim for Him a materialistic kingdom. He said, My kingdom is not of this world. (Joh. 18:36)

It is a spiritual Israel He reigns over, the children of the promise . . . all the followers of believing Abraham. (Gal. 3:7)

Concerning the One to be born in Bethlehem, Micah says His goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. Literally the term means from the days of ages.

There could scarcely be a more forceful statement of the pre-existence of Christ. It denotes His existence in the form of God. (Cp. Php. 2:5 -ff) It is fitting such a term should be used in connection with a prediction of His birth. We will see the same words in Hab. 1:12.

Jesus laid claim to the truth of this designation when He claimed to have been before Abraham (Joh. 8:58).

THEREFORE WILL HE GIVE THEM UP UNTIL THE TIME THAT SHE WHO TRAVAILETH HATH BROUGHT FORTH

. . . Mic. 5:3

God will not fully vindicate His people and exalt them until, through suffering, Israel brings forth His Son.

Then the remnant (residue) shall return unto the children of Israel. The covenant people, within the race and nation and without . . . the genuine children of Israel in covenant with God . . . all believers shall all be incorporated into the Israel over which Messiah shall rule. And He shall not be ashamed to call them brethren. (Cp. Heb. 2:11)

AND HE SHALL STAND AND SHALL FEED . . . Mic. 5:4

He shall be a glorious prince, but His relationship to His people is that of shepherd. (Cp. Joh. 10:11 -ff) It is no coincidence that the Twenty-third Psalm is the most dearly beloved Old Testament passage among Christians.

He shall do this, not as other men, but in the strength and majesty of Jehovah. It would be said concerning Him that He taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes. The prophets prefaced their message with thus saith the Lord, Messiah would say, verily, verily I say unto you!
And they shall abide . . . The nation of Israel was perishing. Soon the northern tribes would be disbursed so completely as to make them, in subsequent history, unidentifiable. The southern kingdom would endure longer . . . even be in a measure re-established following the captivity, but any hope of national honor related to Gods covenant promise had gone up with the smoke of their sacrifices to Baal. But Messiahs flock would abide.
Jesus own words re-affirm this, and this is the will of Him that sent me, that of all that which He hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
It is most regrettable that those who teach the Calvinistic nonsense of eternal security should be allowed to so pervert this doctrine of assurance as to deprive Gods people of its blessing.
. . . He shall be great unto the ends of the earth . . . He alone is great. (Cp. Joe. 2:21 – and Luk. 1:32) And His greatness shall be to the ends of the earth. Here is another of the myriad evidences in the Old Testament of Gods universal concern for all men. The Messianic intent of God has ever been that all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.

AND THIS MAN SHALL BE OUR PEACE . . . Mic. 5:5-6

In the original here there is no word for man. It is simply and emphatically this one . . . He alone . . . who is our peace. The words our peace are reminiscent of Eph. 2:14, It is only the Messiah who can bring peace . . . who can bring an end to the warfare between Gods people and those who, before He came were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (Cf. Eph. 2:11-15)

Assyria, being Israels most powerful enemy at the time of Micahs ministry is made here to represent all the enemies of Gods people. When Messiah appears, He will destroy them. (Cf. Ezekiel, chapter 38)

Seven shepherds . . . eight principal men. A strange array, it would seem, to send against the Assyrians. Micah is obviously using well understood figures to convey the truth of Messiahs conquest over the enemies of Gods people.

Seven expresses perfection. We shall raise against (or depend upon) the Messiah . . . the perfect shepherd.

Eight is seven plus one. The Messiah plus those principal men or anointed men, such as the twelve, (Cp. Isa. 32:1) shall lay waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrance thereof . . . The Lords strength is more than enough.

Lange points out that the terms palace, seven, and eight connect themselves with the threatening formula employed by Amos (Amos, chapters 1-2) to announce the approach of the destruction which was about to break. Gods grace will be greater than the sin; hence, instead of three and four sins which make the judgement necessary (Amo. 2:4) seven and eight heroes are named who shall drive away the enemies when Messiah has come.

Just as the Roman empire, during Pax Romana, in which period Jesus was born, enforced peace with the Roman sword, so Messiah and those who stand with Him will enforce His peace by subduing His enemies with the sward of the Spirit. (Cp. Heb. 4:12, Eph. 6:17) Those who stand against the Gospel of Christ, and continue in league with idolatries and witchcrafts, as did Assyria and Babylon of old, shall be consumed by it.

In our day, when tolerance of any and all false teaching has become a sacred cow and when unbelief is regarded as a normal reaction to God, it is difficult to think in these terms. There is, however, a hard side to the Gospel. The sword has a cutting edge. There is destruction for those who resist it. (Cp. 1Pe. 2:8)

Chapter IXQuestions

Future Exaltation and Messianic Hope

1.

Demonstrate that Micahs prophecy in Micah 4-5 has to do with the day of the Messiah, our own Messianic time.

2.

What does John tell us about this end time? (1Jn. 2:18 -f)

3.

What is the meaning of the mountain of Jehovahs house?

4.

Comment on all peoples walk everyone in the name of his god, but we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God for ever and ever. (Mic. 4:5)

5.

Discuss many nations. (Mic. 4:2)

6.

Discuss . . . out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem. (Mic. 4:2 cp. Luk. 24:44 -f)

7.

Men are at war with men because ________________________.

8.

God must become ruler of our ____________ as well as our church doctrine. (Mic. 4:4)

9.

In that day (Mic. 4:6-7) refers us back to ___________________.

10.

That which is lame is the image of ____________.

11.

Discuss her that halted is become a remnant. (Mic. 4:7)

12.

Distinguish between that which was lame and that which was driven away.

13.

Discuss I will make . . . that which was cast far off a strong nation in Mic. 4:7 in light of Rom. 11:1.

14.

What is meant by tower of the flock? (Mic. 4:8)

15.

Discuss Mic. 4:11 in connection with Mic. 3:12.

16.

In Micahs own time the nation of ____________ dominated the international scene.

17.

____________ would wipe out the northern kingdom.

18.

____________ would enslave the southern kingdom.

19.

____________ would conquer the Medo-Persian empire.

20.

The Maccabean revolt was against the rule of ____________.

21.

All these powers, and others since have used the land of ____________ as a political pawn and a ____________ state.

22.

Discuss Romans 11, Mic. 4:11-13 in light of current events in the Middle East.

23.

The Jews are precious to Jehovah because ____________.

24.

This does not imply ____________.

25.

What New Testament reference is made to Mic. 5:2 -ff?

26.

What is the meaning of Ephratah? (Mic. 5:2)

27.

Bethlehem nestles on the ____________ slopes of a ridge some ____________ miles ____________ of Jerusalem.

28.

Discuss, the conditions of Jesus birth in contrast to what might have been expected for the birth of a king.

29.

The sheep tended on the slopes of Bethlehem were traditionally intended for _________.

30.

Why did the Roman emperor Harian forbid Jews to live in or near Bethlehem?

31.

Perhaps no other term in the Old Testament has been more grossly misunderstood than _____________.

32.

Humanly speaking, it was the Jews ambitious vision of ____________ that was responsible for the death of Jesus.

33.

It is the failure of many to recognize the kingly office and authority of Jesus that has brought about the ____________ in the modern church.

34.

Discuss the temptation of Jesus (Luk. 4:1-12) in relation to the Jewish dream of world power in the Messianic age.

35.

The real issue in Mic. 2:6 is the assurance that ____________.

36.

Why do the Jews object that Jesus cannot be the Messiah?

37.

Discuss the pre-existence of Christ in light of Mic. 5:2.

38.

God would not, Micah promised, fully vindicate His people and exalt them until ____________,

39.

The Messiah is to be a glorious prince, but His relationship to His people is that of a ____________.

40.

What is the significance of His greatness shall be to the ends of the earth?

41.

Discuss and this man shall be our peace . . .

42.

Discuss seven shepherds . . . eight principal men. (Mic. 5:5-6)

43.

What is meant by the remnant shall be as dew in a summer morning?

44.

Messiahs people are to be as bold as _____________.

45.

Mic. 5:15 must be almost unbelievable to ____________.

46.

The prophet sees in the age of

____________ God executing vengeance in anger and wrath upon the nations which hearken not

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(2) But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah.This is a passage of immense significance, through the interpretation given to it by the chief priests and scribes in the Gospel of St. Matthew. Beth-lehem Ephratah: the two names, modern and ancient, are united, each of them having reference to the fertility of the country. In the Gospel the scribes quote, evidently from memory, the passage from Micah, in reply to Herods question; and their first variation is in the title of the townThou, Beth-lehem (not Ephratah, but), land of Judah. So also the people protested against Jesus on the ground of His being from Galilee, for, Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? (Joh. 7:42.)

Though thou be little.Strictly, art little among the thousands, or chiliads: a word analogous to our hundreds; a division of the tribes. In St. Matthew the word is paraphrased by princes, as representing the chiliads.

Yet out of thee.St. Matthewfor out of thee, the illative conjunctionhelps to show that the quotation is really a paraphrase, conveying the ultimate intention of the prophets words, which contrasts the smallness of the chiliad with the greatness of its destiny.

Whose goings forth have been from of old.The nativity of the governor of Israel is evidently contrasted with an eternal nativity, the depth of which mystery passes the comprehension of human intellect: it must be spiritually discerned. The Creed of the Church expresses the article of faith as Begotten of His Father before all worlds. He came forth unto Me to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting, from the days of antiquity.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

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 Mic 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 Mic 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 Mic 5:2 ff., and that of Mic 4:6-8. In Mic 4:8, it is promised that the dominion shall return to Zion; Mic 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 (Jos 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 (1Sa 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 (1Sa 17:12; Rth 1:2; Rth 4:11; 1Ch 2:50, etc.); only rarely do the two appear to be identical (Gen 35:16; Gen 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” (Jdg 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 Joe 3:20). In Isa 63:9, the identical expression, translated “days of old,” refers to the early history of Israel (compare Mic 7:20); in Mic 7:14, and Amo 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 Amo 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 Mic 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 Isa 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 Mic 5:2 is Mic 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) Mic 5:4 is the continuation of Mic 5:2; (2) the subject of “he will give up” (Mic 5:3) must be Jehovah, but in Mic 5:2 Jehovah speaks of himself in the first person, and in Mic 5:4 the third person refers to the Messianic king; (3) Mic 5:3, is dependent on Mic 4:10, but the author of Mic 5:3, misunderstood Mic 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 Mic 4:9-10, where the distress of Jerusalem is likened to the anguish of a woman in travail. But Mic 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 Mic 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 Isa 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 Isa 10:20-21). The latter must be meant if Mic 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 Hos 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 Hos 1:11; compare Isa 11:13). R.V. margin suggests a different translation (compare Jer 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.

Mic 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 (Isa 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 (Joh 10:11-12).

In the majesty of the name of Jehovah The name of Jehovah is Jehovah in manifestation (see on Mic 4:5; Amo 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 Hos 2:18; Isa 9:7; Isa 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 Mic 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 Mic 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 (Eph 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” (Isa 9:6), a part of a prophecy delivered in connection with the Syro-Ephraimitish crisis in 735-734.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The Announcement Is Made Of One Who Will Rise From A Humble Small Town Who Will Deliver His People And Will Become Great To The Ends Of The Earth ( Mic 5:2-4 ).

The promise is now made that from the small town of Bethlehem Ephrathah, which is comparatively insignificant, will come one is to be ruler in Israel Whose activities have been eternally destined, or possibly have been destined from the beginning as evidenced for example in Gen 3:15.

Mic 5:2

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

Which is little to be among the thousands of Judah,

Out of you will one come forth to me who is to be ruler in Israel,

Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.

A ruler is to arise out of little Bethlehem whose activities have been ‘from of old, from everlasting’. The double emphasis indicates that it means from as far back as it could possibly be. Strictly speaking it signifies that he will actually have been active for that long, but was probably seen by most as meaning that His activities were in YHWH’s mind from the beginning.

The word for ‘little’ is a rarely used one and indicates ‘comparatively small’ (compare Psa 68:27). The ‘thousands’ of Judah may refer to the large numbers of cities, towns and villages in Judah, or to the fact that Bethlehem’s contribution to the military units (‘thousands’) of Judah is very small. Or it could be the equivalent of ‘families, tribes’. Whichever way it is the unimportance of Bethlehem that is being brought out. Nevertheless it will produce this great King.

But why should he be described as coming from this obscure background in Bethlehem? The answer would seem to lie in the fact that it will not happen until the royal house of David has ceased to rule in Jerusalem. Judah will have sunk into a state of helplessness and hopelessness, and then suddenly from this small, insignificant town will arise this great leader of the Davidic house..

Bethlehem Ephrathah (compare Gen 35:19) was called this in order to distinguish it from the other Bethlehem (house of bread) in Zebulun. It was situated a few kilometres south of Jerusalem.

‘Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.’ The dual repetition of words representing ancient times introduces the conception of everlastingness. For the conception compare Pro 8:22-23. Here is one Whose activities (‘going forth’) have been eternal. He is the King of the ages. For the significance of the verb ‘goings forth’ as indicating activity see Hos 6:3; Eze 12:4; 1Ki 10:28; 2Sa 3:25.

It will be noted that these words parallel the ideas of Isaiah in Isa 9:6, ‘His Name will be called wonderful, counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’ Both prophets were looking for someone with divine connections

Thus the whole idea is of the ‘coming King’ Who has been destined by God from the beginning, Whose goings forth have been from eternity, Who will come forth from Bethlehem to fulfil God’s purposes. This ‘Messianic’ expectation is found in a number of passages. See Gen 49:10; Num 24:17; 2Sa 7:13 ; 2Sa 7:16; Psalms 2; Psa 89:27-29). Its final fulfilment through the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem is emphasised in Mat 2:6.

Mic 5:3-4

Therefore will he give them up,

Until the time that she who travails has brought forth,

Then the residue of his brethren,

Will return to the children of Israel.

‘And he will stand, and will feed his flock in the strength of YHWH,

In the majesty of the name of YHWH his God,

And they will abide,

For now will he be great to the ends of the earth.’

But the coming of this King will not be immediate. For God will first give up His people to travail and suffering like that of a woman in labour (compare Mic 4:9-10). However, once that is accomplished all who are apart will be gathered back to their people, and the King will stand among them, and will feed them in the strength of YHWH, and in the majesty of YHWH His God, and their continuance is guaranteed, and He Himself will be great to the ends of the earth (compare Psa 2:7-9; Psa 89:27-29). For YHWH is the Lord of the whole earth (Mic 4:13).

That the people did suffer greatly, and did then gather back from exile, and that they supremely came into a remarkable oneness in Jesus Christ, and that the King came among them in Jesus Christ, and fed them with the strength of YHWH and made known to them the majesty of God, both in His life and especially in the Transfiguration, is now well known. And from them He called a new people whose growth through the ages has been phenomenal, and is found in His church worldwide, while His Name is known wherever man is found.

Some, however, see the woman in travail as referring to the Messiah’s earthly mother, and thus see this as a direct indication that Israel will be ‘given up’ until that time.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Mic 5:2. But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah Ephratah was another name for Beth-lehem in the tribe of Judah, and both names are joined together to distinguish it from another Beth-lehem in the tribe of Zebulun. In the gospel by St. Matthew it is said, Thou, Beth-lehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least. In the Hebrew it is, though thou art the least, or, literally, little to be; zair leheioth. The sense in both is clear and consistent, says Dr. Sharpe; for this city, though far from being the most considerable in extent of all those belonging to the princes of Judah, is nevertheless, on account of the governor or ruler who was to come out of it, not the least among the thousands of Judah. The learned Pococke, on this passage, has shewn, that the original word may signify either great or little. But this is a mode of interpretation not very admissible. If the passage be read, as in the translation from the Syriac in the English Polyglot, with an interrogation, it will have the force of a negative, and then may well be rendered, as in the Arabic and Persic versions, and in the Gospel by St. Matthew; but, if without any interrogation, it will be as it is in the other versions from the Hebrew. Hence it is evident, that the Gospel may be reconciled with the present copies of the Hebrew Bible, without any alteration of the text, which, in matter of evidence, is not to be admitted. It may be proper, however, to observe, that in the original there is neither an affirmative nor a negative particle: literally, the words are, as we before remarked, a little one to be. Now if there be any necessity for adding any thing to clear up the sense, surely an inspired apostle, quoting the decision of the whole Jewish Sanhedrin, should, above all others, be followed; and after him we might well render the passage, Thou, Beth-lehem,art not a very little one, to be in the thousands of Judah; for, or since out of thee shall come forth, &c. And the context seems to require this, assigning the birth of this ruler in Beth-lehem as a reason why it was not a little one in reality, though such in esteem. It is added, among the thousands; which St. Matthew reads, among the princes of Judah; and for this reason, every tribe was divided into so many thousand men, as shires in England are into hundreds; over which presided an alup,leader, or prince, to command them in battle. Hence the same word came to signify at once a thousand and the leader of a thousand. Beth-lehem was too small in people to be reckoned as one of these thousands, or to be numbered singly in the army against the enemy; but is promised the advantage over them, in giving birth to that ruler in Israel, who is superior to all the princes of the thousands. The Hebrew word ietse, rendered come forth, signifies also to be born; and so this prophesy, as the Scribes and Pharisees understood it, plainly points to Beth-lehem as the place where the ruler or king of Israel was to be born, after the Babylonish captivity was over; and thus it is impossible to accommodate it to any other ruler than the Messiah. But if this circumstance can be accommodated to no other than him, much less can that which follows: Whose goings-forth have been of old, from everlasting; to signify the perfection and excellency of the generation of the person here foretold. The prophet here describes him who, he says, should come out of Beth-lehem, and be ruler in Israel, by another more eminent coming or going forth than that from Beth-lehem, even before Beth-lehem had an existence,from all eternity; which is so signal a description of the divine generation before all time, or of that going-forth from everlasting of Christ the eternal Son of God, God of the substance of the Father, begotten before all worlds, and afterwards in time (according to what is said, that he should come forth out of Beth-lehem) made man of the substance of his mother, and born in the world,that this prophesy belongs only to him, and could never be verified of any other. The word amotsoothaiv, for goings-forth, that is to say, birth, is plural. It is a common Hebraism to denote the eminency or continuation of a thing or action by the plural number. From these circumstances in the text, the Chaldee paraphrast of the Jews inserts the name of the Messiah before ruler in Israel, to shew of whom the prophet is to be understood; and to signify that what follows relates also to the Messiah. He then who is the subject of this prophesy is that divine Person, who so often went forth in the name of the Lord; who conversed with Abraham and Moses, manifesting by miracles and wonders his Godhead and supreme power: who was from everlasting; and who, at last, was made manifest in the flesh, and came forth from Beth-lehem, the king of the Jews. Of no other person whatever can it be said, that he appeared, or came forth from the beginning; from the days of eternity, as it is well rendered by the LXX: he who was afterwards, in some period of time subsequent to this oracle by Micah, to come forth out of Beth-lehem, as a prince or governor,unto me; or, before God the Father. See Bishop Chandler’s Defence, p. 124. Sharpe’s Second Argument, p. 150 and Houbigant.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

DISCOURSE: 1208
THE MESSIAH TO BE BORN AT BETHLEHEM

Mic 5:2. Thou, Bethlehem, Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Jutdah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto me, that is to be Ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

IN estimating the degree of credit due to prophecy, we naturally ask, Of what kind the prophecies were? Were they numerous? Were the persons who delivered them unconnected with each other? Were the things which were foretold unlikely of themselves to be accomplished? or were they such as might easily, by the united efforts of interested persons, be brought to pass? If they were such only as might be the subjects of reasonable conjecture, or such as might by a confederacy of persons be easily devised and easily fulfilled, they would have but little weight; but if they were inconceivably varied, and absolutely incapable of being either feigned by impostors or fulfilled by friends, they will then carry proportionable evidence along with them. Such then were the prophecies relating to our blessed Lord: they were such as no deceivers could invent, and such as no confederacy whatever could cause to be fulfilled. Many of the most important of them were fulfilled by persons who sought to disprove the pretensions of Jesus to the Messiahship, and who unwittingly established what they laboured to overthrow. Others were accomplished through the instrumentality of persons who could have no conception whatever of the ultimate consequences which their actions would produce. Of this kind was the prediction before us; it declared that the Messiah should be born at Bethlehem; not at the Bethlehem in the land of Zabulon, but at that which was in the land of Judah. This, as will be seen presently, was so generally known, that the parents of our Lord might have known it, if they had been at all anxious to make the inquiry. But so little did they advert to it, that they never thought of going up to Bethlehem, till they were compelled to it by a decree of Augustus Caesar. They were living at Nazareth, and would, if no such unforeseen edict had been issued, have continued there till the birth of Jesus. But the Scripture could not be broken; and God was at no loss to provide means for its accomplishment. He wrought therefore on the ambition of the Roman emperor, and prompted him to exercise his authority over the Jewish people, and to order that all of them should go and be enrolled in the different cities to which they belonged. This constrained Joseph (who was of the house and lineage of David) to go up to his own city, Bethlehem, to be enrolled there: and during his stay there (some unforeseen occurrences probably having necessitated him to continue there longer than he had originally expected), the time for Marys delivery arrived, and, contrary to all human expectation, Jesus was born in the city which had been specified by the Prophet Micah seven hundred years before. Thus, whilst the decree of Caesar shewed that the sceptre was now just departing from Judah, and, consequently, that the time for the advent of the heavenly Shiloh was come, it unwittingly on his part caused the Messiah to be born in the very city which Micah had foretold.
The prophecy itself gives us such a glorious view of Christ, that we shall do well to enter more fully into it. It declares to us,

I.

His advent in time

Two things the prophet mentions respecting him;

1.

The place of his birth

[Bethlehem was of itself but a small city, and of little importance when compared with many other cities in the land of Judah; but it was the place of Davids nativity [Note: 1Sa 16:1; 1Sa 16:11-13.], and the place therefore which God ordained for the birth of Davids Son, the Lord Jesus. The prophecy respecting it, we have before said, was generally known, especially among those who were at all conversant with the prophetic writings; so that when Herod sent to the chief-priests and scribes to inquire where the Messiah was to be born, they all with one consent declared that Bethlehem was the destined place, and, in confirmation of their opinion, they cited this very passage which we are now considering [Note: Mat 2:3-6.]. And it is curious enough, that many years afterwards, when the enemies of Jesus insisted that, notwithstanding all his miracles, he could not possibly be the Messiah, they adduced this very passage [Note: Joh 7:41-42.]; which, if their premises had been correct, would have fully supported their conclusion; they knew that Jesus had been brought up at Nazareth; and they supposed he had been born there: and, if they had been right in this conjecture, he certainly could not be the Messiah; since it was ordained of God, that the Messiah should be born at Bethlehem.

This will account for the remarkable care which God in his providence took, that the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem should be placed beyond a possibility of doubt. Perhaps no other event, scarcely excepting either his death or resurrection, was marked with such a variety of evidence as this. First, it was enrolled in the public records of Bethlehem, in consequence of Caesars edict. Next, it was attested by an angel announcing it to the shepherds as they were guarding their flocks by night. Next, this testimony was confirmed by a host of angels, who celebrated it aloud in the hearing of the shepherds. Next, it was marked by a star in the east, which conducted the Magi from a distant country to the very spot, and caused those wise men to carry the report of it back to their own land. Next, it was ascertained by the inquiries of Herod, and the united testimony of all the chief priests and scribes, that Bethlehem was of necessity to be the place. And lastly, it was marked by that most extraordinary act of cruelty, the slaughter of all the infants in and around Bethlehem, from two years old and under; which measure king Herod adopted, in order to ensure the destruction of Jesus, whom he dreaded as a future rival.
What a confirmation all this is of the Messiahship of Jesus, it is needless to observe.]

2.

The character in which he should appear

[He was to be Ruler in Israel. If we look only at the external circumstances of his birth, we confess, he had not much the appearance of a Ruler, seeing that his parents were in so low circumstances as to be able to get no better place for their accommodation than a stable, (though one would have thought that a person in Marys situation would have found a thousand females ready to receive her into their houses;) nor any better receptacle for the new-born infant than a manger. Nor in his subsequent life did there appear what we should have expected in a Ruler. To the age of thirty he wrought at the trade of a carpenter: and during the three years of his ministry, he went about as a poor man who had not where to lay his head. Least of all, in his last hours, did he look like a Ruler; since he was treated with nothing but scorn, and put to death as the vilest of malefactors.

Yet even at all these periods, if we look more narrowly, we shall find circumstances that sufficiently declared his dignity. The songs of the heavenly choir at his birth, the miracles he wrought in his life, and the testimony borne to him by universal nature at his death, all proclaimed, that, under the veil of his humiliation, there was a character more than human, and that he was not only a Ruler, but King of kings, and Lord of lords.
The Jews, fixing their eyes only on his external appearance, deny that this prophecy was fulfilled in him. But we answer, that his kingdom was never intended to be of this world: it is a spiritual dominion that he was sent to exercise; and such a dominion as no mere creature ever can exercise. He came to establish his throne in the hearts of men, and to bring their very thoughts into captivity to his holy will. And this empire he has established over millions of the human race, even over the whole Israel of God, in every age, and every place. To all of them without exception his will is both the rule and reason of their conduct. If only a thing be declared to be his will, that is a sufficient reason for their doing it, though they should see no other reason: and, rather than not do it, they would all without exception lay down their lives. This dominion he is now exercising over a willing and obedient people: and though Satans vassals are infinitely the more numerous at the present day, the time is coming, when all the kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdom of this great Ruler, when all kings shall fall down before him, and all nations shall serve him, and his name shall be great unto the ends of the earth.]

For submission to this great Ruler the prophet prepares us, by declaring,

II.

His existence from eternity

The terms in which this is declared are as strong as the prophet could well use: they are equivalent to what the Psalmist says of Jehovah; Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting thou art God [Note: Psa 90:2.]. That Jesus did exist from all eternity is abundantly declared,

1.

In the Old Testament

[There is a remarkable passage to this effect in the book of Proverbs, where, under the name of Wisdom, Jesus is represented as having been, by the Father, as one brought up with him, as being daily his delight, and rejoicing always before him [Note: Pro 8:22-31.] This passage is generally considered by the best commentators as relating to Jesus Christ; and its exact correspondence with the passage just quoted in reference to Jehovah, and with other passages in the New Testament, leaves no room to doubt, but that Jesus is the person there described. In the book of Psalms, we know infallibly that Jesus is the person spoken of, as of old laying the foundations of the earth, and as continuing immutably the same to all eternity [Note: Psa 102:25-27.]. We know this, I say, infallibly, because St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, assures us that it was spoken of, and to, the Son; whom the Father addresses also in these decisive terms; Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom [Note: Heb 1:8; Heb 1:10-12.].]

2.

In the New Testament

[Our blessed Lord himself frequently speaks of his pre-existent state. To Nicodemus he speaks of himself as having come down from heaven, and as actually existing in heaven even whilst in his bodily substance he was on earth [Note: Joh 3:13.]. To the Jews who thought of him as a mere man like themselves, he says, Before Abraham was, I am [Note: Joh 8:58.]. And, in addressing his heavenly Father, he prays, Glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was [Note: Joh 17:5.]. His Apostles uniformly maintain the same language: 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. All things were made by him; and without him was nothing made that was made. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us [Note: Joh 1:1-3; Joh 1:14.]. This is the testimony of St. John: and that of Paul accords with it, that, whilst according to the flesh Jesus was of the seed of David, according to the spirit of holiness he was by his resurrection declared to be the Son of God, even God over all, blessed for ever [Note: Rom 1:3-4; Rom 11:5.]. In the book of Revelations there is a remarkable passage, where, speaking of our blessed Lord, the beloved Disciple attests his character in these expressive words; I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty: and then he introduces that same Jesus speaking personally to him, and saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last; I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore; Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death [Note: Rev 1:8; Rev 1:17-18.].

From all these testimonies then, we are prepared to welcome the advent of this august Ruler, in the language of the Prophet Isaiah; To us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulders; and his name shall be called the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace: and of the increase of his government arid peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even for ever [Note: Isa 9:6-7.].]

That we may suitably improve this subject,
1.

Let us adore this divine Saviour for his condescension and love

[How wonderful is it that such love should ever be shewn to the children of men! that the Son of God, Jehovahs fellow [Note: Zec 13:7.], who was one with the Father, the brightness of his Fathers glory, and the express image of his person [Note: Heb 1:3.], who was in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, should yet make himself of no reputation, and take upon him the form of a servant, and be made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, should humble himself and become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross [Note: Php 2:6-8.]! How wonderful, I say, is this! and scarcely less wonderful, that we, towards whom this stupendous effort of love and mercy has been exercised, should feel so little, even whilst we profess to believe it, and to make it the foundation of all our hopes. But let us muse upon it; let us muse, till the fire kindle, and we speak with our tongues the wonderful works of God. Nothing but this is heard in heaven: and nothing but this should he heard on earth. Methinks there should be but one song heard amongst us day or night; Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing [Note: Rev 5:12.].]

2.

Let us submit to his government

[Do we look for salvation through our adorable Emmanuel? Let us not forget that he came to be a Prince as well as a Saviour, a Ruler as well as an Instructor. Let us willingly receive him in this character, and cheerfully dedicate ourselves to his service. Let us be his subjects, not in name, but in truth; not by an external profession only, but an internal surrender of our souls to him: let us do this, not by constraint, but willingly; not partially, but wholly, and without reserve. This is our first duty; this is our truest happiness; this is the way in which he expects us to requite him for all his condescension and love; and it is the only way wherein we can manifest our sense of the obligations he has conferred upon us. He gave himself for us, to redeem us from all iniquity, and to purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works: let him find in us such a people; and he will then see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

Every word in this blessed verse is important; and therefore let us regard every word in it. Bethlehem means the house of bread! how suited this to him, and his birth, who is the bread of life. Ephratah, or Ephrath, meaning fruitfulness, was the name also of the city of Bethlehem, about two leagues from Jerusalem, supposed to have been so named from Ephrah, Caleb’s wife; 1Ch 2:19 . David was also born here. Joh 7:42 . Observe also, how humbly it is spoken of, little among the thousands of Judah. Yes! where Jesus the humble Saviour is born, all the corresponding circumstances shall be humble also! Now mark the features of the God-man, also Mediator. His goings forth have been from of old. How? not as God only, for then in that sense there is neither goings forth nor retirings. His immensity filling all space, is one of his divine attributes, and could not need mentioning. And not as man only, for then his goings forth could not have been eternal. But in the union of both, as God-man, Jesus-Mediator went forth in the decree of Jehovah from everlasting. Sweet and precious testimony this to the character of the Lord Jesus, as the Christ of God. His character of office is next to be noted, a Ruler in Israel. And so the Lord Jesus was amidst all the humbleness in which he appeared in the days of his flesh; for though he was despised and rejected of men, yet did he reign and rule in the hearts of all his redeemed, and manifested forth his glory, and his disciples believed on him. Joh 2:11 . Blessed be God the Holy Ghost for this precious portion in the testimony of the Prophets, to the person, character, and offices of the Lord Jesus Christ! In confirmation of the whole, let the Reader consult, Mat 2:6 . There is one sweet thought more in this verse which must not be overlooked, because it is highly important; and that is, who is the speaker of this memorable verse? Doubtless it is God the Father. Well then, Reader! see here a blessed testimony of God the Father, to the mission of his dear Son; that this Ruler, this Saviour in Israel, whose goings forth had been from everlasting, had been and should be, unto God: he shall come forth unto me, saith Jehovah. Here lies indeed the great blessedness in the commission of Christ, that it is the authority of God the Father. So spake Jesus. Joh 5:36-43 . So spake his servant John! 1Jn 4:14 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting.

Ver. 2. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah ] Not so called from Ephratah, Caleb’s wife, 1Ch 2:19 ; 1Ch 2:50-51 , but from its fruitfulness; whence also it had the name Bethlehem, that is, the house of bread, where Jesus (that bread of life, that came down from heaven, Joh 6:33 ) was born in the fulness of time, as is here first foretold by this prophet; that great mystery of godliness being revealed to the world by degrees, in several ages. Here was Christ born by mere accident, in regard of his parents, who were brought hither by a tyrannical edict of Augustus, Luk 2:2 , but yet by a sweet providence of God, that this Scripture might be fulfilled, and our faith in Christ settled.

Though thou be little among the thousands of Judah ] Or, Art thou little? &c.; q.d. no such matter: and so it agreeth with Mat 2:6 . Or thus: And thou, Bethlehem Ephrata, it is a small thing to be among the princes of Judah: Out of thee shall come a ruler, q.d. thou hast a dignity above this, and above them all, in that out of thee shall come a ruler. Take tsagnir in the neuter gender (as Scultetus, after Osiander, and Forster doth), and then the seeming difference ( ) between the prophet and evangelist is taken away. Some make St Matthew to relate the words of the Scribes to Herod, as they had varied the text before him. But we find not that they are anywhere taxed for altering or corrupting the text, but for misinterpreting it only, Mat 5:17-48 . Besides that, they were by their office text men, to look to the letter of the Scripture, and to keep it pure, 1Co 1:20 ; where they are distinguished from teachers of traditions and teachers of allegories.

Yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me ] That is, to God the Father; that we may know that the coming of Christ in the flesh was a plot of God’s own contriving. He came not by chance, but by counsel; him hath God the Father sealed, anointed, and appointed to the work, Joh 6:27 . This is comfortable to consider.

That is go be ruler in Israel ] Matthew rendereth it, a captain that shall feed my people Israel, Mat 2:6 . See Trapp on “ Mat 2:6 “

Whose goings forth have been from of old ] This is spoken of Christ’s eternal generation, which none can declare, Isa 53:8 . “What is God’s name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?” Pro 30:4 . The Scripture usually speaketh of this grand mystery by way of circumlocution. It is here spoken of in the plural number for the excellence of it. In this text, then, we have a description of Christ, in his natures and offices. See the like Rom 1:3-4 , and adore the fulness of the Scriptures, Adoro plenitudinem scripturarum (Aug.).

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

But thou. This marks out the Structure. Compare Mic 4:8 with Mic 5:2. Quoted in Mat 2:5, Mat 2:6. Joh 7:42.

Beth-lehem Ephratah. The full name given, as in Gen 35:19, thus connecting Gen 35:21 with Mic 4:8.

little = too little [to rank among]. Compare 1Co 1:27-29.

thousands = districts (1Sa 23:23). Like our old English divisions, called “hundreds”. Compare Exo 18:25. Reference to Pentateuch (Exo 18:25).

come forth. Note the difference between Hebrew here (yatza) and bo’ = come unto, in Zec 9:9. All the events between these two make up the period we call “the first Advent”, and thus are typical of the “second Advent”; the coming forth being 1Th 4:16, and the coming unto being 1Th 5:2, 1Th 5:3, and 2Th 2:8, the former being in grace, the latter in judgment. A similar period may elapse in the antitypical comings as in the typical comings of Mic 5:2, and Zec 9:9.

unto = for.

everlasting. Compare Psa 90:2. Pro 8:22, Pro 8:23. Joh 1:1, Joh 1:2.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Having thus described the coming deliverance, Micah utters the wonderful prophecy concerning the Deliverer and the deliverance under His administration.

The Person of the Deliverer is first described. He is One whose goings forth are from of old, and when He comes it will be to Bethlehem-Ephrathah.

Next, His program is described. Its first movement will be abandoning the people, and the second gathering and feeding them.

The central declaration of the whole prophecy is found in this connection, “This Man shall be peace.”

The local application of the foretelling is seen in the fact that Micah described the victory as one over Assyria. Its far-reaching value has become perfectly evident by the literal and local fulfillment. Concerning this coming deliverance the prophet then utters the word of Jehovah which declares that in that day all the false confidence which had ruined the people through the period of their sin and unbelief will be destroyed.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

everlasting

Cf. Isa 7:13; Isa 7:14; Isa 9:6; Isa 9:7. The “child” was born in Bethlehem, but the “Son” was “from everlasting.”

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

But thou: Mat 2:6, Joh 7:42

Ephratah: Gen 35:19, Gen 48:7, Ephrath, Rth 4:11, 1Sa 17:12, 1Ch 2:50, 1Ch 2:51, 1Ch 2:54, 1Ch 4:4, Psa 132:6

among: 1Sa 10:19, 1Sa 23:23

thousands: Exo 18:21, Exo 18:25, Deu 1:15, 1Sa 8:12, 1Sa 17:18

yet: Isa 11:1, Isa 53:2, Eze 17:22-24, Amo 9:11, Luk 2:4-7, 1Co 1:27, 1Co 1:28

that is: Gen 49:10, 1Ch 5:2, Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7, Jer 13:5, Jer 13:6, Eze 34:23, Eze 34:24, Eze 37:22-25, Zec 9:9, Mat 28:18, Luk 1:31-33, Luk 23:2, Luk 23:38, Joh 19:14-22, Rev 19:16

whose: Psa 90:2, Psa 102:25-27, Pro 8:22, Joh 1:1-3, Col 1:17, Heb 13:8, 1Jo 1:1, Rev 1:11-18, Rev 2:8, Rev 21:6

everlasting: or, the days of eternity

Reciprocal: Gen 35:16 – Ephrath Num 1:16 – heads Num 24:19 – Of Jacob Deu 33:7 – and bring Deu 33:27 – eternal Jos 22:21 – heads Jdg 6:15 – my family is poor Jdg 12:8 – Bethlehem Jdg 17:7 – General Rth 1:2 – Ephrathites 1Ch 2:19 – Ephrath 1Ch 11:2 – Thou shalt 1Ch 15:25 – captains 1Ch 27:1 – captains Psa 23:1 – my Psa 28:9 – feed Psa 55:19 – even Psa 78:71 – feed Psa 93:2 – Thy Pro 8:23 – General Isa 43:13 – before Isa 55:4 – a leader Isa 57:15 – that inhabiteth Jer 23:4 – I Jer 30:21 – governor Jer 33:14 – General Eze 21:27 – until Eze 37:24 – one Dan 7:9 – the Ancient Dan 9:25 – the Prince Hab 1:12 – thou not Zec 12:8 – the house Zec 13:7 – my shepherd Mat 2:1 – Bethlehem Mat 11:3 – Art Mat 21:5 – thy King Luk 2:6 – so Luk 7:19 – Art Luk 24:27 – and all Joh 1:15 – he was Joh 1:45 – and the Joh 1:49 – the King Joh 7:27 – no man Joh 8:58 – Before Act 1:6 – restore Act 2:30 – he Act 10:36 – he is Act 13:32 – how Act 26:6 – the promise Rom 9:5 – who is Rom 16:26 – everlasting Gal 4:4 – made Phi 2:6 – in Col 1:20 – having made peace 1Ti 1:17 – the King 1Ti 3:16 – God Heb 5:5 – Thou Heb 7:14 – sprang 1Pe 1:20 – verily Rev 1:4 – him

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

LOVED WITH EVERLASTING LOVE!

Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Mic 5:2

This is the passage which the doctors of the law quoted when Herod asked of them where the Christ should be born. Insignificant though Bethlehem might be, it would shine like a star on the page of history, because Emmanuel, God with us, there assumed our human nature. He went forth to be the Ruler of Israel, but the goings forth had been from of old, from everlasting.

I. There were goings forth of love.God so loved the world that He gave His Son. He loved us with an everlasting love. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever He had formed the earth and the world, He had purposes of love towards our race, which were to take effect in the fullness of time. The older we get, the more comfort we derive from knowing that Gods love originated ours, that we love because He first loved, and that He began knowing well what we should be, so He will not be diverted or surprised by anything that He may discover.

II. There were goings forth of wisdom.The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth, by understanding hath He established the heavens. By His knowledge were the depths broken up, and the skies dropped down the dew. In the beginning was the Word, by Whom the plans of all things were laid down, wrapped up by His foresight in the original act of creation.

III. There were goings forth of power.Christ is the Wisdom and Power of God. Through Him went forth the creative fiat from everlasting. The Power of God flowed through the Nature of the Son, who was the Organ of Creation. Through Him were all things created, which are in heaven and on earth. Stars and glow-worms, cherubim and grasshoppers, mountains and molecules of dust. And though He was crucified in weakness, He now lives to communicate to each of us power unto salvation.

Illustrations

(1) Bethlehem might be little, but so is earth among the thousands of the stars, and littleness in size is nothing to God, to Whom all is great, where He deigns to work. The Lord Jesus came forth from Bethlehem, but His goings forth had been from everlasting. Born in a stable though He was, He was Ruler and Prince. Though He lay in His mothers arms, He was to stand in the strength of the Lord. Though He was so poor and humble that the great of this world knew Him not, yet He has been tending His flock through the ages, in the majesty of the Name of the Lord His God. Though He came forth from so lowly an origin, He is great to the ends of the earth. He is our peace, Who hath made peace between God and man by the blood of His Cross, and is now intent on making peace between man and man the world over.

(2) God had not forsaken His people. A great Delivererthe Messiah-Kingwould yet arise to retrieve the fallen fortunes of the Chosen Race. He is born of Bethlehem, but is of no merely human origin, for His goings forth were from the remote eternity of the past. His origin is lowly, but He shall be Ruler. The people might be given up to their adversity until Bethlehem had travailed in birth and brought forth her long-expected child, but when He came to His own, there would be a great returning.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

Mic 5:2. This verse is another of the numerous instances of the passing from some favorable event for ancient Israel to one of spiritual Israel. It Is understandable why the inspired prophets would do so: while the spiritual advantages pertaining to the New Testament times are for both Jews and Gentiles, yet the system was given to the world through the Jews (Rom 3:2). We know this verse is a prediction of the times of Christ, for the New Testament makes such an application of it (Mat 2:8). Whose going forth . . . from everlasting. Jesuis was not personally con-nected with the affairs of the Old Testament, but He was recognized by his Father throughout all of the dealings intended for the benefit of mankind (Mat 25:34).

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Mic 5:2. But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah Here we have evidently the beginning of another subject, quite different from any thing that the first verse can relate to, and with which it seems to have no connection. The word Ephrah, or Ephratah, is here added, to distinguish Beth-lehem in the tribe of Judah, from another Beth-lehem in the tribe of Zebulun. It is called Ephratah, from the fruitfulness of the land where it stood: the word whence that term is derived importing fruitfulness. Though thou be little

The word though is not in the Hebrew, but supplied by our translators. And the sense of the sentence, it seems, is unnecessarily altered by its introduction. Many interpreters render the clauses interrogatively, thus; Art thou little among the thousands of Judah? The expression, the thousands of Judah, seems to have been used in allusion to the first division of the people, into thousands, hundreds, and other subordinate divisions. The rendering of the clause thus, Art thou little, &c., which implies the contrary, thou art not little, is certainly the right way of rendering it, because St. Matthew understood it, and quotes it, in this sense, chap. Mic 2:6, And thou Beth-lehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah. Bishop Newcomes translation of the clause accords still more exactly with St. Matthews, Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, art thou too little to be among the leaders of Judah? Out of thee shall come, &c., the word , rendered thousands, often signifying heads of thousands. Yet out of thee, &c. The word yet also is not in the Hebrew; and if the preceding clause be rendered, as is here proposed, interrogatively, it is not necessary to complete the sense of the verse; indeed, it would only obscure it. Out of thee shall come forth, &c., that is to be ruler in Israel This prophecy can be applied, with no propriety, to any other but the Messiah. The words must be very much wrested and changed from their natural meaning, or deprived of their full force or signification, before they can be applied to any other person. The Jews, even the most learned ones, before and at our Saviours time, understood this to be spoken of the Messiah; for St. Matthew informs us, Mat 2:5-6, that when Herod inquired of the chief priests and scribes, assembled together, to give him information where Christ should be born, they agreed unanimously that it was in Beth- lehem of Judea, alleging these very words as a certain and undeniable proof of it. And so did the generality of the Jews of that age, who speak of it as an undoubted truth, that Christ was to come of the seed of David, and of the town of Beth-lehem, where David was, Joh 7:42. The Chaldee agrees with their sentiments, and expressly applies the prophecy to the Messiah; and our Lord was born at Beth-lehem by an especial act of Providence, that this prophecy might plainly be fulfilled in him: see Luk 2:4. The expression, come forth, is the same as to be born. Whose goings forth have been of old from everlasting Hebrew, , rendered by the LXX., , ; and exactly in the same sense by the Vulgate, ab initio, a diebus ternitatis, from the beginning, from the days of eternity. So these Hebrew expressions must of necessity signify in divers places of Scripture, being used to signify the eternity of God: see Psa 55:19; Psa 90:2; Pro 8:23; Hab 1:12. The words naturally import an original, distinct from the birth of Christ mentioned in the foregoing sentence, which original is here declared to be from all eternity.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Mic 5:2-9. Messianic Anticipations.This paragraph, like the last, seems to consist of several separate prophecies, viz. Mic 5:2-4, describing the emergence of a triumphant Davidic ruler; Mic 5:5 f., deliverance from the Assyrian through leaders raised by the people; Mic 5:7-9, the multitude and irresistible might of the remnant of Israel. All these seem to be post-exilic, though some, taking Assyrian literally, refer the second to Micah. The clan of Ephrathah (to whose district Bethlehem belongs; cf. Rth 4:11, 1Sa 17:12, Jos 15:59, LXX), though insignificant in numbers and standing, yet (because Bethlehem was the home of David 1Sa 20:6) is to be the source of the future ruler of Davidic ancestry (Amo 9:11, Eze 34:23 f., Isa 9:6 f; Isa 11:1 ff.), which goes back to ancient days (Mic 5:2, both mgg.; goings forth means origin). He shall stand firm (Mic 5:4; cf. Isa 61:5), pasturing his flock in peace, strong by Yahwehs aid. Mic 5:3 is a later insertion in this prophecy, interrupting Mic 5:2 and Mic 5:4, and intended to connect it with the Messianic (not the true) interpretation of Isa 7:14*; Yahweh, it is said, will give up His people to their foes until the birth of the Messiah (here identified with the Davidic king), and until the return of the residue or remnant (probably, as Wellhausen says, a reference to the Shear Yashub of Isa 7:3).The second passage, Mic 5:5 f., is artificially linked to the first in the RV by the insertion of man, to which nothing in the Heb. corresponds; this should refer to what follows, i.e. the way in which peace shall be secured from the Assyrian. Against the invasion of this (not identified) oppressor, the people will raise up plenty of princely (Mic 5:5 mg.) leaders, who shall shepherd the enemys land, and bring deliverance.

Mic 5:5. Assyrian is a term applied to many later oppressors of Israel, e.g. Lam 5:6, Ezr 6:22, Zec 10:11; cf. Herod, vii. 63.palaces should be land, with LXX.The Heb. idiom, seven . . . and eight means a (full) seven, yes, eight if needed, i.e. an ample, though indefinite, number; cf. Ecc 11:2.

Mic 5:6. the land of Nimrod: a name for Assyria (see Gen 10:8-12). The first he in Mic 5:6 should probably be they.The third passage, Mic 5:7-9, which is similar to Mic 2:12; Mic 4:7, presupposes the wide dispersion of the Jews, and perhaps belongs to the Persian period. Israel shall be as numerous as the drops of dew and rain, which fall on the grass in an abundance independent of man (so Marti cf. Hos 1:10; or may the comparison be between the swift passing away of the dew and rain, as in Hos 6:4, and the rapid gathering of the scattered Jews from all the nations?). Israel shall be as irresistible as a lion among the flocks. May she utterly destroy her foes! (but probably this should read thine hand is lifted up, etc., a conviction, rather than a wish).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be {b} little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose {c} goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting.

(b) For so the Jews divided their country that for every thousand there was a chief captain: and because Bethlehem was not able to make a thousand, he calls it little. But yet God will raise up his captain and governor in it: and thus it is not the least by reason of this benefit. See Geneva “Mat 2:6”

(c) He shows that the coming of Christ and all his ways were appointed by God from all eternity.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

3. The King of Zion 5:2-5a

"In chapter 5 the prophet repeated and expanded the major themes of Mic 4:6-10, only in reverse order. This creates a chiastic structure for the central portion of the speech, which can be outlined as follows:

A    The Lord strengthens a remnant (Mic 4:6-7 a)

B    Dominion restored (Mic 4:7-8)

C    Zion and her king are humiliated (Mic 4:9-10)

D    Zion saved from the present crisis (Mic 4:11-13)

C’    Zion and her king are humiliated (Mic 5:1)

B’    Dominion restored (Mic 5:2-6)

A’    The Lord strengthens a remnant (Mic 5:7-9)" [Note: Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Handbook on the Prophets, p. 422.]

This section introduces another ruler of Israel who, in contrast to Zedekiah, his foil, would effectively lead God’s people.

"This royal oracle is obviously intended to be the central peak of the range of oracles in chs. 4 and 5. It presents a longer hope section than any other unit, and points to the fulfilment of royal promise as the key to the greatness of Jerusalem and Israel heralded in the surrounding pieces." [Note: Allen, pp. 340-41.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

In contrast to the humiliation of Israel’s judge (king) Zedekiah, a greater ruler would emerge later in Israel’s history (cf. Mic 4:7). He would be Yahweh’s representative (cf. Joh 17:4; Heb 10:7) and would arise from the comparatively insignificant town of Bethlehem (House of Bread) Ephrathah (Fruitful). Ephrathah (Ephrath) was an old name for the district in which Bethlehem of Judah lay, in contrast to other Bethlehems in the Promised Land (cf. Gen 35:16-19; Gen 48:7; Jos 19:15; Rth 4:11). Bethlehem was, of course, the hometown of David (1Sa 16:1; 1Sa 16:18-19; 1Sa 17:12), so the reference to it allows for the possibility of a familial connection with King David. As David had been the least notable of his brothers, so Bethlehem was the least honorable among the towns in Judah. The most insignificant place would bring forth the most significant person. This ruler must be divine since He had been conducting activities on Yahweh’s behalf from long ago, even eternity past (lit. days of immeasurable time; cf. Isa 9:6; Joh 1:1; Php 2:6; Col 1:17; Rev 1:8). The New Testament identifies this Ruler as the Messiah, Jesus Christ (Mat 2:1; Mat 2:3-6), though some of the Jews in Jesus’ day did not know that Bethlehem was His birthplace (Joh 7:42).

This messianic prophecy not only gives the birthplace of Messiah, and thus assures His humanity, but it also asserts His deity. No mere human could be said to have been carrying out the will of Yahweh eternally.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)