Albert Barnes Commentary Micah 5:2

"But thou, Beth-lehem 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." — Micah 5:2 (ASV)

But - And you, Bethlehem Ephratah. With us, the checkered 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 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" struck on the cheek, and, before (Micah 4:9), that Israel had neither king nor "counselor;" 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 you! People have admired the brief appeal of the murdered Caesar, “You too, Brutus.” The same energetic conciseness lies in the words, And you! Bethlehem Ephratah.

The name Ephratah is not seemingly added to distinguish Bethlehem from the Bethlehem of Zebulun, since that is only named once (Joshua 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 apparently joins the usual name, 'Bethlehem,' with the old Patriarchal, and perhaps poetic (Psalms 132:6) name 'Ephratah,' either in reference and contrast to that former birth of sorrow near Ephratah (Genesis 35:19; Genesis 48:7), or (as is Micah’s custom) regarding the meaning of both names.

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

It had been rich in the fruitfulness of this world; rich, thrice rich, it should be in spiritual fruitfulness. Thus: “Truly is Bethlehem, ‘house of bread,’ where was born the Bread of life, which came down from heaven” (John 6:48, 51). Also: “who with inward sweetness refreshes the minds of the elect,” Angel’s Bread (Psalms 78:25). And: “Ephratah, fruitfulness, whose fruitfulness is God,” the Seed-corn, stored in which, died and brought forth much fruit—all that was ever brought forth to God in the whole world.

Though you are 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 (Numbers 1:16; Numbers 10:4). But the thousand continued to be a division of the tribe after Israel was settled in Canaan (Joshua 22:21, 30; 1 Samuel 10:19; 1 Samuel 23:23). The 'thousand' of Gideon was the meanest in Manasseh (Judges 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, about six miles from the capital (Arculf, Early Travels in Palestine, p. 6; Bernard, Ibid., p. 29; Saewulf, Ibid., p. 44, all state "6 miles"; Maundrell, Ibid., p. 455, states "2 hours"; 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,” “2,704 feet above the sea.”

It lay “on a narrow ridge,” whose whole length was not more than a mile, swelling at each extremity into a somewhat higher eminence, with a slight depression between. As one account puts it: “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 (2 Samuel 23:14) in the time of Saul, recovered from them by David, and was one of the fifteen cities fortified by Rehoboam. Yet it remained an unimportant place.

Its inhabitants are counted with those of the neighboring Netophah, both before (1 Chronicles 2:54) and after (Nehemiah 7:26) the captivity, but both together amounted after the captivity to only 179 (Ezra 2:21–22) or 188 (Nehemiah 7:26). It still does not appear among the possessions of Judah (Nehemiah 11:25–30). It was called a city (Ruth 1:19; Ezra 2:1, 21; Nehemiah 7:6, 26), but the name included even places which had only 100 fighting men (Amos 5:3). In our Lord’s time it is called a village (John 7:42) or a city (Luke 2:4).

The royal city would become a den of thieves. Christ was to be born in a lowly village. As one has said: “He who had taken the form of a servant, chose Bethlehem for His Birth, Jerusalem for His Passion.”

Matthew relates how the chief priests and scribes, in their answer to Herod’s inquiries about where Christ should be born (Matthew 2:4–6), cited this prophecy. They gave the substance rather than the exact words, and with one remarkable variation: you are not the least among the princes of Judah. Matthew did not correct their paraphrase because it does not affect the object for which they cited 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 was to become.

Thus one says: “Nothing hindered Bethlehem from being 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.” Another states: “That is not the least which is the house of blessing and the receptacle of divine grace.”

Chrysostom adds: “He says that the spot, although mean and small, will be glorious. And in truth, the whole world came together to see Bethlehem, where, being born, He was laid, on no other ground than this only.”

And another: “O Bethlehem, little, but now made great by the Lord! He has made you great, who, being great, was in you made little. What city, if it heard of it, would not envy you that most precious Stable and the glory of that Crib? Your name is great in all the earth, and all generations call you blessed. Glorious things are everywhere spoken of you, you city of God (Psalms 87:3). Everywhere it is sung that this Man is born in her, and the Most High Himself shall establish her.”

Out of you shall He come forth to Me who is to be Ruler in Israel - (Literally, 'shall one come forth to Me to be Ruler.') Bethlehem was too small to be any part of the polity of Judah; out of her was to come forth One who, in God’s will, was to be its Ruler. The words 'to Me' include both 'from Me' and 'to Me'.

'From Me' means by My power and Spirit, as Gabriel said: The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you; therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). 'To Me' (for My purpose), as God said to Samuel: I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite; for I have provided Me a king among his sons (1 Samuel 16:1).

So now, one shall go forth from there to Me, to do My will, to My praise and glory, to reconcile the world to 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 (Jeremiah 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 (Zechariah 10:4).

Before, Micah had said, to the tower of Edar, Ophel of the daughter of Zion, the first rule shall come to you; now, retaining the word, he says to Bethlehem, out of you shall come one to be a ruler. The judge of Israel had been struck; 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 (John 1:1–2).

In the end of the days, He was to go forth from Bethlehem; but, lest He should be thought to have begun His existence then, the prophet adds, His goings forth are from everlasting. Here words denoting eternity and used of the eternity of God are united 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. As one defines it: “True eternity is boundless life, all existing at once,” or, “duration without beginning and without end and without change.”

The Hebrew names used here express as much as our thoughts can conceive or our words utter. They mean literally, 'from before' (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, in eternity there are no divisions, no succession, but one everlasting 'now'; one, as God, in whom it is, is One.

But humans 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, except as filled out by time. And so God speaks after the manner of men, and calls Himself the Ancient of Days (Daniel 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 (Habakkuk 1:12). 'The God of before' is a title chosen to express that He is before all things which He made. Dweller of before (Psalms 55:20) is a title formed to shadow forth His ever-present existence.

Conceive any existence before all else you can conceive; go back before and before that; stretch out backward yet before and before all that you have conceived, ages before ages, and yet before, without end—then and there God was. That 'before' 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, gives a shadow of 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 would be, at the end, as far from reaching eternity as at the beginning. 'The days of eternity' is only an inadequate expression, because every conception of the human mind must be so.

Equally so is every other expression: From everlasting to everlasting (Psalms 90:2; Psalms 103:17); from everlasting (Psalms 93:2; and of Divine Wisdom, or God the Son, Proverbs 8:23); to everlasting (Psalms 9:8; Psalms 29:10); from the day (Isaiah 43:13), that is, since the day was.

For the word 'from,' to our minds, implies time, and time is no measure of eternity. It only 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 appears from the passage itself that they do not. In passages where the words 'forever' or 'from before' 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 your servant forever (Exodus 21:6), that is, as long as he lives in the body. So when it is said to the Son, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever (Psalms 45:6), it speaks of a kingdom that will have no end. Similarly, looking backward, I will remember Your wonders from of old (Psalms 77:12) must necessarily relate to time, because they are marvelous dealings of God in time. So again, the heavens of old (Psalms 68:34) stand simply contrasted with the changes of humans.

But God of old (Deuteronomy 33:27) is the Eternal God. He that abides of old (Psalms 55:20) is God enthroned from everlasting. In like manner, the 'goings forth' here, opposed to a 'going forth' in time (emphatic words moreover being united), are a going forth in eternity.

The word 'from of old,' as used of being, is only used concerning 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 be used here either as words of great majesty (as 'God,' 'Lord,' 'Wisdom'—that is, divine Wisdom; Proverbs 1:20; Proverbs 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 the prophet says '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 this answer, but, supposing our Lord to be from Nazareth, some who rejected Him employed the argument against Him: Some said, “Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Has not the Scripture said that Christ comes from the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” (John 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 Christ. One such argument ran: “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 necessarily 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 Bethlehem, and from then on it has been forbidden for any Jew to remain in the confines of that country)—how then will a Ruler be born from Judea, and how will 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 from there because he shall be of the seed of David who was from Bethlehem.” But this would have been misleading language. No one ever spoke in such a way that one should be born in a place when only a remote ancestor had been born there.

Micah does not merely say that His family came from Bethlehem, but that He Himself should thereafter come forth from there. 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 Corsica,’ of any future sovereign of the line of Napoleon III because the first Napoleon was a Corsican; or, for 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.