Mic 5:2 (Hebrew_Bible_5:1)
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 ואתּה, with which this new section of the proclamation of salvation opens, corresponds to the ואתּה 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 ('Ephrâth and 'Ephrâthâh, i.e., the fertile ones, or the fruit-fields, being the earlier name; by the side of which Bēth-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 אתּה, צעיר, and ממּך, as the prophet had them in his mind when describing the smallness of the little town, which is called κώμη in Joh 7:42. צעיר להיות, literally “small with regard to the being among the 'ălâphı̄m of Judah,” i.e., too small to have a place among them. Instead of the more exact מהיות, להיות is probably chosen, simply because of the following להיות.'Alâphı̄m, thousands - an epithet used as early as Num 1:16; Num 10:4, to denote the families, mishpâchōth, 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 sârē 'ălâphı̄m, 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 'ălâphı̄m, 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 Archäologie, §140). Notwithstanding this smallness, the Ruler over Israel is to come forth out of Bethlehem. יצא מן 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.” לי (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. להיות מושׁל is really the subject to יצא, the infinitive להיות being used as a relative clause, like לכסּות in Hos 2:11, in the sense of “who is destined to be ruler.” But instead of simply saying יצא מושׁל ישׂראל, 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. בּישׂראל, not in, but over Israel, according to the general meaning of משׁל ב. The article is omitted before mōshēl, 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 וּמוצאתיו וגו. The meaning of this clause of the verse depends upon our obtaining a correct view not only of מוצאות, but also of the references to time which follow. מוצאה, the fem. of מוצא, 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 מוצא occurs most frequently, and in which even the form מוצאות 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 מימי עולם here, since the days of eternity cannot be called places of departure; nor is it required by the correlate ממּך, 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 מוצאות in the sense of goings forth, exits, as the meaning “times of going forth” cannot be supported by a single passage. Both קדם and ימי עולם 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 מוצאתיו (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 מקּדם מימי עולם (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 מוצאתיו, 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).
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 יצא of the first hemistich. As this expresses primarily and directly nothing more than His issuing from Bethlehem, and leaves His descent indefinite, מוצאתיו 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.