Chaps. 4 and 5 belong together, though the connexion is not always clear. They appear to have been revised subsequently to their first composition, and the original draft of the prophecy seems to have contained Micah 4:1-4; Micah 4:11-13, Micah 5:1-4; Micah 5:7-15. The student will do well to read these passages together in the first instance, before proceeding to the study of the prophecy in its present form. The fundamental idea is, that Israel will certainly be restored to prosperity, because the promise cannot be broken; but that a period of sore trial must precede this. The transitions are abrupt, and will be indicated below. The prophet begins (Micah 4:1-4), with the well-known description of the coming golden age, which we find again (with one verse less) in Isaiah 2:2-4. It has been much disputed which prophecy is the earlier. But Isaiah cannot have copied the verses from Micah, for the prophecy to which it is appended in Micah (chap. 3) was delivered in the time of Hezekiah (see Jeremiah 26:18). It is possible that both Isaiah and Micah took the prophecy from an older work; some affinities have been traced with Joel (comp. esp. Joel 3:10; Joel 3:18). Similar quotations from older prophecies are believed to occur in Isaiah 15, 16, Jeremiah 49:7-22.

1–4. The Ideal of Happiness realized

1. But] The Auth. Vers. has done its best to soften the abruptness of the transition from Micah 3:12 to Micah 4:1. It understands the meaning to be something like this:—In spite of this awful prospect of judgment, God has a bright future in store both for Jerusalem and for Israel. In the Hebrew, however, the passage Micah 4:1-4 is simply added on to Micah 3:12; there is no properly adversative particle prefixed; the contrast is rather implied than expressed. It seems as if Micah’s mind was so filled up by the thought of judgment, that there was hardly any room for the thought of national regeneration. When the image does present itself to his imagination, it is only as by a lightning-flash, which soon passes away, and leaves the horizon as gloomy as before. There is nothing in Micah like a developed doctrine of the latter days, such as we have to some extent in Isaiah.

in the last days] Hebr. b’akharith hayyâmîm. This rendering is misleading; the Messianic period described in the following verses has no ‘last days;’ it is without an end (Isaiah 9:7). Render, therefore, in stricter accordance with the Hebrew, in the days to come (lit., ‘in the sequel of the days’); and comp. Jeremiah 23:20, ‘The anger of Jehovah shall not turn back, till he have executed, and till he have carried into effect the purposes of his heart: in future days ye shall duly consider it’ (Henderson’s translation), also Deuteronomy 4:30; Deuteronomy 31:29, and the phrase in an Assyrian historical inscription ana akhrat yumi = ‘for future days.’ A similar mistake has been made in 1 Timothy 4:1, where ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς is rendered in Auth. Vers. ‘in the latter times;’ the Revised Version corrects, ‘in later times.’

the mountain of the house of the Lord] i.e. not merely mount Moriah (as in Micah 3:12), but by synecdoche for Jerusalem (comp. end of Micah 4:2).

in the top] Rather, at the head. The lower mountains radiating, as it were, in all directions from it. “A similar physical change is anticipated for Jerusalem in Zechariah 14:10, and for the valley of Jehoshaphat, in connexion with the ‘day of Jehovah,’ in Joel 3:12. Ezekiel, too, speaks of having been transported in an ecstatic state to ‘a very high mountain’ (Ezekiel 40:2), evidently alluding to this passage.” The rendering of Auth. Vers. implies an image too hyperbolical to be accepted without compulsion.

2. many nations …] ‘Many,’ in contrast to the single nation (as yet hardly reckoned as such) at whose mouth the Gentiles receive instruction. The picture of Jerusalem as the religious metropolis of the world is familiar to us in the prophets (comp. Isaiah 11:10; Isaiah 60:3, Jeremiah 3:17, Zechariah 2:11; Zechariah 8:22-23). The Christian reason, enlightened by the course of Providence, sees that the picture is ideal.

of his ways] Rather, out of his ways. Comp. Psalm 94:12, ‘teachest out of thy law.’ God’s ‘law’ and God’s ‘ways’ are revealed in full to the prophets, and they bring out ‘here a little, and there a little’ according to the needs of the time.

the law] Auth. Vers., however, is misleading. The Hebrew simply has Tôrâh, which means ‘direction’ or ‘instruction,’ and is “the suitable term for the authoritative counsel given orally by the priests (Deuteronomy 17:11) and prophets to those who consulted them on points of ritual and practice respectively.” Comp. above, on Micah 3:11, and Prof. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, pp. 292, 3. Not that the Tôrâh of the latter days is to be restricted within the old boundaries; the Spirit is to ‘guide into all the truth,’ and probably the best equivalent (if we do not insist on an unnatural uniformity of rendering) would here be revelation.

3. among many people] Rather, between many peoples.

rebuke] Rather, be umpire for. How remarkable, the constant reiteration in the prophets of the ultimate extinction of war, to which this passage adds the substitution of arbitration!

they shall beat their swords …] In Joel 3:10 we have the same image reversed. Comp. also Micah 5:9, Hosea 2:18, Zechariah 9:10.

4. every man under his vine …] Comp. 1 Kings 4:25, 2 Kings 18:31. The old agricultural ideal. The depression of the peasantry, owing to the growing concentration of wealth, naturally made a peasant-prophet like Micah look forward with hope to a reaction, when each family should have its own allotment of land. This verse is omitted in Isaiah 2; it would no doubt have been unsuitable in that connexion.

5. Transition. For all people will walk …] Rather, For all peoples walk, &c. The ideal time described in Micah 4:1-4 is still far distant. ‘The nations abroad all worship gods of their own; let us therefore all the more steadily walk in the name of our God.’ The ‘name’ of God is that side of His nature which can be revealed to man (sometimes spoken of, even in the Old Testament, as a Divine Person, e. g. Isaiah 30:27; Isaiah 59:19); and to walk in this name means to live in mystic union with God as He has revealed Himself, and under His protection. ‘To walk for ever and ever’ is opposed to the temporary ‘walking’ of the idolaters. ‘The everlasting God’ (Isaiah 40:28) confers the attribute of everlastingness on His people.’ Comp. Isaiah 45:16-17 (contrast between the destruction of the idolaters and the ‘everlasting salvation’ of Israel).

6, 7. Prophecy of restoration

6. In that day] i.e. in the Messianic age (Micah 4:1).

will I assemble, &c.] A similar promise has been made in Micah 2:12. There the emphasis is laid on the closing of the national schism; here, on the remedy to be applied to the physical and moral misery of the exiles. In both cases, it is only a remnant of the nominal Israelites which is restored. Comp. the imitation in Zephaniah 3:19.

7. And I will make … a remnant] i.e. I will treat Israel, in spite of her ‘halting’ condition, as the ‘remnant’ to which the Messianic promises belong.

shall reign] Strictly, will have become king; i.e. will have assumed the royal functions, without the dubious intervention of a merely human representative. So Isaiah 24:23; Isaiah 52:7.

8–10. The revival of the Kingdom of David; misery of the preceding period

8. And thou, O tower of the flock, &c.] It is clear that the prophet intends Jerusalem, which he addresses by an enigmatical title, to arrest attention and stimulate reflexion. (Other instances of this, Isaiah 22:5; Isaiah 29:1, Jeremiah 21:13.) But why does he select this particular title? Two answers may be given. It was either (1) suggested by the figurative description of Israel as a flock (Micah 4:6, Micah 2:12), or (2) by the situation of a tower called ‘the tower of the flock’ between Jerusalem and Bethlehem—Bethlehem, which was appointed to be the birthplace of the Messianic King (Micah 5:2). The existence of such a town in the situation described is deduced from Genesis 35:21, where Auth. Vers. inaccurately renders ‘the tower of Edar’). It may be doubted however whether this particular tower is sufficiently near Jerusalem to suit the context, for the prophet clearly indicates that it was either upon or close to the hill or hill-side called Ophel (see next note): Isaiah, too, in a prophecy parallel in more ways than one with Micah’s prophecy (see on Micah 3:12), mentions in combination ‘Ophel and watch-tower’ (Isaiah 32:14, literally rendered) in a description of the desolation of Jerusalem. The ‘tower of the flock’ mentioned in Genesis was probably a different one. There may have been many towers with this name (see 2 Kings 18:8, 2 Chronicles 26:10), just as there was more than one hill called Ophel (see 2 Kings 5:24, where Auth. Vers. renders ‘Ophel’ loosely ‘tower’). The phrase ‘tower of the flock’ simply means that the tower was designed as a shepherd’s refuge against robbers.

the strong hold of the daughter of Zion] Literally, the height, &c. It is a particular fortified hill which is meant, the so-called Ophel—according to most, the southern end of the hill Moriah between the Temple and Siloam, bounded on the east by the Kedron, and on the west by the Tyropæon valley. (But this view is uncertain.) This ‘Ophel’ had its fortifications strengthened by Jotham (2 Chron. 37:3), and here becomes the representative of the power of Jerusalem.

the first dominion] i.e. the kingdom of Israel in its widest extent. So most commentators; but the expression is peculiar.

9. Now why dost thou cry out aloud?] The prophet from his watch-tower beholds the capture of Jerusalem, and hears the lamentation of its inhabitants (comp. Isaiah 10:30). Absorbed in high visions of the future, he deprecates this unmanly despair. True, all is lost, for the present; but they may carry with them into exile a consoling promise of deliverance.

Is there no king in thee?] Is it because thy king has been carried captive? Comp. Hosea 13:10, ‘Where then is thy king that he may save thee?’

thy counseller] A synonym for ‘thy king.’ The root of mélech (king) in Aramaic means ‘to counsel.’ The Messiah is called ‘Wonderful counsellor’ in Isaiah 9:6.

10. Be in pain, &c.] There is no remedy for Zion’s distress. Having sinned, she must bear her punishment. Having lost her first purity, she must be refined.

for now shalt thou go forth] ‘Now,’ because the future is realized by the prophet as if present. To heighten the effect of his announcement, he describes one by one the stages of the calamity,—the going out of the city, the dwelling in the open country, houseless and unprotected, and lastly the coming to Babylon, the scene of captivity. To ‘go forth’=to surrender, as Isaiah 36:16, 2 Kings 24:12.

and thou shalt go even to Babylon] These words are very difficult, when viewed in relation to the context. For 1, the enemy, whose destruction the prophet anticipates, is the contemporary kingdom of Assyria (see Micah 5:6), not that of Babylon, which had in fact been conquered by Tiglath-Pileser, and only succeeded to the place and power of Assyria a century later; and 2, we read in Micah 4:12 that Jehovah has brought the hostile nations to Jerusalem that they may be destroyed there, which seems not to allow space for a transportation of the Judæans to Babylon. Thus the difficulty in admitting that Micah really foretold the Babylonian captivity is based on purely exegetical grounds. It has indeed been replied 1, that Babylon is here mentioned only as a province of the Assyrian empire, and 2, that it appears from 2 Kings 17:24 (confirmed by the Annals of Sargon, Records of the Past, vii. 29), that Sargon transported a part of the rebellious population of Babylonia to N. Israel, which we may presume that, according to the custom of the Assyrians, he replaced by captive Israelites. It is therefore quite conceivable that in foretelling an invasion of Judah by Sargon, the prophet might represent the captives of Judah as following their Israelitish brethren to Babylonia. This reply is perhaps adequate as against the first-mentioned difficulty, but it leaves the second in its full force. It is necessary therefore to assume either that these words, ‘and thou shalt go to Babylon,’ are the interpolation of a later editor of the prophetic writings, who overlooked or misunderstood the context, or that they represent a subsequent revelation made by the Spirit of prophecy to Micah himself. The former view is perhaps at first sight objectionable, because it assumes that Divine Providence has not watched over the text of the Scriptures so as to prevent alterations from being made in their original form. But we must remember that the permanent function of the Old Testament for Christians is simply to point to Jesus Christ, as the Saviour both of Jew and of Gentile, and that no superficial changes of the text are of any religious importance which leave the performance of this function unimparied. The hypothesis of interpolation is confirmed (to mention the principal evidence only) by the occurrence of closely analogous words, undoubtedly interpolated, in the Septuagint version of Micah 4:8, the second part of which runs thus, καὶ εἰσεύσεται ἡ ἀρχὴ ἡ πρώτη, βασιλεία ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος τῇ θυγατρὶ Ἱερουσαλήμ. These words seem to give us the point of view from which the students (translators or editors) of the Scriptures approached the prophecies after the exile. The great deliverance from Babylon swallowed up all others, and they discovered references to it which are not warranted by the context of the passages. In a certain sense, it is true, the Babylonian captivity was the fulfilment of the prophecy before us; for neither the actual punishment nor the actual deliverance of Jerusalem in Micah’s time corresponded exactly to the prophet’s statements. Whether it be for the repentance of Hezekiah, or for any other reason known only to God, Jerusalem was not suffered to come to such extremities as the prophet describes, and consequently the Divine interposition was not so striking and unique. If however we prefer the second of the alternatives mentioned above, analogies for this view are also forthcoming. Isaiah repeatedly intermixes the matter of later discourses with that of earlier ones—an inevitable consequence of the mode in which the prophetic discourses were brought into their present form on the basis of notes and recollections (see the present annotator’s edition of Isaiah).

there shalt thou be delivered] If we accept the former of the alternatives proposed in the foregoing note, so that ‘and thou shalt go even to Babylon’ becomes an interpolation, we must suppose the promised deliverance to take place ‘in the field’ (or open country) where the people of Jerusalem have assembled. They are in fact on the point of surrendering to the Assyrians, their king (see Micah 5:1) has suffered the grossest indignity, when Jehovah suddenly interposes for their relief. Otherwise the deliverance will be that from the Babylonian exile, a view however which is difficult to reconcile with Micah 4:12.

11–13. Wonderful change in the fortunes of God’s people

11. Now also many nations …] The ‘many nations’ are either the Assyrians (comp. Isaiah 33:3), or the peoples who after their defeat come to worship at Jerusalem (Micah 4:1-2); but Micah 5:5 is in favour of the former view. They gather together to besiege Jerusalem (comp. Ezekiel 38, 39, Joel 3, Zechariah 12, 14); how fruitlessly, the next two verses declare. ‘Now also’ should rather be And now. There is an implied contrast to the ideal description in Micah 4:1-4; we have already seen that the original draft of chaps. 4, 5. has received various additions, and in order to get a clear connexion, we ought to inclose these inserted passages in parentheses. Thus if we bracket Micah 4:5-10, Micah 4:11 becomes perfectly clear, and the original sequence of thought is restored.

12. for he shall gather them] Rather, for he hath gathered them. The fate which they have prepared for Zion will come upon themselves. This is Jehovah’s counsel, but they know it not, for he hath brought them together, as sheaves are brought together to be threshed. Their ignorance is taken up by Jehovah into his purpose.

13. thresh] A figurative expression for ‘conquer’ (comp. Isaiah 41:15, Jeremiah 51:33), based on the barbarous custom of torturing those who had been taken captives in war (2 Samuel 12:31, Amos 1:3). It may be called a phraseological ‘survival.

horn] Another figure for victorious might; comp. Deuteronomy 33:17.

hoofs] Alluding to the custom of employing oxen to tread out the corn; comp. Deuteronomy 25:4, 1 Corinthians 5:9. Sometimes however a machine was used (see above).

many people] Rather, many peoples.

I will consecrate] Rather, thou shalt (so the ancient versions rightly render, comp. Gesenius, Hebr. Gram. § 47, Rem. 5) devote. See Leviticus 27:28, “every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord.” The term ‘devoted thing’ is applied sometimes to lifeless objects (e.g. Leviticus 27:21), and sometimes to living (e.g. 1 Samuel 15:21, 1 Kings 20:42). In the latter case, devotion, strictly speaking, involved destruction, i.e. the restitution to the Lord of life of that breath which He for a time had granted.