The predictions uttered by Micah relate to the inva- sions of Shalmaneser (i, 6-8 ; 2 Kings xvii, 4, 6) and Sennacherib (i, 9-16 ; 2 Kings xviii, 13), the destruc- tion of Jerusalem (iii, 12 ; vii, 13), the captivity in Babylon (iv, 10), the return (iv, 1-8; vii, 11), the es- tablishment of a theocratic kingdom in Jerusalem (iv, 8), and the Ruler who should spring from Bethlehem (v, 2). The destruction of Assyria and Babylon is sup- posed to be referred to in v, 5, 6 ; vii, 8, 10, According to many, iv, 13 refers to the heroic deeds of the Macca- bees, and their victories over the Syrians or Syro-Mac- edonians, called Assyrians in Micah v, as well as in Zechariah x, 11.
There is no prophecj' in Micah so interesting to the Christian as that in which the native place of the JMes- siah is announced (v, 2), which is cited by the evan- gelist (jMatt. ii, 6) with slight verbal variations, but substantial!}^ the same import (see Kuinol, Comment, ad loc. IMat.), In Micah emphasis is laid on the actual smallness of Bethlehem to enjoy such an honor; in Mat- thew the prominent idea is the honor itself, and its ideal grandeur — the converse side of the statement, Pocofck cuts the knot by adopting rabbi Tanchum's odd opinion that the term "|i"a means both little and great, the prophet selecting the one sense and the evangelist the other. It is evident that the Jews in the time of Jesus interpreted this passage of the birthplace of the Mes- siah (Matt, ii, 5; John vii, 41, 42). The Targum gives the reference formally to the Messiah, The later rab- binical writers, however, such as Kimchi, Aben-Ezra, Abrabanel, etc., have maintained that it had only an indirect reference to the birthplace of the jMessiah, who was to be a descendant of David, a Bethlehemite, but
MICAH
216
MICAH
Bot of necessity himself born in Bethlehem. Others, however, as David (ianz {li. Zeiiun/i Ihivul), expressly meiitidu Bethlehem as the birtliplace of the Messiah. The interpretation wliicli considered this jirophecy as intimating only that the Messiah was to be a descend- ant of David, was that current among the .Jews in the i time of Theodoret, Chrysostom, Tlieophylact, and Eu- thymius Zigabenus, from whom we learn that it was maintained to have been fullilled in Zcrubbabel, the leader of the Jews on their return from Babylon, of which, and not of Bethlehem, he was a native. (See Sozomen, vii, 729 ; Carpzov, Introd. iii, 374 sq. ; Jerome, Ep. ad Kustach. i, 704.) This interpretation was held among Christians by the celebrated Theodore of Mop- suestia (as we learn from his condemnation by the coun- cil at liome under pope Yigilius), and afterwards by Grotius {Co?nme?il.), who, however, regarded Zerul)babcl as a type of Christ, and considered Christ's birthplace at Bethlehem as an outward representation of his descent from the family of David. IMany of the moderns have been attached to this interpretation of the prophecy, re- ferring it to the general idea of tlie Messiah rather than to Zerubbabel, while some among them have, after the example of some Jews, ventured to assert that the ac- count of the birth of Christ at Bethlehem was not to be depended on. Some have asserted, after Jerome {Comm. in Mic), that the citation in Matt, ii, G is that of the Sanhedrim only, not of the evangelist (Hengstenberg's Christologij). Jahn {Append. JJenneneuf.) observes that it is evident that the Jews in the time of Christ expected the ;Messiah's birth to take place at Bethlehem ; and al- though he admits that the prophecy may be imderstood tropically in the sense applied to it by Grotius, he con- tends that the context will not admit of its applicability either to Hezekiah or any other monarch than the Mes- siah ; nor is it possible to apply the prophecy fully and literally to any but him who was not only of the house and lineage of David, but was actually born at Bethle- hem, according to the direct testimony of both Mat- thew's and Luke's gospels. The plain meaning is that the Messiali. as David's son, should be born in David's town (Holniann. W'dss. n. Krf. p. 249). Tertullian also presses the argument that the ISIessiah has come, for Bethlehem was deserted — •' Xeminem de genere Israel in civitate Bethlehem remansisse" (.It/;-. ./«(/reo.?, vol. xiii; Opera, ii, 734, ed. Oehler). To give the vague sense of Davidic extraction, and yet to denj' that the words point out the place of birth, was thus a necessary but feeble Jewish subterfuge. Benan admits the usual in- terpretation of the prophecy, though he affirms that Je- sus was really not of the family of David, and was born at Nazareth ( Vie de Jesus, chap. ii). (See generally, Eichhorn, J-Jinleit. iv, 369 sq. ; Bertheau, Jiinl. iv, 1G33 sq.; Knobel, Prophet, iii, 199 sq.) See i\lEsstAH.
IV. The getiuineness of the book has not been called in question. Only Ewald, in his Jahrh. xi, 29, is dis- posed to maintain that the two concluding chapters are the work of a different author. His objections, how- ever, liave no force against the universal opinion. The language of INIicah is quoted in ]\Iatt. ii, 5, 6, and his prophecies are alluded to in Matt, x, 35, 36 ; Mark xiii, 12 ; Luke xii, .53 ; John vii, 42.