And thou Bethlehem the land of Juda art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come forth the captain that shall rule my people Israel.

“Observe the exactness of the prophecy; it is not He shall be in Bethlehem, but shall come out of Bethlehem; shewing that He should be only born there. What reason is there for applying this to Zorobabel, as some do? For his goings forth were not from everlasting; nor did he go forth from Bethlehem, but was born in Babylonia. The expression, art not the least, is a further proof, for none but Christ could make the town where He was born illustrious. And after that birth, there came men from the utmost ends of the earth to see the stable and manger. He calls Him not ‘the Son of God,’ but (he Ruler who shall govern My people Israel; for thus He ought to condescend at the first, that they should not be scandalized, but should preach such things as more pertained to salvation, that they might be gained. Who shall rule My people Israel, is said mystically, for those of the Jews who believed; for if Christ ruled not all the Jews, theirs is the blame. Meanwhile he is silent respecting the Gentiles, that the Jews might not be scandalized. Mark this wonderful ordinance; Jews and Magi mutually instruct each other; the Jews learn of the Magi that a star had proclaimed Christ in the east, the Magi from the Jews that the Prophets had spoken of Him of old. Thus confirmed by a twofold testimony, they would look with more ardent faith for One whom the brightness of the star and the voice of the Prophets equally proclaimed.”

“(in Mich. v. 2.) The following is the sense of the prophecy. Thou, Bethlehem, of the land of Judah, or Ephrata, (which is added to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in Galilee,) though thou art a small village among the thousand cities of Judah, yet out of thee shall be born Christ, who shall be the Ruler of Israel, who according to the flesh is of the seed of David, but was born of Me before the worlds; and therefore it is written, His goings forth are of old. In the beginning was the Word.”

“Having foretold the nativity of Christ through the magi, here he inquires about the place of the nativity: and three things are set down: first, the motive for inquiring is set down; second, the inquiry is undertaken; third, the finding of the truth. The second is at "and gathering together"; the third at "but they said to him: in Bethlehem of Judea." The motive was the troubling of Herod; hence "hearing." And he pointedly calls Herod "king," in order to show that he was other than the king whom they were seeking. Now there was a threefold cause of the troubling. The first proceeded from the ambition which he had concerning the guarding of his kingdom, because he was a foreigner. For he knew, or had heard, that saying of Daniel 2:44: "in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people," and so on. But in this he was deceived, because that kingdom was spiritual; John 18:36: "my kingdom is not of this world." Hence Herod was troubled, fearing the loss of his kingdom; but the Devil was troubled still more, fearing the total destruction of his own kingdom; John 12:31: "now shall the prince of this world be cast out." And note that men, as Chrysostom says, who are set in high places are thrown into confusion by a light word spoken against them; Psalm 87:16 [88:15]: "but I am exalted, and am brought low and troubled"; whereas the humble never fear. The second cause proceeded from fear of the Roman empire. For it had been decreed by the Roman empire that no one should be called a god or a king without their consent; hence he was afraid. But this was a worldly fear, which is forbidden; Isaiah 51:12: "who art thou, that thou shouldst be afraid of a mortal man, and of the son of man, who shall wither away like grass?" The third proceeded from the blush of shame. For he was ashamed before the people that another should be called king; in this he is like Saul, who said: "I have sinned, but now honor me before the elders of my people, and before Israel," and so on, 1 Kings 15:30. But it is a marvel that there follows "and all Jerusalem with him." For it would seem that they ought to have rejoiced. But it should be known that they had a threefold cause of troubling. The first was their own iniquity; for they were wicked, to whom the manner of life of the just is always detestable. Proverbs 13:19 [LXX]: "fools detest those who flee from evils." The second, that they might please Herod; Ecclesiasticus 10:2: "as the judge of the people is, so also are his ministers." The third, because they feared lest Herod, upon hearing this, should rage still more furiously against the nation of the Jews. But mystically it is signified in this that this man was of the earth. Gregory: "the king of the earth was troubled, when the king of heaven was born, because assuredly earthly loftiness is confounded, when heavenly loftiness is disclosed." Isaiah 24:23: "the moon shall blush, and the sun shall be ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Sion, and in Jerusalem." And it is to be noted that, as Augustine says: "but what will the tribunal of the Judge be, when even the cradle of the infant terrified proud kings? Let kings fear him who sits at the right hand of the Father, whom an impious king feared while he was still sucking at his mother's breasts." "And gathering together." Here the inquiry is set down. And, as has been said, Herod was anxious to inquire, both on account of his kingdom and on account of fear of the Romans: hence he inquired after the truth. But to have certainty about anything, three things are required of those who inquire: for credence is given to a multitude, to authority, and to the learned. Hence he gathered together many people, both those having authority and the wise. And this is what he says: "gathering together all," as to the first, Wisdom 6:26 [24]: "a multitude of the wise is the welfare of the world." "The chief priests," as to the second; Malachi 2:7: "the lips of the priest keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth" (...). "And the scribes," as to the third: for it is said not merely with reference to writing, but to interpreting the Scripture of the law; through these indeed he wished to search out the truth. Ecclesiasticus 32:13 [9]: "in the midst of great men take not upon thyself to speak, and where there are ancients, speak not much." "He inquired of them where Christ should be born." The magi had called him king, but they themselves were seeking Christ: for they knew, from converse with the Jews, that the lawful king of the Jews was anointed. But it may be asked: either he himself believed the prophecy, or he did not. If he believed it, he knew that he could not be prevented from reigning; why then did he kill the children? If he did not believe it, why then did he inquire? But it must be said that he did not believe perfectly, because he was ambitious, and ambition renders a man blind. "But they said: in Bethlehem of Judea." Here the truth is found. And first the truth is set down; second its prophecy is confirmed, at "and thou, Bethlehem, land of Judah." And it should be known that Christ willed to be born in Bethlehem on account of three things. First, to avoid glory. For on account of this he chose two places: one in which he willed to be born, namely Bethlehem; the other in which he suffered, namely Jerusalem. And this is against those who seek glory, who wish to be born in exalted places, and are unwilling to suffer in a place of honor. John 8:50: "I seek not my own glory." Second, for the confirmation of his teaching, and the showing forth of his truth. For if he had been born in some great city, the power of his teaching could have been ascribed to human power; 2 Corinthians 8:9: "you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ." Third, to show that he was of the lineage of David; Luke 2:3 [4]: "Joseph and Mary went up to Bethlehem, to be enrolled there, because they were of the house and family of David." It suits the mystery also, because Bethlehem is interpreted "house of bread": and Christ is that living bread "which came down from heaven," John 6:51 [50-51]. Consequently the truth is confirmed. Hence: "and thou, Bethlehem," and so on. From this prophecy we might consider two things: for the magi were both announcing something and seeking something. And from this prophecy both are shown: for as to the first he says "and thou, Bethlehem"; as to the second he says "for out of thee shall come forth a leader." And thus the nativity of Christ is confirmed by a twofold testimony, namely of the star and of the prophecy, because "in the mouth of two or three witnesses is the truth"; Deuteronomy 19:15: "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word stand." And note that when all were unbelievers, bodily signs were given; when there were already believers, prophecy was given; 1 Corinthians 14:22: "wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers; but prophecies, not to unbelievers, but to believers." And it should be known that the Jews failed in two ways in the recitation of the prophecy. For there it is said "and thou, Bethlehem Ephrata," and again, whereas it says "thou art by no means the least" [here it is rendered otherwise]. And a twofold reason can be assigned for why they changed it. In one way it can be said that they did this out of ignorance. In another way it can be said that these men knowingly used other words. And they state the sense. For since Herod was a foreigner, he would not have understood the authority of the prophet, and therefore they said that which was known to Herod. Hence they say "land of Judah," and "thou art by no means the least," that is, thou art not the least among the thousands of the men of Judah; or "among the princes of Judah," that is, among the principal cities of Judah. "For out of thee shall come forth a leader who shall rule my people Israel." Concerning this leader we have Daniel 9:25: "unto Christ the leader"; and Psalm 30:5 [31:4]: "thou shalt be a leader to me": for he rules the people of Israel not only in the flesh, but also spiritually; Romans 11:1: "hath God cast away his people?" and so on. Psalm 79:2 [80:1]: "thou who rulest Israel, hearken, thou who leadest Joseph like a sheep." And note that they cut off the tail of the authoritative text, namely "and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity." By which is suggested that he was not to be an earthly king, but a heavenly one; which, had Herod known it, he would not have been impious. Hence they were the cause of the slaughter of those children. Likewise, from that same tail it is also clear that the interpretation of the Jews, who expound it of Zerubbabel, is false: because it does not fit him that "his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity." Likewise, he was born not in Judea, but in Babylon. Consequently, inquiry is made about the person of the one born, when he says: "then Herod, having privately called the magi, diligently learned of them the time of the star which appeared to them." And first the inquiry is set down; second the finding of the one sought, at "they found him," etc.; third the veneration of the one found, at "and falling down they adored him." To inquire about the person they were moved by two things: by the persuasion of Herod, and by the leading of the star. Hence, as to the first, the exhortation is set down; second, the diligence of the magi in following the star, at "who when they had heard the king, departed." As to the first, three things are set down: first he inquires the time; second he announces the place, at "and sending them into Bethlehem"; third he enjoins the office of inquiry, at "go, and diligently inquire concerning the child." He says therefore "then Herod." Here it must be considered that the Jews knew the place, but not the time. Hence they are confounded by the Lord, Luke 19:44: "because thou hast not known the time of thy visitation," and Isaiah 1:3: "the ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel hath not known me, and my people hath not understood." Therefore the time is inquired into. And Chrysostom says that the star had appeared to them two years before. Others, however, say that it appeared on the very day of the nativity. He announces the place, at "and sending." He enjoins the office of inquiry, at "go, and inquire," and so on. And he charges them with two things: and in order that they might fulfill this, he prefaces a third. As to the first he says "go," and so on. And he seeks insidiously in order to kill, like those to whom it is said, John 7:34: "you shall seek me, and shall not find me." As to the second he says: "and when you have found him, bring me word." And this too he said for an evil purpose; Ecclesiasticus 13:14 [12-13]: "by much talk he will tempt thee." As to the third he says: "that I also may come and adore him"; and indeed he deceitfully promises the worship of God; Jeremiah 9:8: "their tongue is a piercing arrow, it hath spoken deceit"; Psalm 27:3 [28:3]: "who speak peace with their neighbor, but evils are in their hearts." And note that whereas the magi were professing him king, this man calls him a child, because out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Note also that he asks of the Jews where Christ should be born, wishing to test and try whether they would rejoice. Consequently the diligence of the magi is set down. He had enjoined two things: that they should inquire, and that they should return; but the magi did only one of these. Hence: "who, when they had heard the king, departed." The other, however, they did not do. Such indeed ought hearers to be, that they learn the good things but leave aside the evil ones; below, 23:3: "what they say, do ye; but according to their works do ye not," and so on.”

“And thou Bethlehem in the land of Juda,.... This prophecy, which the chief priests and scribes produced, as pointing at the place of Christ's birth, is owned by both ancient and later Jews (y) to be a prophecy of the Messiah. The difference between Micah and Matthew is easily reconciled. Bethlehem is called by Micah, Bethlehem Ephratah, and by Matthew, Bethlehem in the land of Judah, and both were one and the same place. Bethlehem Ephratah was in the land of Juda, as appears from the prophecy of Micah itself, from Rut 1:2 and the Septuagint version of Jos 15:60 and is described in this manner by Matthew, partly to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in the land of Zebulun, Jos 19:15 and partly because its other name Ephratah was now disused, and so unknown to Herod, who was unacquainted with the books and prophecies of the Old Testament. Micah says this place was little among the thousands of Judah. Matthew says, "not the least". But in this is no apparent contradiction, it might be "little" and yet "not the least"; besides, it might be "little" and "not little", or "not the least" in different respects, and at different times; it might be little, mean, and contemptible as to worldly splendour, riches, number of inhabitants, pompous buildings, &c. and yet not be little or mean, when considered as the place of the birth of many great persons, such as Booz, Jesse, David, &c. and especially Christ. It might be little in Micah's time, and yet not in Matthew's; especially since it had received a considerable additional honour by Christ's being born there. Moreover, the words in Micah may be rendered, by way of interrogation, "art thou little, or the least?" To which the answer in Matthew is, "no, thou art not the least", &c. or else the word may be understood, and the text be translated thus; "it is a small thing that thou art among the thousands of Judah, for out of thee", &c. a great honour shall be conferred on thee, the Messiah shall spring from thee. Again, what Micah calls "thousands", are in Matthew called "princes"; the reason of this is, because the tribes of Israel were divided into thousands, and every thousand had its prince; so that though here is a difference in words, yet none in sense. What Micah styles "a ruler in Israel", Matthew expresses by "a governor that shall rule or feed my people Israel"; but in this there is no contradiction. Add to all this, that it should be observed, that the Evangelist is not giving a version of his own, but of the chief priests and scribes; and therefore was it ever so faulty, they, and not he, must be chargeable with it; for he has acted the part of a faithful historian in giving it in the words in which they cited it (z). (y) Targum Jon. Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Kimchi & Abendana in loc. Abarbinel Mashmia Jeshua, fol. 62. 2. R. Isaac Chizuk Emuna, p. 279. (z) See my book of the "Prophecies of the Messiah", &c. ch. 6. p. 104-116.”

“And thou Bethlehem, &c. This was a clear prophecy concerning the Messias, foretold by Micheas; (chap. v. 2,) yet the words which we read in the evangelist are not quite the same as we find in the prophet, either according to the Hebrew or to the Greek text of the Septuagint. The chief difference is, that in the prophet we read: And thou Bethlehem art little; but in the evangelist, thou art not the least. Some answer that the words of the prophet are to be expounded by way of an interrogation, art thou little? It is certain the following words, both in the prophet and in the gospel, out of thee shall come forth a leader or a captain, &c. shew that the meaning is, thou art not little. St. Jerome’s observation seems to clear this point: he tells us, that the Jewish priests, who were consulted, gave Herod the sense, and not the very words of the prophet; and the evangelist, as an historian, relates to us the words of these priests to Herod, not the very words of the prophet. (Witham) — The testimony of the chief priests proves that this text of Micheas was even then generally applied to the Messias, and that to Him alone it must be referred according to the letter. (Haydock)”

“Mich. V. 2 ; John vii. 4.2. The sacrcJ writers often quote the old Testament freely, giving the sense, without adhering strictly to the words. There is no negation in the prophet ; but the sense is the same, since Bethlehem was in itself of no consideration ; but when honored by the presence of our Lord, it became greater in dignity than the larger cities.”

“And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda--the "in" being familiarly left out, as we say, "London, Middlesex." art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, &c.--This quotation, though differing verbally, agrees substantially with the Hebrew and the Septuagint. For says the prophet, "Though thou be little, yet out of thee shall come the Ruler"--this honor more than compensating for its natural insignificance; while our Evangelist, by a lively turn, makes him say, "Thou art not the least: for out of thee shall come a Governor"--this distinction lifting it from the lowest to the highest rank. The "thousands of Juda," in the prophet, mean the subordinate divisions of the tribe: our Evangelist, instead of these, merely names the "princes" or heads of these families, including the districts which they occupied that shall rule--or "feed," as in the Margin. my people Israel--In the Old Testament, kings are, by a beautiful figure, styled "shepherds" (Eze 34:1-10, &c.). The classical writers use the same figure. The pastoral rule of Jehovah and Messiah over His people is a representation pervading all Scripture, and rich in import. (See Psa 23:1-6; Isa 40:11; Eze 37:24; Joh 10:11; Rev 7:17). That this prophecy of Micah referred to the Messiah, was admitted by the ancient Rabbins. The Wise Men Despatched to Bethlehem by Herod to See the Babe, and Bring Him Word, Make a Religious Offering to the Infant King, but Divinely Warned, Return Home by Another Way (Mat 2:7-12).”

“By cutting short the prophecy, they became the cause of the murder of the Innocents. For the prophecy proceeds, From thee shall go forth a King who shall feed My people Israel, and His day shall be from everlasting. Had they cited the whole prophecy, Herod would not have raged so madly, considering that it could not be an earthly King whose days were spoken of as from everlasting.”

“(non occ.) This latter half of the prophecy the Jews dropped; and other parts they altered, either through ignorance, (as was said above,) or for perspicuity, that Herod who was a foreigner might better understand the prophecy; thus for Ephrata, they said, land of Judah; and for little among the thousands of Judah, which expresses its smallness contrasted with the multitude of the people, they said, not the least among the princes, willing to shew the high dignity that would come from the birth of the Prince. As if they had said, Thou art great among cities from which princes have come.”