Micah 2:12-13

Micah 2:12-13 transpose us abruptly from the present corruption, facing imminent doom, to the distant future, when a remnant of the people carried into exile (3, 4) will be restored. On the surface the transition from Micah 2:11 to Micah 2:12 appears abrupt, but there is a real logical connection between the two verses. The people are ready to turn to a prophet who will promise pleasant things. This Micah cannot do; nevertheless his message is not one of unmitigated doom; he too has salvation to proclaim, though not for the immediate future or for all. Judgment, distress is all he sees ahead of him; all will be banished from the land. In exile the corrupt will be annihilated, but the loyal remnant, purified through suffering, will be assembled again by Jehovah; he himself will redeem it and restore it to its old home.

Jacob,… Israel Seem to be identical in meaning, denoting the whole nation; similarly “all” and “remnant” appear to be synonymous. The thought is one found in other prophetic utterances, that at the time of the restoration the present distinction between north and south will be obliterated, that the call will be extended to the whole nation, but that only a remnant will respond (Ezekiel 34:11-14). This remnant will be numerous, however, and noisy like a flock of sheep.

As the sheep of Bozrah If the text is correct the “sheep of Bozrah” must be regarded as a popular saying like “kine of Bashan” (Amos 4:1), alluding to Bozrah’s wealth in sheep (see on Amos 1:12). The suggestion that a Moabite city is meant here rather than the Edomite Bozrah has little in its favor. LXX. suggests a different translation; it read the same consonants that are contained in the Hebrew word for Bozrah, but evidently it took these consonants as representing two elements, the preposition “in” and the noun “affliction.” “In affliction” is not suitable here; still the reading of LXX. may indicate that “Bozrah” is not the original. The parallel line would lead one to expect here an expression similar to “in the midst of their fold.” There is a modern Arabic word meaning “sheep-stall,” containing the same consonants as the word “affliction” but different vowels, which is applied to the place in which the sheep are kept during the night to protect them against wild beasts. The corresponding Hebrew word may be intended here; the erroneous vocalization being due to the Masorites, who were more familiar with the proper noun Bozrah than with the common noun. With this change the sentence may be read, “I will put them together as sheep in the sheep-fold,” that they may be safe from all enemies.

Great noise Their numbers will be great; hence the noise made by them will be loud.

The gathering will take place before the actual deliverance; united, the remnant will be strong enough to overcome all obstacles and return to its old home.

The breaker The one who breaks down the obstacles and opens the way. If the picture of the flock is continued the expression is best understood as denoting the shepherd who opens the gate to let the sheep pass through; if, as is not impossible, the figure changes to that of an army, it denotes the captain who is to lead the host in triumph from exile. In either case the term is of Messianic import (see on Hosea 1:11).

Through the gate The land of exile is likened, in the one case, to a sheepfold; in the other, to a prison house. Through the gates the remnant will march in triumph on its way home. Broken up [“broken forth”]… passed through… gone out “The three verbs… describe in a pictorial manner progress which cannot be stopped by any human power”

Their king Before the returning host will go their king, Jehovah, as at the time of the Exodus (Exodus 13:21; compare Isaiah 52:12); Jehovah is not identical with the “breaker.”

The connection of Micah 2:12-13 with Micah 2:11 is not very close; the leap into the future appears to be abrupt. This abruptness is responsible for a great deal of discussion concerning these two verses. Some have held that the words were spoken not by Micah, but by the false prophets. This view is shown to be improbable by the following considerations: (1) The restoration of a remnant implies a carrying into exile, but the latter is the very thing the false prophets deny. (2) In Micah 2:12 Jehovah is the speaker “ I will assemble.” Would Micah introduce Jehovah as speaking through the prophets whom he condemns so severely? (3) The prophecy is a true prophecy; it is one which in essence is found in all the prophetic books (compare Micah 4:6). It is not likely that Micah would put a true prophecy into the mouth of a false prophet. Others consider the verses exilic or postexilic, and thus a later addition to the oracles of Micah. “They presuppose the exile and dispersion” (Wellhausen). However, it is by no means certain that the exile is presupposed as an actual fact. All the prophets seem to have penetrated the darkness of the present and the immediate future and to have seen, in a more distant era, a ray of light and glory. The modern tendency, which treats as later exilic or postexilic interpolations all passages in pre-exilic prophecies which promise a restoration, does not appear to be well founded (see pp. 35f.). It seems almost unthinkable that the prophets, with their lofty conception of Jehovah, should leave the nation in the despair of exile. If the existence of pre-exilic prophecies pointing to a restoration is granted, the only objection remaining against these verses is the looseness of connection with their context. This looseness of connection has led some to think that, while the words may be Micah’s, they are not in their original position. “The entire context leads me to expect after Micah 2:11 a return to and repetition of the threat of punishment, and there can be no question that the contrast between Micah 2:11, and Micah 3:1, is greatly weakened by these two verses. To deny them to Micah we have no reason, but it is possible that they may have been transposed from another context. Their original place might have been after Micah 4:8, preparing the way for chapter v, but separated from it by Micah 4:9-13, which verses look back to the present.” The only support, then, for this view is the seeming abruptness with which the prophet passes from denunciation to promise, and the interruption in thought between Micah 2:11, and Micah 3:1. The latter objection vanishes if chapter iii is taken as the beginning of a new section rather than as a continuation of chapter ii (see p. 384); the first loses much of its force if logical connection can be established between Micah 2:11, and Micah 2:12-13. The existence of such connection has already been pointed out in the beginning of the comments on Micah 2:12-13, and it seems close enough to warrant the belief that the verses are from Micah and that they are in their original place. It is not even necessary to suppose that the fall of Samaria occurred between the time when Micah 2:11, was uttered and the time when Micah 2:12-13, was spoken; the prophet simply looks beyond the exile announced in Micah 2:3-4.