Micah 5:1-5 The Messiah’s Humble, Glorious Work

Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ The Redeemer Church of Manhattan, KS, 6 October 2024

Introduction

v. 1 – The Attack Against God’s People And Their Leader

v. 2 The Coming of Messiah

v. 3 Intermission: Exile to Advent

vs. 4-5 Future Blessings Under Messiah’s Leadership



Micah 5:1-6 Side-by side comparison of versionsA

DouayB (Vulgate)

Mat. 2:6 GNT

LXXC

BrentonD (Vaticanus)

KJVE

NAW

Masoretic HebrewF

1 Now shalt thou be laid waste, O daughter of the robber: they have laid siege against us, with a rod shall they strike X the cheek of the judge of Israel.


4:14 νῦν ἐμφραχ­θήσεταιG θυγάτηρ [Εφραιμ ἐν] φραγμῷ, συνοχὴν ἔταξεν ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς, ἐν X ῥάβδῳ πατάξ­ουσιν ἐπὶ σιαγόνα τὰς φυλὰςH τοῦ Ισραηλ.

1 Now shall the daughter [of SionI] be completely hedged in: he has laid siege against us: they shall smite the tribes of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

1 Now X gather thyself [in troops], O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

1 Now you will be robbed daughter of robbers; {they} have laid a siege against us! With the rod they make a strike against the Judge of Israel on the cheek.

(יד) עַתָּה תִּתְגֹּדְדִיJ בַת גְּדוּד מָצוֹר שָׂםK עָלֵינוּ Lבַּשֵּׁבֶט יַכּוּ עַל הַלְּחִיM אֵת שֹׁפֵטN יִשְׂרָאֵל.

2 And thou Bethlehem Ephrata, X art a little one among the thous­ands of Juda, out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.

καὶ σὺ Βηθλέεμ,
γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα· ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσ­εται [ ] ἡγούμεν­ος, [ ] ὅστις [ ] ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ

1 Καὶ σύ, ΒηθλεεμO [οἶκος] τοῦ Εφραθα, ὀλιγοστὸς εἶP τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ιουδα· ἐκ σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύ­σεται τοῦ εναι εἰς ἄρχοντα ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ, καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος.

2 And thou, Bethleem, [house of] Ephratha, art few [in number] to be [reck­oned] among the thousands of Juda; [yet] out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning, [even] from X eternity.

2 But thou, Bethle­hem Eph­ratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; X whose goings forth have been from of old, from ev­erlast­ingX.

2 But as for you, Bethlehem Ephratah, little though you be among the precincts of Judah, from you will go forth for me one who is to be Ruler in Israel, indeed His goings-forth have been from of old – since the days of eternity.

(א) וְאַתָּהQ בֵּית לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָהR צָעִיר לִהְיוֹתS בְּאַלְפֵיT יְהוּדָה מִמְּךָ לִי Uיֵצֵא לִהְיוֹת מוֹשֵׁל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם.

3 There­fore will he give them up even till the time wherein she that travaileth shall bring forth: and the rem­nant of his brethren shall [be] convert[ed] to the child­ren of Israel.


2 διὰ τοῦτο δώσει αὐτοὺς ἕως καιροῦ τικτούσης τέξεται, καὶ οἱ ἐπίλοιποι τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶνV ἐπιστρψ­ουσιν ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς Ισραηλ.

3 There­fore shall he appoint them to wait till the time of her that trav­ails: she shall bring forth, and then the remnant of their breth­ren shall return to the child­ren of Israel.

3 There­fore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the rem­nant of his brethren shall return unto the child­ren of Israel.

3 Therefore He will extend them until the time the birthing-woman has given birth, then the remnant of His brothers will return in addition to the sons of Israel.

(ב) לָכֵןW יִתְּנֵםX עַד עֵת יוֹלֵדָה יָלָדָה וְיֶתֶר אֶחָיו יְשׁוּבוּןY עַלZ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

4 And he shall stand, and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the height of the name of the Lord, his God: and they shall be con­verted, for now shall he be magnified even to the ends of the earth.


3 κα στ­σεται [καὶ ὄψεταιAA] καὶ ποιμανεῖ [τὸ ποίμν­ιον αὐτοῦ] ἐν ἰσχύι κυρίουAB, [καὶ] ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ ὀνόματος κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτῶν ὑπ­άρξουσινAC διότι νῦν μεγαλυν­θήσεται ἕως ADκρων τῆς γῆς.

4 And the Lord shall stand, [and see], and feed [his flock] with power, and they shall dwell in the glory of the name of the Lord their God: for now shall they be magni­fied to the ends of the earth.

4 And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majes­ty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

4 Then he will stand and shepherd in the strength of Yahweh, in the majesty of the name of Yahweh His God, and they will {be returned} because now He will be great unto the ends of the earth!

(ג) וְעָמַד וְרָעָהAE בְּעֹז יְהוָה בִּגְאוֹן שֵׁם יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו וְיָשָׁבוּAF כִּי עַתָּה יִגְדַּל עַד אַפְסֵי אָרֶץ.

5 And this man shall be [our] peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land, and when he shall set his foot in our hous­es: and we shall raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.


4 καὶ ἔσται αὕτη εἰρήνη· ὅταν Ἀσσύριος ἐπέλθῃ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν μῶν καὶ ὅταν ἐπιβῇ ἐπὶ τν χώρανAG μῶν, καὶ ἐπεγερθή­σονταιAH ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν ἑπτὰ ποιμένες καὶ ὀκτὼ δήγματαAI ἀνθρώπων·

5 And she shall have peace when Assur shall come into your land, and when he shall come up upon your countryX; and there shall be raised up against him seven shepherds, and eight attacks of men.

5 And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.

5 And this one will be peace! As for Assyrian, when he comes into our land and when he steps into our compounds, then we will erect against him seven shepherds and eight anointed by men.

(ד) וְהָיָה זֶה שָׁלוֹם אַשּׁוּרAJ כִּי יָבוֹא בְאַרְצֵנוּ וְכִי יִדְרֹךְ בְּאַרְמְנֹתֵינוּ וַהֲקֵמֹנוּ עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה רֹעִים וּשְׁמֹנָה נְסִיכֵיAK אָדָם.



1Keil asserted that the lack of a vav conjunction before this “now” meant it was disjunctive, which I can agree with, but he concluded that it had to be the same point in time as the “now” of v.9 (which also has no vav conjunction), but I believe it is the same point in time as the “now” in v. 10 (which also has no vav conjunction). Interestingly, the “now” in 5:3 also does not have a vav conjunction, and I believe it marks a third point in time – the Messianic age.

2Gilby, Keil, Calvin, Waltke (and others) agreed that this is addressed to Jerusalem, but there are other commentators who interpreted these two words describing the character and action of Israel’s enemies, in other words, God commanding Assyria (Isaiah de Trani) or Babylon (Rashi, Owen), and even Rome (Marckius) to mobilize against Jerusalem.

3Probably following 18th Century Jewish commentator Metsudath David. Keil, however, was emphatic that it “does not mean here to scratch one’s self or make incisions… but… people pressing anxiously together.”

4cf. Anthony Gilby “Nowe shalte thou be compassed with garisons, thou doughter of garysons” and Calvin, “‘Thou shalt be collected, O daughter of collection.’ … ‘You have been hitherto… without a cause oppressive to others: the time then is come when the Lord will return to you your recompense.’ As Isaiah says, ‘Woe to thee, plunderer! Shalt thou not also be exposed to plunder?’ Isaiah 33:1”

52 Kings 15:30 “Then Hoshea the son of Elah led a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and struck and killed him; so he reigned in his place in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.” (NKJV)

6Waltke saw this as the main horizon of fulfillment, but doing so requires a strangely-figurative interpretation of “striking” and ignoring of the “giving up” and the “return” also in the passage.

7Jer. 29:21 “Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, concerning Ahab the son of Kolaiah, and Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah, who prophesy a lie to you in My name: Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he shall slay [strike] them before your eyes.” (NKJV)

8בּקע (“broken open”) – a synonym, I think, to Micah’s words גּדד (“robbed” also translated “formed troops”) in v.1 and חנף (“defiled/penetrated”) in 4:11.

9This is by no means the only interpretation. Isaiah da Trani identified it with Rabshaqah’s insults toward King Hezekiah, Rashi identified it with the way the Jews mistreated the prophets, Rachi identified it with Gog & Magog in the future, Metsudath David identified it with the mistreatement of Jewish exiles in Babylon (Lam. 3:30). Keil agreed with me, interpreting the Judge as the King, and noting that the only way anyone could get away with such a terrible affront as a faceblow to the king would be if that king were overthrown. He commented, “The principal fulfilment occurred in the Chaldaean period; but the fulfilment was repeated in every succeeding siege of Jerusalem until the destruction of the city by the Romans.” (Gilby also advocated multiple horizons of fulfillment.)

10Matthew’s verbs are ἐκολάφισαν ... ἐρ[ρ]άπισαν, both synonyms to πατάξουσιν (“struck”) in the LXX of Micah 5:1.
Compare with the synonyms used in the LXX of Isaiah 53:5 ἐτραυματίσθη... μεμαλάκισται.

11This could also be expressing derivation, such as in Jer. 30:21 “...their governor shall come out from their midst...”

12cf. 1 Sam. 16:1 “...Yahweh said to Samuel, ‘...I'm sending you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have noticed among his sons a king for myself!’” (NAW)

13This word is plural in the Masoretic Hebrew and Septuagint Greek Bibles, as well as in the only Dead Sea Scroll where this phrase is legible, but it is singular (“his going”) in the Latin Vulgate, Peshitta, Targums, and in a couple of Hebrew manuscripts. Calvin was adamant that it should be read as singular, but whether this refers to one or all of the many comings of the second person of the Trinity amply proved by my scripture citations, is immaterial.

14cf. Prov. 8:22-23 which use the same words to denote eternal time before the creation of the world. Even the Midrash (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 3) and Talmud (Pes. 54A, Ned. 39b) assert the same of the meaning of Micah’s phrase, but do not attribute it to Jesus.

15Dan. 9:26; John 6:14, 11:27, 12:13; Rev. 1:4, 1:8, 4:8; 11:17; etc.
cf. Adam Clarke: “In every age from the foundation of the world, there has been some manifestation of the Messiah...”

16Thus did Calvin, but Keil disagreed flatly, saying it was “to give greater solemnity to the address.” Other citations equating Bethlehem with Ephratah are Ruth 4:11 & Judges 17:7.

17Gilby: “[I]t was able to make but a small noumber in the musters and taxes when the people were noumbred by... thousandes…” Calvin called them “tribunes” and “prefectures.”

18Answering the objection that Matthew 2:6’s quote contradicts Micah’s description of “smallness,” Calvin commented, “Matthew had regards to the condition of the town Bethlehem, such as it was at the coming of Christ. It then indeed began to be eminent: but the Prophet represents here how ignoble and mean a place Bethlehem then was...”

19“-ל is used with a strong value for the direction, the aim, the purpose of an action.” ~JOÜON/MURAOKA Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, P. 405.

20“There is no doubt but that the Prophet... recalls the attention of the faithful to the promise which had been given to David.” ~J. Calvin

21“King of/in/over Israel” occurs frequently in the O.T. history of the Israelite Monarchy, but perhaps Micah chose a different word to distinguish between the reigning human kings and the Messiah. Interestingly, the OT messianic archontos Israel (“ruler of Israel”) or hegoumenos Israel (“leader of Israel”) drops off in the NT and seems to be replaced by “King of Israel” and “King of the Jews” (Mat. 2:2; 27:11,29,37; Mark 15:2,9,12,18,26; Luke 23:3,37,38; John 18:33,39; 19:3,19,21), perhaps because there was no longer any risk of confusing the reigning kings (like Herod) with the Messiah.

22cf. Mark 15:32. Basileus (“king”) is used in all of these passages.

23Gilby, typical of the multiple horizon approach to interpreting prophecy, also saw its fulfillment in the Roman occupation of Jerusalem.

24Cross-references on the return from captivity: Isa. 11:11, Jer. 30:3, Ezek. 37:21, Amos 9:9, Mic. 2:12, 4:7, & 5:7-8.

25Theodoret, Vitringa, and Calvin flatly denied this (perhaps due to concerns of Mariolitry), but Cyril, Newcomb, Owen, Ewald, Hitzig, Keil, Waltke, and most others at least include the physical birth of Jesus in the fulfillment.
Cf. the connections between the arrival of the Messiah and birth in Isaiah 7:14, 9:9:6, and 49:5.

26ESV incorrectly translates “people,” but the sense is still not destroyed by this error.

27Anthony Gilby commented, “Neither may it trouble any scrupulous conscience that ye prophet nameth him ‘his god’ for so sayth Christe that his father did giue him... forme and shape of manne...”

AMy original chart includes the following copyrighted English versions: NASB, NIV, ESV, Bauscher’s version of the Peshitta, and Cathcart’s version of the Targums, but I remove these columns from my public, non-copyrighted edition of this chart so as not to infringe on their copyrights. NAW is my translation. When a translation adds words not in the Hebrew text, but does not indicate it has done so by the use of italics or greyed-out text, I put the added words in [square brackets]. When one version chooses a wording which is different from all the other translations, I underline it. When a version chooses a translation which, in my opinion, either departs too far from the root meaning of the Hebrew word or departs too far from the grammar form of the original text, I use strikeout. And when a version omits a word which is in the original text, I insert an X. I also place an X at the end of a word if the original word is plural but the English translation is singular. I occasionally use colors to help the reader see correlations between the various editions and versions when there are more than two different translations of a given word. The only known Dead Sea Scrolls containing Micah 5 are 4Q81 containing parts of verses 2-3 and dated between 175-50BC, 4Q82 containing parts of verses 7-8 and dated between 30-1 BC, The Nahal Hever Greek scroll, containing parts of vs. 2-7 and dated around 25BC and the Wadi Muraba’at Scroll, containing parts verses 1-2 & 6-13 and dated around 135 AD. Where the DSS is legible and in agreement with the MT, the MT is colored purple. Where the DSS supports the LXX/Vulgate/Peshitta with omissions or text not in the MT, I have highlighted with yellow the LXX and its translation into English, and where I have accepted that into my NAW translation, I have marked it with {pointed brackets}.

BDouay Old Testament first published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609, Revised and Diligently Compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner, Published in 1582, 1609, 1752. As published on E-Sword.

C“Septuagint” Greek Old Testament, edited by Alfred Rahlfs. Published in 1935. As published on E-Sword.

DEnglish translation of the Septuagint by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, 1851, “based upon the text of the Vaticanus” but not identical to the Vaticanus. As published electronically by E-Sword.

E1769 King James Version of the Holy Bible; public domain. As published electronically by E-Sword.

FFrom the Wiki Hebrew Bible https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%94_%D7%91/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA .
DSS text comes from https://downloads.thewaytoyahuweh.com

GAccording to Fields, all the other Greek versions read “you will be wasted, daughter of robbers,” although he quotes a different verb from Symmachus “have labor contractions” (ωδινησουσι).

HThis could come from mistaking the MT word “judge” שפט for שבט (“tribe”). Second Century AD Greek translators Aquilla, Symmachus, and Theodotion each supported the MT tradition with κριτην (“judge”).

ILXX actually reads “of Ephraim,” but this is an insertion not in any other manuscript. The Vaticanus manuscript from which Brenton made his Greek-English translation reads like the MT without this insertion. It does not harm the meaning because the word “daughter” is regularly associated with Jews in Jerusalem in Micah (which may be why he rendered it “Zion” instead of “Ephraim”).

JThis verb only occurs 7 other times: 5 in contexts parallel to “shaving bald” and “bleeding” (Deut. 14:1; 1 Ki. 18:28; Jer. 16:6; 41:5; 47:5, and 2 in different contexts as follows: Ps. 94:21 (parallel with condemning someone, and done against the life of the righteous) and Jer. 5:7 (done by plurality of men committing adultery in a prostitute’s house).
Westminster Morphology labels it as Qal Passive Imperfect, and BDB definitions for Qal are: “penetrate, cut... attack… make inroads” (cf. Holladay: “band together against”). On the other hand, Davidson’s Analytical Lexicon, Beall/Banks/Smith Parsing Guide, Waltke, and the OSHB Morphology labeled this verb as Hithpolel Imperfect. Holladay defined the Hithpolel meaning as “inflict cuts on oneself” (cf. BDB “1. cut oneself… 2. gather in troops… bands... throngs…”).
The Targums and practically every English version rendered it “gather/band together/muster” (except the NET Bible, which went with “slash yourself”). The ancient versions all went with “attack/rob,” although they are split between the passive “be attacked” (Vulgate and LXX) and active “rob” (Peshitta). All the English versions translate as though this verb is imperative, but the spelling is not imperative; all the ancient versions correctly translate it as a future indicative (“you shall...”).
Although one of the Targums interpreted it of gathering together after the “dispersion,” clearly it is in parallel with the siege – cf. 4:11 “But for now, many nations have been assembled against you, who are saying, ‘Let her be breached, then let our eyes look into Zion!’” It’s also parallel to “daughter of robbers/troops,” so a good translation needs to find an English root that can describe what will happen to Jerusalem in the siege as well as the character of the Jews in Jerusalem. The noun form is used to describe Israel in only one other place in the Bible (although it is also used to describe David’s outlawed band), and that is in Hosea 6:9-7:1, in parallel with murderers and thieves, which matches the character of the Jews depicted in the previous two chapters of Micah. Conversely, Keil translated it “crowd together.”

KAs it is in the MT, the word “siege” is emphatic, but it could be the subject or the object of “laid.” All the ancient versions make “siege” the object (e.g. accusative case in the LXX), not the subject, and the Geneva, KJV, NASB, and NLT follow suit. Vulgate, Peshitta and Targums (followed by NASB) all render the verb plural, but LXX agrees with the singular verb in the MT. There is no legible DSS to cross-reference.

LThe word “rod” is definite. It is “the” rod, and “the rod” refers to corporal discipline (Ex. 21:20, Prov. 23:13-14 – although the rod was to be administered “to the backside,” not the face – Prov. 10:13 cf. parallel passage in Isa. 10:24 parallel with “‎ מַטֵּ֥ה/staff” and 30:31), to the shepherd’s rod (used for counting: Lev. 27:32/Ezek 20:37, as a weapon: 2 Sam 23:21, and for threshing: Isaiah 28:27), and to the “tribe” (Deut. 1:23, Josh. 7:14, etc.).

MIn the rest of the HOT, adversaries “struck” others on the “cheek” in Deut. 18:3; Jdg. 15:9, 14-17, Ps. 3:8; Isa. 50:6; Lam. 3:30; and in the NT, there’s Matt. 5:39/Lk. 6:29 (Jesus’ instruction to “turn the other cheek” sigona when “struck” rhapisei). The GNT does not pair the LXX translation of Micah’s word for “strike” (pataxousin) with any blow to the face. Cf. Mat. 26:67 (Jesus “struck” ekolafisan in the “face” proswpon) Acts 23:2 (Paul “struck” tuptein on “mouth” - stoma).

NVulgate and Targums follow the MT with “judge,” but Peshitta curiously has‎ רעיא (“shepherd” – cf. v.4), and LXX reads “tribes,” although Aquilla, Symmachus, and Theodotion all support the MT tradition with κριτην (“judge”). Cohen suggests this unusual word for “king” shophet was chosen as a word play with shevet (“rod”).

ONahal Hever Greek manuscript from 25BC translates the “Beth” of “Bethlehem” as “house” but drops out the “lehem.” But since it keeps the other name Efratha, referring to the same place by an older name (Gen. 48:7), there is no conflict in meaning with the traditional text. LXX, on the other hand, as often is the case, provides both a place name transliteration (“Bethlehem”) and also a translation (“house” – dropping out the “lehem/bread”) whereas the Hebrew MT, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, and Targum just provide the one word “Bethlehem.” GNT does the same in Matt. 2:6, not following the LXX with the extra word “house.” Matt. 2:6 is clearly a separate translation of Micah with many different, but synonymous words and phrasing.

PNahal Hever does not use this particle (or the εις later in this verse before αρχοντα, and it uses the preposition αφ’ instead of the LXX εξ at the end before ‘ημερων), but maintains the same meaning as LXX, so LXX is not a copy of N.H. but a separate translation, but both are translations of the same ultimate source.

Qcf. 4:8 which starts with the same word. Keil commented that the masulines here for “you,” “little,” and “from you” all relate to the “inhabitants” of the “little town.” (“Thousands” is masculine in Hebrew here.)

RWhereas the ancient versions transliterated this word, the New Testament quote of it in Matthew 2 paraphrases as “land of Judah.”

SMost versions translate with Bethlehem as the subject of this infinitive of the verb of being, but the Peshitta translates with the “clans/thousands” as the subject (“little of those who are among the thousands…”), which also works.

TLiterally “thousands,” but in reference to the Jewish national structure, equates to the clan level of government. Matthew’s paraphrase renders it “leaders.”

UThe word before this Hebrew word in DSS 4Q81 is לא (“not”). No other manuscript negates this verb, not even the other DSS containing this part of the verse (Nahal Hever). Since the previous word in the traditional Hebrew is לי (“to me”), and since several words before לא in 4Q81 are obliterated, it seems most likely that it is an archaic spelling (or a misspelling) of the word לי found in the MT. Curiously, the Peshitta drops this word out, and the Gospel of Matthew translates it “for” as though the Hebrew were כי instead of לי.

VAlthough the Targum supports this plural, the MT, Vulgate, and Peshitta are singular, and Aquilla, Symmachus, and Theodotion also all translated it singular in their Greek versions.

WGrotius = “Surely,” Dathius = “Truly,” Scott and Owen = “Nevertheless,” Caspari and Keil = “Therefore”
Keil explained that the loss of the kingship from Jerusalem is the reason that God “therefore” is going to have to reboot the Davidic dynasty from Bethlehem.

XThe nearest precedent plural noun nearby is “days” - which could be “extended/given,” but I didn’t find any commentator who deviated from applying “them” to the Jews, a.k.a. “daughter of troops… us… you Bethlehem… the birthing-woman… sons of Israel… they will dwell...”

YCuriously, the Vulgate and Peshitta read passive “be converted/turned” but it is active in LXX, Nahal Hever, and Targums. The paragogic nun suffixing this verb could merely be a matter of euphonics to elide with the subsequent ayin, or it could be a reassuring tone to further certify this good news.

ZWaltke quoted Renaud in saying that “The formula yswbwn’al ‘to return upon’ expresses the idea of coming back to a prior state…” Keil, however, made a more-convincing case that this should be interpreted in the sense of “upon” – “with” (“on top of/in addition to”) citing Jer. 3:18 in support: “In those days the house of Judah shall walk with [על] the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given as an inheritance to your fathers.” In other words, God is not saying that Samaria will become the Messianic capitol and that the Judaites will all go “to” Israel but that those from the exiled south and north will return together “with/in addition to” each other.

AALXX waxed paraphrastic here, adding “and watch… his flock,” which is not in the MT or N.H. or Vulgate or Peshitta or even the Targums, but which does not change the meaning at all. It’s possible that there was some question in the mind of the LXX translator whether the Hebrew word was ראה (“watch”) or רעה (“feed/shepherd”), but there was no such question in the minds of the other ancient translators.

ABNahal Hever used the paleo-hebrew letters to spell the Hebrew name for YHWH rather than using the substitute word “lord” which the LXX translators and New Testament writers employed for the divine Name. Brenton mistakenly made “Lord” the nominative in his translation instead of the accusative.

ACN.H. = επιστραφησονται (“be converted”), Sym. = κατοικησουσι (“residing”)

ADN.H. translated with the synonym περατων, but Symm. went with a more temporally-related end with εσχατου (“last”).

AEcf. Micah 7:14.

AFNahal Hever, Vulgate, Targums, and Peshitta all translated as though the Hebrew root were שוב (“turn/convert”), but LXX, Symmachus, and English versions translated as though the root were ישב (“dwell”). “Be turned” is probably the older and most traditional translation. (The NIV and ESV paraphrastically added the word “secure[ly].”)

AGBHS suggested that the third letter, resh, when read as the very similar-looking letter daleth instead (or perhaps trilled by a lector and mistaken for the sound of a daleth) could have been translated “ground/land” as the LXX did. N.H. reads βαρ--- (dashes represent illegible letters) referring to something “expensive/heavily-built/weighty.”

AHN.H. (επεγερουμεν) is active, 1p, like the MT, Vulgate, Peshitta, and Targums.

AILXX follows the homonym נשׁך (“bite”) rather than what is written in the MT נסך (“outpouring/prince”). This is not the first time in Micah that the LXX has confused the word in the MT for a different word which sounds the same but does not look the same. This could be evidence of the LXX translator translating as he listened to someone reading rather than reading the Hebrew for himself. The earlier Nahal Hever Greek translation does not suffer from this problem; it translates with the word αρχοντας (“rulers”) followed by Theodotian (αρχηγους). Αquilla, however, translated it καθεσταμενους (“antagonists”) and Symmachus χριστους (“Anointed ones” – closest to the MT) – all of which are persons rather than an impersonal “attack” as per the LXX.

AJScott and M. Henry, followed by Owen saw Assyria primarily as a symbol of “the enemies of the Christian church.”

AKRare word only here and Josh. 13:21; Ps. 83:12; Ezek. 32:30; Dan. 11:8 (and Deut. 32:38 describing drink offerings), denoting those who had had oil poured over them to anoint them for an office.

2