MICAH 2:12-13

If you scroll down you will immediately see that I apparently have found a lot to say regarding such a short and obscure passage. But that is just what one will get in trying to understand OT prophecies, as you will see from the variety of comments I collected on these randomly chosen verses in a brief survey of what is readily available on the internet.

One confusing feature about these seemingly hopeful words is that they come abruptly after nothing but negative oracles. This has prompted some to try to get around the “problem” in various ways.

1. No less a commentator as John Calvin thought it referred to the deportation of the Jews into exile, in better keeping with the negative tone of the first part of the chapter. This is decidedly a minority viewpoint.

2. Then there are a number of modern critics who feel that Micah is actually quoting the words of the false prophets he has mentioned just one verse earlier. Andersen and Freedman have definitively critiqued this view in their exhaustive commentary on Micah.

3. A third approach common with more liberal commentators is to say that these verses were added at a later time period after the fortunes of Israel started to look up. Typical of this view are Andersen and Freedman who state, “The unit is rightly suspected of being an oracle from that later period, added to update Micah to a time [exilic or post-exilic] when the judgments he spoke about were complete and a new future had to be faced.” But they also argue against those who would say that those verses could not have been added by Micah himself, as does Leslie Allen.

A second source of confusion comes from the imagery employed here. McConville states, “The imagery itself is hard to pin down.” As Andersen and Freedman note: “The language of vv 12-13 is vague enough to fit any situation in which a scattered people are gathered together again...” A consensus opinion is that Micah is presenting a sheep-shepherd metaphor in verse 12 (perhaps alluded to later in Luke 10:3) and a more military picture in verse 13. Other types of imagery are given below:

Although almost all commentators are in agreement that the Breaker is either Yahweh or His Messiah. A lone exception is Dake's Study Notes where the Breaker is identified as the Antichrist.

“'Passed through the gate' refers to the opening on the city wall that is ordinarily broken through , in order to make an entrance or to secure to a conqueror the power of entering in...But here the object is expressed, to go forth. Plainly then, they were confined before, as in a prison; and the gate of the prison was burst open, to set them free.” (Albert Barnes Notes)

“The idea of parets (“break”) is to break down the hedge, break down the wall, break through a barrier or retainer, break into the house of God, tear down the wall of Jerusalem...the Messiah breaks through every obstacle that stands in the way of Israel's restoration.” (MacKay)

Another understanding of “break” comes from bible-studys.org: “This is a reference to Israel's Messiah (Jesus), who will break down every obstacle between the people and their God. He will restore them, forgive their sins and implant within them a new heart.”

John Gill's Exposition says that the reference to a Breaker refers to Christ, “the first-born that opened the womb...both before and after the birth.”

Van Dam: “Yahweh is the breaker (pores) who will break through the enemy lines and go before his people, who will then break through (parsu) the gate into freedom.”

Ralph Smith's interpretation is that the breaking refers to God opening the doors to the besieged city of Jerusalem and letting those refuging there escape after the attack by the Assyrians.”

Archer: “The 'breaker' refers to God as Deliverer of His people from the prison-house of Babylonian captivity.”

The third source of disagreement among scholars involves the historical setting of these words. And this is closely entwined with how the imagery above is interpreted.

Robert Chisholm: “...the prophet looks beyond the coming judgment [Babylonian exile] to a more distant future and depicts Israel's eventual deliverance from exile.” “Others argue that it depicts the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem in 701 B.C. In this case it pictures the remnant of Judah being herded into Jerusalem, only to be released by the Lord as he attacks the enemy outside the city walls.” Chisholm gives his reasons for rejecting this view. David Clark and many others agree that the hope for Israel concerns release from the Babylonian captivity.

Ralph Smith: “Let us acknowledge that the passage is subject to various interpretations but try to understand that it is a message of hope from Micah to the refugees who fled to Jerusalem because of Sennacherib's invasion of Judah in 701 B.C.”

The last source of controversy over this small passage stems from different theological views held by the various commentators. This subject is treated much more thoroughly in my various lessons on the Book of Revelation, especially the one subtitled “Theological Stances.” However, here is a very brief summary of how different eschatological camps treat OT prophecies such as this one:

Post-millennial: Since there is little biblical justification for their rosy view of the future, they are not at all interested in understanding the implications of OT prophecy except from a historical viewpoint.

Preterist: Since they feel that all OT (and NT) prophecies were fulfilled by 70 AD, again these have little applicability for us today other than as examples of God's actions in the past.

Amillennial: The preferred interpretation is the one that has a reasonable fulfillment in the near term. However, some may be types of fulfillment in the future. The OT prophecies for the nation of Israel that were not fulfilled for them were either conditional on their obedience, referred spiritually to Christ, and/or to the true Israel, the church.

Historical Premillennial: Their treatment of OT prophecies is similar to that of the amillennialists, but they hold to some unspecified role for the ethnic Jews during the millennial period when Christ reigns on earth.

Dispensational: All of the OT prophecies applying to Israel are to be taken in a strictly literal sense, and therefore almost all of them have yet to be fulfilled. This will happen mainly during the millennial period when the temple is rebuilt and Jesus reigns over the Jews as an earthly king from Jerusalem. Any fulfillments in OT times are mere shadows of what is to come for the nation of Israel.

And then there are the more recent scholarly commentaries produced by those scholars from a wide variety of theological backgrounds, and which you will generally not find on the internet. They often spend what seems like an inordinate amount of time going into historical and linguistic details and may only hint at a future fulfillment or spiritual application.

With the above in mind, here are some additional comments on Micah 2:12-13 beginning with the most vague and ending with the most detailed. You may be able to figure out for some of them what their overall view of the future is:

George Eldon Ladd on the kingdom of God: “Although the nation as a whole is sinful and rebellious, God finally will save a repentant remnant.”

Matthew Henry: “...the chapter here concludes, as usual in the prophets, with promises of mercy, which were in part fulfilled when the Jews returned out of Babylon, and had their full accomplishment in the kingdom of the Messiah.”

Bible.org It refers to the restoration of the Davidic king who will lead his flock “out of the pen of the exile into a large pasture, where they run and jump with joy.”

Keil and Delitzsch: “The fulfillment of this prophecy will be at some future time when the Lord shall redeem Israel...out of the fetters of its unbelief and life of sin.” The deliverance of the Jews from the earthly Babylon was a type of what is to come.

John Phillips: “The Messiah...will clear out of their way the beast, the false prophet, and the massed armies of the world.”

Precepts Austin: “In the present context the “Breaker”...is none other than the King of the Jews, their long awaited Messiah, Who at His Second Coming returns first to the land of Edom and leads the remnant [of the Jews].” This may have come from John MacArthur, who uses almost the same words.

Dwight Pentacost, in discussing this and similar OT, describes the important place of Israel during the millennium beginning with Israel being first converted and restored to their land where they will be subjects of the King's reign.

J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, breaks down these two verses as follows:

    Micah 2:12 – refers to the regathering of Israel to Palestine after Cyrus' edicts.

    Micah 2:13a – fulfillment will be Christ's Second Coming.

    Micah 2:13b – fulfillment is “the rapture of the church so as to follow Christ's progress on earth and specifically to go in and go out at the gates of Jerusalem.”

Lastly, there are the comments found on the internet, mainly from scholars of an earlier generation or two (or more). Often in reading them, one is struck with how little attention they pay to either the original setting or any future fulfillment. Instead, they seem to jump ahead to spiritual interpretations of the passage:

    Maclaren: “He has broken our prison of sin, the captain of our life's march, the Breaker for us of the bands of death, and the One Who overturns and overthrows evil forever.”

    Enduring Word Bible Commentary: “In this office [as Breaker] He is the captain and leader of His people, advancing in front of His flock. We need a Breaker, a trailblazer for our life.”

    Pink: “The Breaker...has already broken down all obstacles that might seek to impede our spiritual journey to heaven!”

    Spurgeon: “Inasmuch as Jesus has gone up before us, things remain not as they would have been had He never passed that way. He conquered every foe that obstructed the way. Not only has Christ traveled the road, but He has slain all our enemies.”

The bottom line is that you almost have to decide in advance which school of interpretation and theology you wish to follow if you are to get any consistent picture from reading the OT prophets. Of the various eschatological viewpoints outlined above, I must admit that I feel the only viable ones are historical premillennialism and amillennialism. And they happen to be the most ancient views of Christianity also. Therefore I tend to approach OT prophecies to first understand the original setting; next the earliest adequate fulfillment, keeping in mind that most of them are written in poetry, not prose; and finally any possible fulfillment, literal or figurative, given in the NT writings. If there are no clear-cut explanations actually spelled out in the NT, then I tend not to be too dogmatic regarding the possible way in which they might come to pass in the future.