The Old Testament in the Bible is said to predict things about Jesus before they
happened. For Christians, the Bible is really just all about Jesus.
Micah 5:2. In Bethlehem of Judea, will come one who had his origin from of old. In The Case for Jesus the Messiah we learn that quedem or from old “literally means from ‘ancient time, aforetime’ (page 74)”. Or it can mean from eternity.
New Testament Interpretation.
Predicts that Jesus will be born in Bethlehem. Matthew deliberately misquoted the verse in his gospel to make it a more convincing prediction about Jesus' birth at Bethlehem.
It would be very serious indeed if any gospel writer finds what can be read as a prophecy and then decides it must mean Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It would amount to writing a fictitious narrative around it.
The Truth.
Is it a prophecy or poetry? Why assume Micah is looking into the future rather than making a poetic musing about what could come? Why read a miracle or psychic ability where it is not needed?
Plus Micah was too vague. Somebody had to claim to be ruler and to be linked to Bethlehem at some point. It had to happen for David was supposedly anointed there as King and he was a totem for Jewish ideas of kingship. Micah was a mere fortune-teller if anything.
If the verse is not what Matthew says it is, then he proves that his gospel is just another book and not the word of God.
Matthew took the verse out of context to fool people who he thought would not check his scripture references out. And his ploy was sadly successful.
The prophecy is written in the context of a siege -
Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek (v1).
This is the line before the alleged prophecy.
The alleged prophecy says that when his mother gives birth to him the exiles of Israel
will come back to it which did not happen when Jesus was born (v3). This is the
line after.
Micah 5: 5,6. mentions that the man it is on about will use violence against the
Assyrians.
"And he shall be their peace. When the Assyrian comes into our land and treads in our palaces, then we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princes of men; they shall shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod at its entrances; and he shall deliver us from the Assyrian when he comes into our land and treads within our border."
Matthew, conveniently used an unreliable "translation" of the Bible the Septuagint.
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, being small among the clans of Judah, out of you one will come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."
Even worse, he altered the text to read that Bethlehem was not the least of the clans.
"And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel."
Matthew 2:1-6 (ESV) Christians say he was merely paraphrasing - that is a rationalisation. The man was changing the text and its meaning. It was a fraudulent rendering of Micah. Matthew says Micah said that the town was not the least and Micah said it was. There is a contradiction.
A real servant of God would actually use the correct version of scripture.
One might accept that Matthew made a mistake but in good faith if that was the only instance of a scripture misinterpretation. But Matthew also twisted a prophecy where God says he called his son out of Egypt as referring to Jesus being taken out of Israel temporarily to Egypt. The context is
The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols. Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk; I took them up by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of kindness, with the bands of love, and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws, and I bent down to them and fed them. They shall not return to the land of Egypt, but Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me. The sword shall rage against their cities, consume the bars of their gates, and devour them because of their own counsels. My people are bent on turning away from me, and though they call out to the Most High, he shall not raise them up at all.
Hosea 11:2-7 (ESV).
The son is not Jesus but Israel. If the text is not a direct prophecy of Jesus but has another level where Israel and Jesus mirror one another then the context demands that we regard Jesus as an idolater.
All Christians can say to the Micah problem is-
Matthew paraphrased Micah.
REPLY - Not true. And even if possible, it was unlikely as there are other examples of abuse of Old Testament texts.
The prophecy in context does not fit Jesus exactly but it fits him enough.
REPLY - That is not good enough. A prophet is able to predict the future by the power of God who knows all or he isn't.
Even if the prophecy does not fit Jesus, it doesn't matter. It means Jesus not on the literal level but on another level.
REPLY - You do not hear supporters of this view saying that psychics who prophesied death being cured in 2005 are to be taken on another level. The levels are sheer imagination. They prove a wish to believe even in spite of the truth. Using the double-meaning technique, one could prove just about anything - even that Madonna Louise Ciccone is the saviour.
If Christians study the issue and still can't see that the text is not a prophecy about Jesus then persist - part of them has to see the light.
The text says only that the man will come from Bethlehem and/or the clan associated with it. The clan reference widens the scope. The clan whose ancestral home was Bethlehem could have produced this child anywhere.
He will not necessarily be born in Bethlehem or in the clan - he just has to come from one of them - an adopted child would suffice.
Perhaps he will be anointed in Bethlehem as king - like David was. I think that is the best interpretation. Jesus notoriously was never anointed and thus only an imagined Messiah. He probably never saw himself as king.
Does it have to be literally in Bethlehem? The clan reference means that this person could be anointed anywhere by this clan who looked at Bethlehem as their spiritual home.
I am going to suggest something new in light of the Christian claim that some Saviour was expected to come and rise from the dead. If you accept that claim you get:
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, being small among the clans of Judah, out of you one will come forth to me [as in rising from the dead] that is to be ruler in Israel; [from the right hand of God in Heaven and who will come again to rule the world] whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."
Nobody wants to hear that. Jesus supposedly died and rose without a link to Bethlehem - this would need him to rise in the clan or in Bethlehem itself!
The man will have existed before he was born perhaps as an angel or something. The Bible does not make a difference between primary and secondary causes we are told - eg that is why it says that if evil happens God did it. That is seen as a mere language construct and not as accusing God of evil. So the man's existing before his being born could refer to how God planned him - not that he literally did live before birth.
The verse does not prove that "the figure must be God as he came from eternity which only God can do." The Bible never mentions eternity - the concept comes from Greek Philosophy. The verse then if it refers to eternity means it in the poetic sense of long ago.
Everything proves that Micah 5:2 is useless as a prophecy about Jesus.
BOOKS CONSULTED
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House,
Pennsylvania, undated
Are There Hidden Codes in the Bible? Ralph O Muncaster, Harvest
House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2000
Attack on the Bible, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro,
Tennessee, 1965
Bible Dictionary and Concordance, New American Bible, Catholic
Edition, CD Stampley Enterprises, Charlotte Enterprises, Inc, North
Carolina, 1971
Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982
Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1, Alpha, Scripture Press
Foundation, Bucks, 1995
God’s Word, Final, Infallible and Forever, Floydd C McElveen, Gospel
Truth Ministries, Grand Rapids, 1985
In Search of Certainty, John Guest, Regal Books, Ventura,
California, 1983
Jesus Hypotheses, V Messori, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1977
Science and the Bible, Henry Morris, Moody Press, Bucks, 1988
Science Speaks, Peter W Stoner, Robert C Newman, Moody Press,
Chicago, 1976
The Bible Code, Michael Drosnin, Orion, London, 2000
The Case for Jesus the Messiah, John Ankerberg Harvest House,
Eugene, Oregon, 1989
The Hard Sayings of Jesus, FF Bruce, Hodder & Stoughton, London,
1983
The Late Great Planet Earth, Hal Lindsay, Lakeland, London, 1974
The Signature of God, Grant R Jeffrey, Marshall Pickering, London,
1998
The Truth Behind the Bible Code, Dr Jeffrey Satinover, Sidgwick &
Jackson, London, 1997
The Truth of Christianity, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co
Ltd, London, 1905
The Unauthorised Version, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, Raymond E
Brown, Paulist Press, New York, 1973
Theodore Parker’s Discourses, Theodore Parker, Longmans, Green,
Rader and Dyer, London, 1876
Whatever Happened to Heaven, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene,
Oregon, 1988