Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Micah

[Dawood]

Lots of people think Micah 5:2 says the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem.

FALSE. Where does Micah 5 mention a "Messiah"?

Furthermore, where does it say anyone will be born in Bethlehem the CITY?

It says someone will be born "of the clan of Bethlehem Ephratah" meaning the clan most closely associated with Bethlehem, but NOT that the person will actually be born in Bethlehem the city. (Look at other tanslations than only the KJV if you don't believe me.)

It means someone will be born of David's clan, a descendant of David.

It also says this person will be a governor or ruler of Israel, not the whole world (so the post-biblical legendary Messiah concept is not here).

It says in verse 6 he will defend the land against Assyrian attacks.

This is a poem aggrandizing Zorobabel after the fact, pretending to have predicted his birth.

Zorobabel, the son of the king Jehoiakim who was captured and taken to Babylon. Z was born in Babylon, as his name (trans. Seed of Babel) also means. So not born in Bethlehem the city, but being the son of the Judean king, he was of the royal David stock, thus born "of the clan of Bethlehem Ephratah."

And Z was indeed governor of Israel when it was the province of Judea under the Babylonian empire.

And Z defended the land against Assyrian attacks when he and Nehemiah and Ezra were trying to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. See the books of Nehemiah and Ezra.

So this is about Zorobabel, not the post-biblical Messiah legend.

[jimwalton]

Thank you for your thoughtful questions. Let's talk about them.

You are right that Micah 5.2 doesn't mention a messiah (using the Hebrew term). It says that a ruler of Israel from the line of David will be born.

"Bethlehem Ephratha" is both a town and a clan reference. Bethlehem was a small town about 6 miles south of Jerusalem, but the double place name ("Bethlehem Ephratha") reflects a tribal (clan) distinction within the Bethlehem community. The reference is linking this ruler to David's household (and therefore David's clan of Judah) rather than to a geographical site such as Jerusalem.

The reference gives insight into the evolving clan structure of Israel in the 8th c. BC. "Ephrathah" is a clan name claimed by some of the inhabitants of Bethlehem. The town and clan are not the same, although at times one was used as shorthand for the other. David is repeatedly referred to as an Ephrathite (1 Sam. 17.12; Ruth 1.2, 4.11) to show a clan affiliation.

The prophecy is that this ruler would be born in Bethlehem of the clan of David.

Micah says this king will drive back Assyria, which is an odd reference. Since Micah was writing in about 700 BC, we would expect him speak of the king conquering Babylon. But there was no immediate fulfillment of this prophecy, so we look to some future fulfillment to which Micah must have been referring. But since the prophecy of "David" domination was unconditional, the prophecy is surely for the future since it was not for the present.

Therefore the references to Assyria are figurative. Israel never conquered Assyria. Since the northern kingdom of Israel had recently been exiled by Assyria, it was a powerful image and symbol of nations hostile to God and oppressive to God's people. Such a prophecy pertained to the distant future, and "Assyria" was now an archetype. (The prophet Zechariah also used "Assyria" as an archetypal symbol.)

Then the text mentions "whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." This is yet another reference to a fulfillment other than in Micah's context. Though David's dynasty will eventually come to an end, it will rise again in this ruler. A legitimate fuller sense and deeper meaning of the prophecy is that this ruler will be associated with God from the beginning of time (Ps. 2.7; 110.1). It gives the definite sense of a ruler who transcends time—who has sprung from eternity.

Though the term "messiah" is not used, the Jewish scholars and rabbis understood it as a messianic prophecy. There was a common Jewish conclusion that the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem and the seed of David (Matthew 2.5; John 7.42).

So your reference to and conclusion that the text really refers to Zerubbabel has much less to support it and far more problems that plague such an interpretation.

1. You reduce the text to only pretending.
2. Zerubbabel was not born in Bethlehem, but only of the clan of Judah (Ephrathite).
3. Zerubbabel was not a ruler of Israel but instead governor of the small province of Yehud.
4. I believe that your mention of Zerubbabel defending the land against Assyrian attacks in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah is anachronistic and false. The Assyrians were a non-entity by then. You'l have to substantiate this claim.

Therefore the case for Micah referencing the Messiah is stronger than the case for Zerubbabel.

[Dawood]

> Micah says this king will drive back Assyria, which is an odd reference. Since Micah was writing in about 700 BC, we would expect him speak of the king conquering Babylon.

Babylon made Zorobabel governor of Judea and gave him the funds to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, as well as were allowing certain numbers of Jews to return and repopulate the land, so they became the good guy.

But the Assyrians who Babylon also was allowing to repopulate areas adjacent to Israel tried to prevent the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls, and Zorobabel dealt with them. Anyone who has read Ezra-Nehemiah many times should know this.

In any case, since its obvious there is no way this text is prophecying Jesus, you say:

> Therefore the references to Assyria are figurative.

Protestants returning to a Catholic trick rejected at the Reformation, because they can't handle that it turns out the New Testament is false and built on misinterpretation after misinterpretation of the Old Testament.

> Zerubbabel was not a ruler of Israel but instead governor of the small province of Yehud.

This is silly; at that time all Israel was was the Babylonian province of Judea, because of the Babylonian captivity. He was governor of the entirety of Israel, because as governor of the province of Judea he was also essentially exilarch (leader even of the exiles who were still in Babylon). Also, the possible dishonesty here in your attempt to make a distinction between governor and ruler, as surely if you are educated in biblical languages and history of biblical times you must know the Hebrew nasi translates both to ruler and governor, and that back in those days a governor was not like a governor is in America today, but was a king who nonetheless had to pay tribute to an emperor. This is why often a conquering empire put someone of the royal household in charge as governor. In this case, the very son of the man who was king when they took over. Machievelli also discusses the propriety of this method, as it prevents revolt by the common people, since the people have loyalty to the royal line of their nation (which again explains why the Assyrians rather than Babylonians are the bad guys in Micah's prophecy).

> Then the text mentions "whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." ... It gives the definite sense of a ruler who transcends time—who has sprung from eternity.

This is the type of nonsense I only expect from a KJVO. His origins being from ancient times obviously is referring to the antiquity of his clan affiliation, i.e that he can demonstrate his genealogy going way way back, to the beginning of the clan.

[jimwalton]

> Babylon made Zorobabel governor of Judea and gave him the funds to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, as well as were allowing certain numbers of Jews to return and repopulate the land, so they became the good guy.

This is incorrect. Zerubbabel was made governor by the Persians (Ezra 1.1ff.). It was Cyrus, king of Persia, who allowed the Jews to return (Ezra 1.3) and gave them funds to rebuild the temple. Babylon is conquered and no more by this time.

> But the Assyrians who Babylon also was allowing to repopulate areas adjacent to Israel tried to prevent the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls, and Zorobabel dealt with them.

This is incorrect. The Assyrian Empire fell in about 710 BC. Babylon fell in 539 BC. Zerubabbel was governor in 520 BC.

You have all your "facts" wrong.

> Protestants returning to a Catholic trick rejected at the Reformation, because they can't handle that it turns out the New Testament is false and built on misinterpretation after misinterpretation of the Old Testament.

This doesn't even warrant a response. As I said, there was no Assyrian or Babylonian fulfillment of this prophecy. It looks to a future fulfillment of the establishment of the Davidic dynasty. We know the text is figurative because Israel never conquered Assyria. I have given my evidence, and in rebuttal you have given (1) incorrect information and (2) claiming I'm doing a trick. A better rebuttal would be to give evidence.

> This is silly; at that time all Israel was was the Babylonian province of Judea, because of the Babylonian captivity.

Again, this is incorrect. Babylon fell in 539 BC. Sheshbazzar and his nephew, Zerubbabel, returned under Persian authority (Cyrus and Darius): Ezra 1.8, 5.14; 1 Chr. 3.10, 18. They settled in the area around Jerusalem, a small province of Persia called Yehud. Further south in what used to be called Judah were the provinces of Idumea, and Ashdod was on the Mediterranean coast. Further north, in what used to be called Israel, were the provinces of Samaria and the Sidonian Land Grant.

Zerubbabel was the governor of Yehud, the small region surrounding Jerusalem: from the west coast of the Dead Sea westward to Gezer (not even all the way to the Mediterranean, and from Hazor in the north to En-Gedi at the southern tip.

> Also, the possible dishonesty here in your attempt to make a distinction between governor and ruler, as surely if you are educated in biblical languages and history of biblical times you must know the Hebrew nasi translates both to ruler and governor,

Dishonesty? No. Since I know the ancient languages, I know your "facts" are again incorrect. Zerubbabel is never identified as a nasi. He is consistently identified as a פַּחַת (pachath): “governor.” A *pachath* was a ruler of a particular district or region. A *nasi*, on the other hand, is a much broader term for a prince or ruler, a clan leader or a chieftain. Zerubbabel was not a nasi.

> This is the type of nonsense I only expect from a KJVO. His origins being from ancient times obviously is referring to the antiquity of his clan affiliation, i.e that he can demonstrate his genealogy going way way back, to the beginning of the clan.

My comment had nothing to do with any potential KJV orientation. The reference is certainly to lineage, but not to an ancient genealogy. The phrase was an idiom in the ancient Near East speaking of divine origin. Most of the Neo-Assyrian kings claimed that their kingship had been ordered by the gods from days of yore. Ashurbanipal claimed to have been created by Assur and Ninlil and proclaimed king since the days of yore by Assur and Sin, created for kingship in the womb of his mother.

Here Micah is speaking of a divine ruler, similar to the idiomatic expressions of their surrounding cultures, but here differently, since this particular ruler would not be one created or ordered by the gods, but one who had himself sprung from eternity—an unquestionable reference to his divine nature. Emphasizing the insignificance of Bethlehem and his small Ephrathitic clan, this ruler's beginnings were before all worlds and before time itself.

[Dawood]

The Medo-Persian Empire is a continuation of the Babylonian Empire in that the Medes and Persians just took over that Empire whole.
Assyrians exist whether the Assyrian Empire does or not.

You're just nitpicking. The province of Trans-Euphrates in Ezra 5 is the Assyrians. Not the Empire obviously though. (The prophecy says Assyrians not Assyrian Empire, btw.)

If you look at the history of interpretation of Micah 5 the interpretation that its about Zerubbabel is actually very ancient. Even Christian writers of the past admitted it, but tried to pull the dual-fulfillment trick Christians love like with Isaiah 7. There's really no point debating Christians because they always resort to such lying tricks, so I'm done with this sub. Only a few, like myself, will excape the Christian cult, due to their superior logical prowess, and to borrow a phrase from Paul, "the rest are blinded."

[jimwalton]

> The Medo-Persian Empire is a continuation of the Babylonian Empire in that the Medes and Persians just took over that Empire whole.

Wrong again. The Medo-Persian Empire was a different people group invading the Semitic Babylonian people group. It was not a continuation. The Babylonian Empire and culture were destroyed and supplanted by the Medo-Persians, who themselves were later supplanted by the Greeks, another people group and different culture.

> Assyrians exist whether the Assyrian Empire does or not.

Not necessarily. Often people groups were dispersed among the nations and their cultural identity was lost, as is the case with the Assyrians, Hittites, Jebusites, Philistines, and even the northern 10 tribes of Israel, that are lost to history.

> You're just nitpicking.

Not at all. Your historical facts are wrong, and therefore your premise doesn't hold and your case fails. Without the historical piece, your claim goes nowhere. And I can also conclude that since your understanding of history is so weak, and your linguistics are incorrect, your understanding of what the Bible is saying is even weaker. This case of yours just holds no water.

> The province of Trans-Euphrates in Ezra 5 is the Assyrians.

Wrong again. The Persian province of Trans-Euphrates was the region WEST of the Euphrates River, excluding Babylon, which was a separate satropy. The Assyrian Empire was mostly BETWEEN the Tigris and Euphrates, reaching northwestward into Turkey, curling down into Canaan and straddling the Nile. The province of Trans-Euphrates included Mesopotamia (the northwestern portion of the former Assyria), Syria, Phoenicia, Yehud, Arabia, and Egypt.

> If you look at the history of interpretation of Micah 5 the interpretation that its about Zerubbabel is actually very ancient.

Zerubbabel was viewed by some as a messianic figure. The interpretation of Christian commentators is not "pulling a fast one" (a dual-fulfillment trick). Dual fulfillment is a long-standing legitimate interpretive hermeneutic.

> There's really no point debating Christians because they always resort to such lying tricks

If you want to interpret every disagreement as the "lying tricks" of Christians, then you're not really interpreting the text, but merely disparaging those who disagree with you.

[Hey Potato]

> But there was no immediate fulfillment of this prophecy, so we look to some future fulfillment to which Micah must have been referring

Why look for this? Why not assume instead that Micah simply got it wrong?

[jimwalton]

Great question. Thanks for asking it. We look to some future fulfillment rather than assuming Micah simply got it wrong because Micah's message in Micah 5.2, as well as the total context, show us that Micah himself was not looking for an immediate fulfillment but was instead speaking of something future.

* Micah 5.3 (written in 700 BC) looks forward through a long period of time until Israel's return from exile, starting in about 520 and continuing to about 450 BC.
* In Micah 5.3-5, however, Micah also speaks of a Davidic Messiah some time in the indistinct future, but certainly not an immediate fulfillment.
* Micah 5.8 looks into the future, in which the exiled peoples of Judah will be transformed from an insignificant group of refugees to a power that dominates the world (vv. 7-9). He is not speaking of immediate fulfillment.
* Micah 5.10 uses the expression "in that day," an idiom for an eschatological prophecy. He is, again, talking about a messiah in the distant future.
* In Micah 5.10-11 he is looking forward to an era of eschatological peace.
* Micah 5.15 looks forward to the eschatological judgment of God on the nations.

So in verse 2 Micah is speaking of a time beyond the return from exile (520-450 BC) when a Davidic ruler would come, at war against sin and evil (the archetypal "Assyria")

[Hey Potato]

I read through Micah 5, in the light of your answer. It strikes me that you are retrofitting Micah to the fulfilled prophecy, or seeing Micah through the filter of your belief that it fulfills prophecy - however, Micah does not, in fact, say a lot of the things you believe it does.

Let's have a look:

* Micah 5:3 doesn't give any time frame. There's nothing in the verse to suggest it was intended to be a long period of time. In fact, the phrase "until the time when she who is in labor bears a son" might just as well suggest a very short abandonment - just a few hours, the time between labor and birth. There's no particular reason to think it's referring to Mary.
* Micah 5:3-5 mentions nothing about David's line or Judah, not about a Messiah. And, as others have pointed out, the person it's talking about is prophesied in Micah 5:6 to defend Israel against the Assyrians, which is something Jesus never did.
* Micah 5:8, noted, though again no time frame is offered.
* Micah 5:10 You claim the phrase "In that day" is a codeword for an eschatological prophecy, but what evidence do you have for this? Why not just accept the plain meaning of the text, that Micah 5:10 is referring to the same time period as the previous section, ie, a supposed future when someone delivers Israel from the Assyrians?
* Micah 5:15 promises "vengeance" on the "nations who did not obey me", but there doesn't seem to be anything eschatological about it apart from that.

So, without already believing it's a Messianic/Last Days prophecy, all Micah seems to be saying is that

* Some king or other will come from Bethlehem
* Some king or other will defend Israel against an invasion by the Assyrians.
* Israelites of that time will stop worshiping Asherah or performing witchcraft.
* At that time, at least some nations which opposed God will suffer at least something

Have these events happened, ever, in Israelite history?

[jimwalton]

Excellent comments and thoughts. Thanks for the conversation. I try to read Scripture as objectively and responsibly as possible, so I'm glad to examine your insights.

v. 1: The immediate time frame of the chapter is 701 BC. The Assyrian army, under the command of King Sennacherib, is in the process of attacking many cites in Judah. Presumably "Israel's ruler" is the king of Judah, Hezekiah. Hez was a godly king, but made some bad mistakes as well. Assyria did some serious damage in Judah. This is all verified in Assyrian records, particularly the Lachish Relief and the Sennacherib Prism.

V. 3: It does give a time frame (Israel will be abandoned util the time when she who is in labor bears a son and the rest of this brothers return to join the Israelites). We have to discern to what this refers. I agree there's no particular reason to think it's referring to Mary.

* Israel's "abandonment" presumably speaks of the exile coming from 586 BC to c. 520.
* Who is this woman? There's disagreement, so I'd be remiss to blurt out an opinion. Any opinion can be rejected. It seems to be metaphorical, but who knows for sure.
* "The rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites" again seems to speak to the returning exiles in 520. Zechariah 10.10 speaks to the same event. After a period of exile, there will be a regathering—a return to the land. This happened from about 520 to about 450.

You are right that vv. 3-5 don't mention anything about David's line or Judah, but v. 2 does mention Bethlehem Ephrathah, which in Micah's era is the famed origin village of David. The reference to Ephrathah reinforces the tie to David's family (Ruth 1.1 & 4.22; 1 Sam. 16.4 & 13, and especially 1 Sam. 17.12). This places the text firmly in a messianic context, something the Jewish rabbis clearly understood. Linking this future ruler to the origins of David's household rather than to anything in Jerusalem reminds us of how David was chosen directly by God, breaking with any notions of hereditary royal succession. It suggests the expectation of a new David.

v. 6: the prophecy that this Israelite king will rule Assyria.

* Since vv. 2-5 speak of a future Davidic ruler, presumably the Messiah, then this reference is figurative of God’s people being delivered from oppression.
* Therefore we can view the use of "Assyria" as figurative of the enemies of God's people, fitting the nature of the context.
* "Assyria" became an archetype of the hostile nations of the world who will be unable to enslave and oppress God’s people when the ideal Davidic king arrives on the scene.

V. 8: Though no specific time frame is offered, the tone of the verse is eschatological.

v. 10: "In that day" as eschatology.

* Isaiah 2.11-12 (same era). "The Day of the Lord" is a prominent theme in the prophets. "In that day" is a reference to it. Isa. 13.6; Amos 5.18, 20; Joel 1.15, and many more.
* You see the specific phrase is Isa. 19.23; 24.21; 27.12, et al.

v. 15: A continuance of the eschatological theme.

So, my conclusion is that the text is speaking of a future Davidic messianic king. "Assyria" begins as a literal reference (v. 1), but it quickly modulated to a figurative one. The text speaks of this king coming from the line of David, who will bring ultimate peace (Micah 5.10; cf. Isa. 9.6) and includes eschatological references to the final wrath of God upon disobedient humanity.