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

[Hey Potato]

Let me try to poke a bit at some of your reasoning, if I may...

> The reference to Ephrathah reinforces the tie to David's family. This places the text firmly in a messianic context

Does it? David was a lot of things. Ancestor of a promised Messiah was only one of those things - and the text doesn't mention David at all. Each of the steps "Bethlehem means David" and "David means "Messiah" is a stretch. What's the chance that they're all valid conclusions about what Micah meant?

> ...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,

It might remind someone of that, but again, this is only one of many possible things it might remind one of. This is another stretch, and likely to be a break in your chain of reasoning.

> breaking with any notions of hereditary royal succession. It suggests the expectation of a new David.

Again, this is only one possible thing one might think of when pondering these things. It seems to me almost certain that you (or your sources) are putting these ideas into the text, not getting them out of it.

> the prophecy that this Israelite king will rule Assyria.

You then claim that this verse, in the (somewhat dubious) light of Micah 5:2-5 being a Messianic prophecy, is

> figurative of God’s people being delivered from oppression

We have to acknowledge that the prophecy was not literally fulfilled - Israel never did rule over Assyria under a King from Bethlehem, so figurative is all that's left.

However, your argument that it must be specifically figurative of God's people being delivered from oppression:

* is, as I've pointed out, based on a lot of supposition, and
* has not been literally fulfilled - God's people have not been delivered from physical oppression - Jews and Christians suffer no less than anyone else.

Will you claim that the figurative meaning of Micah's words has been spiritually fulfilled, and that's good enough to count as a "fulfillment" of a "prophecy?"

[jimwalton]

> Does it? David was a lot of things. Ancestor of a promised Messiah was only one of those things - and the text doesn't mention David at all. Each of the steps "Bethlehem means David" and "David means "Messiah" is a stretch. What's the chance that they're all valid conclusions about what Micah meant?

The text doesn't need to specifically mention David for a Davidic connection. It was written in the cultural river where David was both a royal hero and a prophetic figure pointing to the messiah. The mention of "Bethlehem Ephrathah" would instantly bring to the Jewish mind the figure of David. In our culture a similar mention of Chappaquiddick wouldn't need the mention of Ted Kennedy to make the connection. We all know what Chappaquiddick is and what happened there. The same would be if I mention Waterloo or Little Big Horn. Bang, you know who and what I'm talking about. As I've mentioned, David is specifically mentioned as an Ephrathite in 1 Sam. 17.12 and Ruth 1.2, 4.11.

The mention in a prophecy of Bethlehem Ephrathah with regard to a ruler over all Israel easily hits its target with no need for a specific mention of David.

> Each of the steps "Bethlehem means David" and "David means "Messiah" is a stretch.

Certainly not to the Jewish rabbis. When queried by Herod at the arrival of the magi, there was no question in their mind that this text was about the messiah who would sit on David's throne.

> We have to acknowledge that the prophecy was not literally fulfilled - Israel never did rule over Assyria under a King from Bethlehem, so figurative is all that's left.

This is correct, but I have shown clearly that the text is intentionally and obviously figurative in its structure and references, and therefore it's not out of character both exegetically and hermeneutically to view it as such.

> However, your argument that it must be specifically figurative of God's people being delivered from oppression: is, as I've pointed out, based on a lot of supposition

I don't think so. The exegesis has been both objective and substantive.

> Will you claim that the figurative meaning of Micah's words has been spiritually fulfilled, and that's good enough to count as a "fulfillment" of a "prophecy?"

No, I wouldn't agree to that assessment. The figurative meaning of Micah's words leads us to a future fulfillment with both historical and spiritual elements, not to a spiritual fulfillment alone. Micah's reference to a future David leader comports with multiple other prophetic texts, all of which had historical expectation, that we are proper to view Micah's prophecy similarly: A historical Davidic messianic king would literally come to perform governmental tasks and also bring spiritual renewal.

[Dawood]

> 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.

Well you can argue with Daniel using your nitpicking then, because he clearly shows them taking over the Babylonian empire whole cloth. But duh about them being a different people. As for the rest, you're not credible. Nor, btw, is it necessary to believe Micah had the most accurate information on all the intricacies of Medes vs Babylonians and so on anyway. That Micah 5 is supposed to point to Zerubbabel is clear, and great Christian commentators of the past agreed (but suggested dual-fulfillment). Everything you know on the subject comes from a biased Bible dictionary anyway. You're not credible. Go worship your dead Jew.

> Dual fulfillment is a long-standing legitimate interpretive hermeneutic.

Only amongst idolators who will pull any dirty trick to keep worhsipping a dead Jew.

[jimwalton]

> Well you can argue with Daniel using your nitpicking then, because he clearly shows them taking over the Babylonian empire whole cloth.

Are you claiming that Daniel prophesies that the Jews will take over Babylon? I would like to see the text to which you are referring so we can discuss it.

> That Micah 5 is supposed to point to Zerubbabel is clear

Obviously not in the minds of many, but obviously in your mind. You don't seem to be open to conversation.

> Everything you know on the subject comes from a biased Bible dictionary anyway

This is actually quite humorous. Thank you for making me laugh.

> Go worship your dead Jew.

I have some good news for you: HE'S ALIVE!

[Dawood]

> Are you claiming that Daniel prophesies that the Jews will take over Babylon?

The passage about mini tenkel upharsin shows the Medo-Persians taking over whole cloth.

> I have some good news for you: HE'S ALIVE!

He's dead and his bones are bleached in some Roman mass grave.

[jimwalton]

> The passage about mini tenkel upharsin shows the Medo-Persians taking over whole cloth.

You're right. It's the Medo-Persians who conquer Babylon. But you're also partially wrong: The Medo-Persian Empire is NOT a continuation of the Babylonian Empire. "Mene, mane, tekel parsin" means only "you are numbered, weighed, and divided." Daniel interprets it for them by notifying them that their reign would be brought to an end. That very night Belshazzar was executed and the city was won without a battle. It was subsumed into the Medo-Persian Empire. But the Medo-Persian Empire is not a continuation of Babylon. Its land mass was more than twice the size of the Babylonian Empire.

But you are COMPLETELY wrong about the Jews taking over Babylon. There is no such event.

> He's dead and his bones are bleached in some Roman mass grave.

I would love to see your evidence for this claim.

[Dawood]

Where did I say the Jews would take over Babylon?

As to the resurrection of Jesus, compare it to the Lubavitcher rabbi and you'll see how Jewish cults claiming their leader is the Messiah have learned from the Christian mistake.

Christianity says Jesus is the Messiah, rose from the dead, appeared only to a few people in private, and went to heaven to wait thousands of years before returning.

Its proven false automatically by the fact that if he truly raised he would have appeared publicly, and stayed on earth running the church for the past 2000 years; he'd be Pope in other words.

The Lubavicters have learned from this mistake. They say that their dead rabbi is the Messiah and WILL rise from the dead.

See Christianity's mistake was claiming Jesus already rose from the dead rather than looking forward to him doing so. By making this claim it proves unquestionably that its wrong, because if he rose to die no more he would have stayed. They only had him run away to heaven to hide out because they knew his bones were in a Roman mass grave.

[jimwalton]

> Where did I say the Jews would take over Babylon?

My mistake. You didn't.

> As to the resurrection of Jesus, compare it to the Lubavitcher rabbi and you'll see how Jewish cults claiming their leader is the Messiah have learned from the Christian mistake.

This is a meaningless juxtaposition regarding the veracity of Jesus's resurrection.

> Christianity says Jesus is the Messiah, rose from the dead, appeared only to a few people in private, and went to heaven to wait thousands of years before returning.

Correct except in that he appeared to hundreds, and in very public places.

> Its proven false automatically by the fact that if he truly raised he would have appeared publicly,

There's the case: He did appear publicly, according to the historical record. Therefore it's not proved false automatically, or even manually. : )

> and stayed on earth running the church for the past 2000 years

Jesus was confined to the flesh. He says in John 16.7 that the benefit of his leaving was to pave the way for the Holy Spirit to come, who can inhabit people the world over simultaneously. His staying on earth to run the church like a pope is inferior to His living inside each of his true followers.

> See Christianity's mistake was claiming Jesus already rose from the dead rather than looking forward to him doing so.

This is no mistake at all. Jesus's resurrection proves that death has been conquered, that eternal life is a reality, and his ascension allowed the Holy Spirit to come. We don't have to wait for some smoke-hope of a future messianic resurrection. It's already a done deal.

> By making this claim it proves unquestionably that its wrong, because if he rose to die no more he would have stayed.

There's no logical progression in these premises. Let me try to see what you're saying:

1. Jesus already rose from the dead
2. But he didn't stay on earth.
3. Therefore he didn't really rise.

See, that's a non sequitur. It doesn't follow.

> They only had him run away to heaven to hide out because they knew his bones were in a Roman mass grave.

If you have evidence of this, I'd be pleased to read it.

Actually, if Jesus had just resurrected and ascended, and expected people to believe that "by faith," you might have a point. But since he appeared numerous times to numerous people, sometimes hundreds at a time, in public places and public situations, in a variety of situations, he is giving (1) material evidence, (2) varieties (different kinds) of evidences, and (3) varying experiences. We can't reasonably slough it off as hallucinations, fiction, mythology, or deceit.

[Dawood]

> Correct except in that he appeared to hundreds, and in very public places.

Where's the sauce? (i.e. source)

> There's the case: He did appear publicly, according to the historical record. Therefore it's not proved false automatically, or even manually. : )

Appearing in a locked room to 11 dudes is public? (Plus, that's a story not a historical record.)

> 1. Jesus already rose from the dead
> 2. But he didn't stay on earth.
> 3. Therefore he didn't really rise.
> See, that's a non sequitur. It doesn't follow.

No, it follows perfectly. Resurrection is the body rising to live on earth again. Its distinct from going to heaven or becoming an angel.

> (1) material evidence, (2) varieties (different kinds) of evidences, and (3) varying experiences.

There is just the story of him appearing to Mary and a few other women at the tomb, to two guys headed to Emmaus, to the 11. Then Paul's claim he appeared to James (also the first appearance in the Ebionite gospel), and Paul's silly claim he appeared to 500 brethren with no names or information about where, and finally Paul's own vision of a talking light (its admitted he "saw no man" Acts 9:3-8 but just a blinding light, and this is the same guy who writes that "even the devil can transform himself into an angel of light" 2 Cor 11:14; maybe he should have put 2 and 2 together).

There is no material evidence; only fairy tales.

A physical resurrection is not some mystical "experience" but a physical event with lingering physical effect, i.e. the guy still being bodily on earth and in a living body. If there is any truth that these people saw or "experienced" anything then these people saw visions or had hallucinatory experiences. But a physical resurrection would be Jesus being on earth for us to go speak with!

The claim "Jesus is alive!" may sound like something exciting at first, but then when you add, as you must, "in heaven," how is it any different from saying "Abraham is alive" or "Moses is alive"? You could even call them being in heaven a "resurrection," following the silly redefinition of the word that Christianity requires!

[jimwalton]

> Where's the sauce? (i.e. source)

1 Corinthians 15.6

> Appearing in a locked room to 11 dudes is public? (Plus, that's a story not a historical record.)

We have record of 11 appearances of Jesus between his resurrection and his ascension:

1. To Mary Magdalene when she was alone (Jn. 20.14; Mk. 16.9). This was outdoors, and therefore "public," but she was alone.

2. To certain women returning from the sepulcher (Mt. 28.8-10). This was outdoors, and therefore public. It was to a small group of women.

3. To Peter when he was alone (Lk. 24.34)

4. To the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24.13-16). This was also a public appearance. We can't argue from silence, but since his conversation with them was extended, others may possibly have seen him.

5. To the disciples assembled at Jerusalem, but Thomas was not with them (Jn. 20.19-24).This was to 10 men in a private room.

6. To the disciples assembled at Jerusalem, but this time Thomas was with them (Jn. 20.26). This was to 11 men in a private room.

7. To seven disciples fishing in the Sea of Galilee (Jn. 21.1, 2). This was a public place.

8. To the 11 apostles (and possibly others) on a mountain in Galilee (Mt. 28.16-20). This was a public place.

9. To more than 500 at one time (1 Cor. 15.6). This was a public place.

10. To James when he was alone (1 Cor. 15.7)

11. Just before his ascension, to all of the apostles (and possibly others) on the Mt. of Olives (Acts 1.1-12). This was a public place.

Again, sir, your alleged "facts" are incorrect.

> (Plus, that's a story not a historical record.)

The burden is on you to support this case with evidence.

> No, it follows perfectly. Resurrection is the body rising to live on earth again.

Your logic fails in that he did rise to live on earth again for 40 days. 40 days establishes the veracity of the resurrection through material proof (Acts 1.3).

> There is no material evidence; only fairy tales.

Appearing in the flesh to many different people in different locations and different situations establishes material proof.

> A physical resurrection is not some mystical "experience" but a physical event with lingering physical effect, i.e. the guy still being bodily on earth and in a living body.

That's right, and he was. 40 days establishes the veracity of the resurrection through material proof. All of the evidence we have points to this fact, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

> If there is any truth that these people saw or "experienced" anything then these people saw visions or had hallucinatory experiences.

There is no such thing as group hallucinations. The majority of Jesus's appearances were to a plurality of people, and therefore the "hallucination theory" holds no strength. As it turns out, you have no evidence or substantiation for your case.