Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's an acknowledgement of the sentiment that clearly God can do ANYTHING. Even cause Jesus to be born ten years after he was born. Unless of course the Word of God just flat got it wrong. But who would be willing to believe THAT!
When I was a Christian, Micah 5:2-5a was often tossed out as an example of a prophecy pertaining to Jesus, 700 years before he was born. It was not until my waning years in the faith did I realize that if I kept reading past verse 5, it is clear the passage has NOTHING to do with Jesus. It seems more to do with an incident during the reign of Judah's King Hezekiah and the Assyrian threat Thrillobyte brought up yesterday. Based on the details of the "prophecy," I don't think we have any historical details that the prophecy came to pass, even though much of these things were written AFTER the actual events (when you lived in a world where you get away with such things. Who was fact checking?). Do you have any historical details on this super hero who rose up to rescue Judah?
The other thing is, could it have been an actual prophecy where Micah, speaking as a chaplain, of sorts, using the office to speak positively to encourage courage, bravery of heart, lack of fear and a message of hope but it just never worked out as he predicted?
The Jews viewed Micah 5:2 as pertaining to the Messiah.
"And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore."-Torah
"But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah,from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel,whose origin is from of old, from ancient days."-NRSV
First, I don't see differences that are significant in the way Micah 5:2 is translated between the Jewish and a typical modern Christian Bible translation.
Second, Jews applied this passage to the Messiah and it supports the concept of the Messiah having a preexisting state.
Dr. Michael L Brown, Bible Scholar, writes in his notes about Micah 5:2:
“In this light, the commentary of Rashi on Micah 5:2[1] takes on added significance, since (1) he reads it as a clear Messianic prophecy; (2) he makes reference Psalm 118:22, which says that the stone rejected by the builders has become the chief cornerstone (a verse quoted several times in the New Testament with reference to Yeshua, who was rejected by the leaders of his people but chosen by God); and (3) he interprets the end of the verse as pointing to the preexistence of the Messiah (or, at least, of his name) rather than as pointing only to Bethlehem as the ancient city of David (which is made clear at the beginning of the verse). Here is Rashi’s commentary (words in bold indicate Scripture text):
1 And you Bethlehem Ephrathah whence David emanated, as it is stated (1 Sam. 17:58): ‘The son of your bondsman, Jesse, the Bethlehemite.’ And Bethlehem is called Ephrath, as it is said (Gen. 48:7): ‘On the road to Ephrath, that is Bethlehem.’ you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah You should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah because of the stigma of Ruth the Moabitess in you. from you will emerge for Me, the messiah son of David, and so Scripture says (Ps. 118:22): ‘The stone the builders had rejected became a cornerstone.’ and his origin is from of old ‘Before the sun his name is Yinnon’ (Ps. 72:17).
The question is not whether the above passage from Micah is a Messianic prophecy. Clearly the Jews in antiquity believed so and the first Christians, who were Jewish, believed this and subsequent Christians believe it as well.
The Jews viewed Micah 5:2 as pertaining to the Messiah.
"And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore."-Torah
"But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah,from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel,whose origin is from of old, from ancient days."-NRSV
First, I don't see differences that are significant in the way Micah 5:2 is translated between the Jewish and a typical modern Christian Bible translation.
Second, Jews applied this passage to the Messiah and it supports the concept of the Messiah having a preexisting state.
Dr. Michael L Brown, Bible Scholar, writes in his notes about Micah 5:2:
“In this light, the commentary of Rashi on Micah 5:2[1] takes on added significance, since (1) he reads it as a clear Messianic prophecy; (2) he makes reference Psalm 118:22, which says that the stone rejected by the builders has become the chief cornerstone (a verse quoted several times in the New Testament with reference to Yeshua, who was rejected by the leaders of his people but chosen by God); and (3) he interprets the end of the verse as pointing to the preexistence of the Messiah (or, at least, of his name) rather than as pointing only to Bethlehem as the ancient city of David (which is made clear at the beginning of the verse). Here is Rashi’s commentary (words in bold indicate Scripture text):
1 And you Bethlehem Ephrathah whence David emanated, as it is stated (1 Sam. 17:58): ‘The son of your bondsman, Jesse, the Bethlehemite.’ And Bethlehem is called Ephrath, as it is said (Gen. 48:7): ‘On the road to Ephrath, that is Bethlehem.’ you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah You should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah because of the stigma of Ruth the Moabitess in you. from you will emerge for Me, the messiah son of David, and so Scripture says (Ps. 118:22): ‘The stone the builders had rejected became a cornerstone.’ and his origin is from of old ‘Before the sun his name is Yinnon’ (Ps. 72:17).
The question is not whether the above passage from Micah is a Messianic prophecy. Clearly the Jews in antiquity believed so and the first Christians, who were Jewish, believed this and subsequent Christians believe it as well.
Fair, but the subsequent verses seem to indicate a CURRENT event considering Micah being a prophet during the time of Hezekiah and the looming AND eventual threat that Assyria became. This "ruler," within that context, was predicted to turn back the Assyrians. We have no record of such a hero, springing into action and doing so. What Jews thought of those verses AFTER no such thing happened when it was predicted to have happened, is then irrelevant to any moved goal posts beyond that time, no?
Fair, but the subsequent verses seem to indicate a CURRENT event considering Micah being a prophet during the time of Hezekiah and the looming AND eventual threat that Assyria became. This "ruler," within that context, was predicted to turn back the Assyrians. We have no record of such a hero, springing into action and doing so. What Jews thought of those verses AFTER no such thing happened when it was predicted to have happened, is then irrelevant to any moved goal posts beyond that time, no?
I agree with you. The prophecy is inserted in a text that has application to the contemporary peoples of that time (i.e. the Assyrians would eventually cause devastation in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah but YHWH, Yaweh or Jehovah (I'll use Jehovah as that has been the English transliteration for many years) would eventually provide deliverance from Assyria...the "hero"). Just a bit of background it's not unusual for prophecies to be inserted into Bible texts that have application to the contemporary peoples and their circumstances.
Verses 2-5 are applied to the messiah. The characteristics of this ruler do not fit the profile of a man or ruler contemporary to the time that the scripture was written. This ruler has the characteristics of 1) being from ancient times 2) his greatness will reach the ends of the earth and 3) he will bring peace (this would be a permanent peace not the type of peace that all too often happened among the ancient Jews- temporary peace followed by trouble).We see this because after the Assyrian threat was neutralized along came the Babylonians who eventually sacked Jerusalem.
The later part of verse 5 and beyond apply to the circumstances contemporary to the people during the time the scripture was written. I can't be dogmatic about who the shepherds and princes of mankind are but I've read that it includes the prophets that were sent to strengthen the people such as Micah, Isaiah and others. Verse 6 is referring to Jehovah (compare this to what was written in Isaiah 14:25 and Isaiah 31:8- Isaiah being a contemporary to Micah and both serving the true God and thus inspired in their writings by one and the same). That is how I understand it but some other folks may have more insight.
I agree with you. The prophecy is inserted in a text that has application to the contemporary peoples of that time (i.e. the Assyrians would eventually cause devastation in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah but YHWH, Yaweh or Jehovah (I'll use Jehovah as that has been the English transliteration for many years) would eventually provide deliverance from Assyria...the "hero"). Just a bit of background it's not unusual for prophecies to be inserted into Bible texts that have application to the contemporary peoples and their circumstances.
Verses 2-5 are applied to the messiah. The characteristics of this ruler do not fit the profile of a man or ruler contemporary to the time that the scripture was written. This ruler has the characteristics of 1) being from ancient times 2) his greatness will reach the ends of the earth and 3) he will bring peace (this would be a permanent peace not the type of peace that all too often happened among the ancient Jews- temporary peace followed by trouble).We see this because after the Assyrian threat was neutralized along came the Babylonians who eventually sacked Jerusalem.
The later part of verse 5 and beyond apply to the circumstances contemporary to the people during the time the scripture was written. I can't be dogmatic about who the shepherds and princes of mankind are but I've read that it includes the prophets that were sent to strengthen the people such as Micah, Isaiah and others. Verse 6 is referring to Jehovah (compare this to what was written in Isaiah 14:25 and Isaiah 31:8- Isaiah being a contemporary to Micah and both serving the true God and thus inspired in their writings by one and the same). That is how I understand it but some other folks may have more insight.
Yes. Rather as the debates we get about evolution really belong in the biology forum, debates about what historical event and situation the OT writers had in mind in their messianic references belong in the history forum, except that Christians believe that they foretell Jesus and predict events in his life.
In that respect the main reason in working out what the OT (or Torah) writers were really talking about is to make it clear that the context was the problems Israel and Judah had with Assyria and Babylon, and what the Messianic idea was at the time, in Jesus' time and indeed what it means to Jews now. Because the messiah -idea as seen by Christians is far, far removed from anything the Jews (OT or modern) imagined. The Matthew Nativity passage where Herod questions the Wise men is very revealing in what Messiah meant to Matthew as distinct from what it could have meant to Herod, the Sanhedrin or anyone at that time.
And as I have explained before, OT prophecy is demonstrably NOT related to Jesus.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-29-2016 at 05:59 AM..
When I was a Christian, Micah 5:2-5a was often tossed out as an example of a prophecy pertaining to Jesus, 700 years before he was born. It was not until my waning years in the faith did I realize that if I kept reading past verse 5, it is clear the passage has NOTHING to do with Jesus. It seems more to do with an incident during the reign of Judah's King Hezekiah and the Assyrian threat Thrillobyte brought up yesterday. Based on the details of the "prophecy," I don't think we have any historical details that the prophecy came to pass, even though much of these things were written AFTER the actual events (when you lived in a world where you get away with such things. Who was fact checking?). Do you have any historical details on this super hero who rose up to rescue Judah?
The other thing is, could it have been an actual prophecy where Micah, speaking as a chaplain, of sorts, using the office to speak positively to encourage courage, bravery of heart, lack of fear and a message of hope but it just never worked out as he predicted?
there is no magic or believing in whooper to help me get my points out. Be that as it may. Lets see, could we predict a good guy that is very insightful?
the budhaz look for their dollar lamaz by going around and looking for the smartest baby they can find. Guess what, smarterest babies act similarly. the evidence shows that football coaches, soldiers, teachers, and other peoples in groups think similarly. Evolution.
Today we know what they did not know. They did not. Again, ½ truths, or in this case, incomplete truths cause serious disconnects. But if we use what we know we can make some very reasonable "prophecy". But when when use incomplete truths, like dude woke up and flew away, our "prophecies" can be down right dangerous.
there is no magic or believing in whooper to help me get my points out. Be that as it may. Lets see, could we predict a good guy that is very insightful?
the budhaz look for their dollar lamaz by going around and looking for the smartest baby they can find. Guess what, smarterest babies act similarly. the evidence shows that football coaches, soldiers, teachers, and other peoples in groups think similarly. Evolution.
Today we know what they did not know. They did not. Again, ½ truths, or in this case, incomplete truths cause serious disconnects. But if we use what we know we can make some very reasonable "prophecy". But when when use incomplete truths, like dude woke up and flew away, our "prophecies" can be down right dangerous.
there is no magic or believing in whooper to help me get my points out. Be that as it may.
Hey, you don't want to be like the lady on the right! She's a heretic....
I thought it finally happened.... I thought.... I had become.... A GOD
sigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
..but YHWH, Yaweh or Jehovah (I'll use Jehovah as that has been the English transliteration for many years)
please God, make the madness stop! "Jehovah" is not a transliteration - it's a mistake from the Middle Ages that has long been abandoned for its gross innacuracy. It's perfectly okay and accepted to use "Yahweh" (possibly "Yahu" or "Yaho") as it actually HAS been "the English transliteration for many years", as found in such mainstream Bibles such as the New Jerusalem Bible, to name just one.
As Thomas Römer writes (a biblical scholar who did not turn into a conservative apologist like Michael L. Brown, quoted earlier):
It was, then, a mistake to try to pronounce Yhwh by using the replacement
vowels of ʾădōnāy, which had been introduced into the text
by the Masoretes, and inserting these vowels between the consonants of
the tetragrammaton. This error resulted from a failure to understand
this scribal practice. It produced the pronunciation that the Dominican
friar Raimundus Mari in the thirteenth century rendered as Yěh(o)wāh.
This form was then reproduced extensively in translations of the Bible
and persists especially among Jehovah’s Witnesses.
(Thomas Römer - The Invention of God (p. 27, 2015, Harvard University Press)
There's only one group of people who still use "Jehovah" as a transliteration....
Micah, as prophet, is certainly difficult. As I wrote earlier, it's very difficult to pin him down and his book has extreme problems which make certain readings (not to mention interpretations) difficult.
He is mentioned in the book of Jeremiah as evidence against Jeremiah's own prophecy against Jerusalem. The priests and prophets use the words of Micah against him:
"There was Micah of Moresheth who used to prophesy in the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah; and he said to all the people of Judah, 'This is what Yahweh of Hosts has said:
Zion shall become a plowed field,
Jerusalem a heap of rubble,
And the temple mount a wooded ridge.'
(Jeremiah 26:18 AB Bright)
This references the oracle in Micah 3:12:
Assuredly, because of you
Zion shall be plowed as a field,
And Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins,
And the Temple Mount
A shrine in the woods.
(Micah 3:12 NJPS)
Of course, Micah's oracle was incorrect. One could claim that the disaster was averted due to Hezekiah's heeding of YHWH's "Word", I suppose. But that's not the point of this thread, I reckon.
If one follows the first words of the Book, then Micah is said to have prophesied during the reigns of Jotham (759-43 BCE), Ahaz/Jehoahaz (743-27 BCE) and Hezekiah (727-698/9) - and his prophecies concerned Samaria and Jerusalem. But there are definite sections of the book in which the language and content point to a much later time of composition.
To illustrate the difficulty of assigning definite historical dates to much of the book, I'm going to quote a slightly long passage from P. Jensen concerning the authorship and redaction of the work - from a historical-critical perspective. Even with it's length, he is simply summarizing other scholars' work on the problem. Especially note the references to our passage:
The views of those who see a far greater contribution by authors and redactors from a later time are more difficult to summarize simply. Wolff (1990, 26) assigns to Micah most of 1:6, 7b–13, 14–16; 2:1–4, 6–11; 3:1–12. The other verses are later comments from a Deuteronomistic point of view. Chapters 4–5 are a collection of sayings from 587 B.C.E. to the early postexilic period.A postexilic move was to edit all of chs. 1–5 and to add the criticism of early postexilic abuses found in 6:2–7:7. A final level of redaction adapted the book for liturgical use, mainly through adding the psalm-like texts of 7:8–20.
Kessler (1999, 44–47) proposes a similar process of growth in five main stages, though with less assurance than Wolff (1990). The voice of the original Micah is found mainly in 1:10–16; 2:1–3, 6–11; 3:1–12. The destruction of Jerusalem motivated 4:8–5:4[3]. A third stage of redaction in the early Persian period saw 1:2–9; 2:4–5, 12–13; 4:1–7; 5:6–7[7–8], 9–14[10–15]. Further experience under the Persians led to 6:1–7:7. A fifth and final stage at the end of the Persian period or the beginning of the Hellenistic era is the origin of a few further additions (4:5; 5:5–6[6–7], 8[9]) and 7:8–20.
(Phillip Peter Jensen - Obadiah, Jonah and Micah: A Theological Commentary - Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 496, pp. 96-97, 2008, T & T Clark)
I just find it extremely difficult to assign any possible historical details to some of Micah's work.
It's clear that he is referencing a Messianic figure of the Davidic type - but that is all. It may point to an expected historical figure, but it may not be one that arose during Hezekiah's reign. There is just too many problems with the text. It is not "evidence" for Jesus having been the Messiah - it only shows that Micah's message was not just one of doom and gloom, but of hope for the future. And when I say "Micah", I am using that prettttty loosely here in regards to Chapter 5.
I don't see a problem with admitting that later redactors saw a hope for a Messianic figure - even though he never showed up, technically. Apocalyptacism was all about the future hope of redemption. Christians may have usurped this ideal for their own Christ figure, but this doesn't negate the idea of a very late Jewish hope for a Davidide to take the throne once again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
