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.
First of all, I think we have to look at context. Micah 4:9-5:5a is about Zion being attacked, then later delivered. The immediate players are Hezekiah, king of Judah, who is clearly unable to protect Zion from Sennacherib, king of Babylon/Assyria.
"The One" in both 5:2 & 5:5a is the messiah. The messiah was believed - from ancient times - to be born in Bethlehem Ephrathah (see Ruth 4:11; 1 Samuel 16:1; 17:12; 2 Samuel 7:4-17; Psalm 2:8; 72: 89:1-4; 132), to be of the line of David, and to rule for ever and ever.
It's important to note that the second half of verse 5 is both a different sentence and different train of thought entirely. It's unfortunate that the "chapter & verse inserters" did a rather poor job with this verse, as it misleads us into thinking the first half of verse 5 is part of the rest of verse 5, when really it's an ending of the previous train of thought.
Now... as I said earlier, you're free to reject that line of reasoning, and thought. That is certainly your right. All I'm pointing out is that it was not some "johnny come lately" idea that showed up after Jesus was born. It was a Jewish teaching long before Micah uttered any of his prophecies in (about) 700 BC.
So the writer is double speaking or flip flopping between the centuries? Just curious. How does verse 6 play into this?
That the belief in a Messiah is an ancient idea is doubtful in my mind. I think it was a belief Jews began to buy into AFTER the exile when they began to yearn for a return to their homeland as well as a return to regional dominance as in the days of David and Solomon. They realized this could not be achieved without the assistance and leading of an anointed messiah sent from God.
The notion really gained momentum as time went on ESPECIALLY during the Maccabean revolt 160 years before the time of Jesus and then hit a zenith during the Roman occupation.
So look at verse 2. How does it start? "But you..." Clearly, verse 2 is interjecting an entirely different issue into the oracle. It is a contrast. This "one", who is the same person as "he" in verse 5a is NOT Hezekiah. And verse 2 is NOT saying that deliverance will come AT THAT TIME.
Verse 2 is an intentional contrast to the verses around it.
Well knock me over! It really does take a rocket scientist to understand all of this.
So Micah speaks of one period in on verse, jumps to another period in the next verse and then back to the former period in the subsequent verses? Is the famous "gap theory" at work here and can the average Christian even recognize this bit of verbal gymnastics by the prophet?
So the writer is double speaking or flip flopping between the centuries? Just curious. How does verse 6 play into this?
That the belief in a Messiah is an ancient idea is doubtful in my mind. I think it was a belief Jews began to buy into AFTER the exile when they began to yearn for a return to their homeland as well as a return to regional dominance as in the days of David and Solomon. They realized this could not be achieved without the assistance and leading of an anointed messiah sent from God.
The notion really gained momentum as time went on ESPECIALLY during the Maccabean revolt 160 years before the time of Jesus and then hit a zenith during the Roman occupation.
I think you might have missed parts of the verses I previously mentioned. The use words like "everlasting" and "for ever and ever". Psalm 72, for instance, is one of the texts that fed the messianic expectations of the Jews - and it was written far earlier than you're thinking. Isaiah 9 is another prophecy that is very hard to dismiss.
But you're right, Messianic expectations had reached a fever pitch in the inter-testamental era - particularly before/during/after the Maccabean Revolt. That may be one of the reasons the Jews were so hung up on the expectation that the messiah would be a political/military deliverer.
Well knock me over! It really does take a rocket scientist to understand all of this.
So Micah speaks of one period in on verse, jumps to another period in the next verse and then back to the former period in the subsequent verses? Is the famous "gap theory" at work here and can the average Christian even recognize this bit of verbal gymnastics by the prophet?
So are you just being a smart alec, or are you seriously asking questions you want answers to? I'm not sure.
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize that when a sentence starts with a phrase like, "But you..." or "But in that time..." there is a very different train of thought beginning.
Last edited by Filet Mignon; 12-11-2008 at 01:44 PM..
I think you might have missed parts of the verses I previously mentioned. The use words like "everlasting" and "for ever and ever". Psalm 72, for instance, is one of the texts that fed the messianic expectations of the Jews - and it was written far earlier than you're thinking. Isaiah 9 is another prophecy that is very hard to dismiss.
Hmm...I realize those words are there and they were taken into consideration, however, that world 'everlasting does not necessarily have to mean eternal which is the first thing a person from this side of the world would think. It could also mean something from antiquity, ancient, very old, way back in time without meaning anything eternal. This would fit into the idea that Micah was referring to an ancient clan that went back about a thousand years before his time. The Hebrew word transliterated there is owlam which CAN indicate "ancient" as opposed to "eternal." I also prefer the idea of antiquity because Micah first says that this person's legacy can be linked to "from of old."
If a person feels this is a verse predicting Jesus, then yes, they will go with the definition referring to eternal for obvious reasons.
I'm a little suspect of Psalm 72 being about the messiah too. My understanding is that is highly glorified language from David about his own son Solomon based on the idea that he was told that for his faithfulness to Yahweh, his reward would be to have a son who would sit on his throne forever. He seems to have really believed the hype.
Isaiah 9 can indeed be a reference to a messiah the Jews were expecting. The language is quite lofty. Is it speaking about Jesus or was/is Jesus forced back into its prediction? Well considering some passages in the new Testament that seems to force Jesus into Old Testament prophecies meant for Old Testament times, the latter would not surprise me at all.
So are you just being a smart alec, or are you seriously asking questions you want answers to? I'm not sure.
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize that when a sentence starts with a phrase like, "But you..." or "But in that time..." there is a very different train of thought beginning.
Sorry you're missing my attempt at humor, but lighten up a bit. In the big scheme of things, its not that serious. Just plain old, good spirited (I hope) debate.
Anyway, let me paraphrase the early part of the chapter in short order and tell me if I am way off. The scene here is that the Assyrians has already invaded Judah and has laid siege to Jerusalem.
"Arise Israel! Get your troops together! The Assyrians have laid siege to our city and has cowered our judge (the king perhaps?). Don't fear! Clan of Bethlehem-Ephrathah! Your small clan/stable will be the one to give us our hero, coming from your fine ancient legacy as a foundational ancient family of our nation/tribe...He shall be great and he will bring us peace during this time as the Assyrians come into our land. Under him we will rise up against the Assyrians and he will beat back the Assyrians all the way to the very gates of their empire and we will lay their land to waste."
Sorry you're missing my attempt at humor, but lighten up a bit. In the big scheme of things, its not that serious. Just plain old, good spirited (I hope) debate.
Okay, I'm perfectly fine with that. But we both know that there are quite a number of people here who love nothing more than to be stupid smart alecs and ruin discussions like this.
Anyway, let me paraphrase the early part of the chapter in short order and tell me if I am way off. The scene here is that the Assyrians has already invaded Judah and has laid siege to Jerusalem.
"Arise Israel! Get your troops together! The Assyrians have laid siege to our city and has cowered our judge (the king perhaps?). Don't fear! Clan of Bethlehem-Ephrathah! Your small clan/stable will be the one to give us our hero, coming from your fine ancient legacy as a foundational ancient family of our nation/tribe...He shall be great and he will bring us peace during this time as the Assyrians come into our land. Under him we will rise up against the Assyrians and he will beat back the Assyrians all the way to the very gates of their empire and we will lay their land to waste."
*Clan sends Micah a check in the mail*
How'd I do?
I'll take a stab at it...
"Arise Judah! Get your troops together! The Assyrians have laid siege to your holy city. Frankly, they're going to kick your butts and publicly humiliate your king Hezekiah - even though you think Jerusalem/Zion is the greatest city in the world, is fortified and is invincible because God is protecting it.
The truth however, is that your true King will come not from mighty Jerusalem, but from lowly Bethlehem in Ephrathah! From that small town will come an eternal king, from the ancient line of King David.
And though Zion will be abandonded for a time, your true King will eventually come and establish a glorious kingdom that will reach to the ends of the earth. This King himself will be your peace."
"Latter days" only means "end times" if you choose to interpret it that way. It could just as easily mean "later days," meaning some unspecified time in the future. People tend to forget that the Bible was written in Aramaic, not English--and interpretations often hang on who translated it, and how. (We don't have to get into certain other specific examples of this, because it's not necessary to start the ranting and raving it would cause!)
And the historical basis for Micah's writings remains: he was talking about the situation that existed in his time, which was the ongoing conflict between the northern kingdom (Israel) based in Samaria, and the southern kingdom (Judah) based in Jerusalem.
However, since Micah does not specifically mention the name of Jesus--a common fact among Biblical prophets--I guess anyone is free to claim that he was making a prophecy along those lines. You can really take any verse and claim that they mean almost anything; take a look at the threads where people claim Biblical predictions involving Russia and the United States! But the prophets were really only talking to their countrymen, about the religious and/or political situations at the time--and how they expected them to be resolved.
Hi Fred314X,
Sure, latter days may not be well defined until Daniel. However with Daniel its very specific to be 70 Sabbatical years from the rebuilding of the city. 490 years is not really soon. Either way as I said its pretty clear in Micah 4-5 it was the usual forward looking optimism characteristic of the prophets.
In the OT only parts Daniel were written in Aramaic the rest was in Hebrew. There is some speculation that the NT was written first in Aramaic instead of the Greek but I doubt it. It was possibly first in Aramaic orally. However by the time the Gospels were written I suspected they wanted a universal language.
Since I am a mostly-preterist, I agree that Russia and the US having nothing to do with the Bible.
Christians (like myself, once upon a time) are very fond of telling critics that they need to take CONTEXT into consideration when dealing with the Bible and not to take ONE verse and a conclusion make. Here is one place where they do not heed their own advice and proves the advice is only heeded when it serves their purpose.
If we look at the context of the chapter, it speaks of war, notably with the advancing Assyrians. The very first verse calls for troop gathering. To show that Micah himself spouted a prophesy that never came to pass much less prophesying about Jesus, he predicts that this Jewish hero would drive the Assyrians back to their land AND will lay waste to their empire. While Assyria did meet this fate, it was NOT a Jewish hero who led to the demise of that empire. That honor goes to the Babylonians.
Hi Condemned,
I don't see that at all.
Micah 4
10 Be in pain, and labor to bring forth,
O daughter of Zion,
Like a woman in birth pangs.
For now you shall go forth from the city, You shall dwell in the field,
And to Babylon you shall go.
There you shall be delivered;
There the LORD will redeem you
From the hand of your enemies.
11 Now also many nations have gathered against you,
Who say, “Let her be defiled,
And let our eye look upon Zion.”
12 But they do not know the thoughts of the LORD,
Nor do they understand His counsel;
For He will gather them like sheaves to the threshing floor.
13 “ Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion;
For I will make your horn iron,
And I will make your hooves bronze;
You shall beat in pieces many peoples;
I will consecrate their gain to the LORD,
And their substance to the Lord of the whole earth.”
This is obviously not Assyria. This was still a look ahead even after Babylon where they will be rescued let alone Assyria , the Sennacherib disaster against Judah, and the captivity of Babylon. That is not near.
Micah 5
1 Now gather yourself in troops,
O daughter of troops;
He has laid siege against us;
They will strike the judge of Israel with a rod on the cheek.
2 “ But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”
3 Therefore He shall give them up,
Until the time that she who is in labor has given birth;
Then the remnant of His brethren
Shall return to the children of Israel.
4 And He shall stand and feed His flock
In the strength of the LORD,
In the majesty of the name of the LORD His God;
And they shall abide,
For now He shall be great
To the ends of the earth;
5 And this One shall be peace.
Now finally Assyria is mentioned. Now you can consider it the context.
Micah 5
When the Assyrian comes into our land,
And when he treads in our palaces,
Then we will raise against him
Seven shepherds and eight princely men.
What you are doing is back referencing the context. Who does that? When I talk about say baseball scores and mention the last one and then say now its the football scores , the last baseball scores has nothing to do with it any longer. When Assyria is introduce in Micah 5 then what follows is not that context. You may say otherwise but you took it out of context.
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.
