What is going on in Micah 5?
A Christian asked me to look at Micah 5 and tell me what it sounded like. I had to admit, to an extent, it sounded like Jesus. You see, Christians all believe that the person in Micah 5 is Jesus because the Christian Scriptures outright state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem:
3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:
6
“‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.’[b]”
7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”Matthew 2:6 ESV
The problem is, however, that Matthew, Mark and Luke disagree. In Mark, Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth. This is explained in Luke because Joseph was only visiting Bethlehem because he was in the line of King David, so they had to be in an Inn. But in Matthew, they were originally from Bethlehem and had a house there – and then years later they went to Egypt and then came back and settle in Nazareth. The manger is a central feature of the story in Luke. Why would they be in a Manger if they were living in Bethlehem and had a house there, as in Matthew?
Let us ignore the discrepancies. Let us ignore the suspension of disbelief (if the star would hover over the house, and how did that happen, and it wasn't a manger, then why did they need to ask herod for directions, etc). Let's just say that Luke, here, is not a problem, and just run with Matthew 2:6. Because, Matthew 2:6 has a serious problem. Let's take a closer look:
| Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:6 | |
|---|---|
| … (a) ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. | Micah |
| … a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel. | Matthew |
The meaning of 'whose coming forth' (not whose origin; see Psalm 72:17). This refers to the eternal nature of the Davidic Covenant. This will be explored in detail later (or possibly in some article called Davidic Covenant).
Cutting to the point, Matthew added a phrase that appears nowhere in the hebrew scripture, and then the translators deliberately translated “coming forth” and “days of old” as “origin” and “eternal”. We know this because in every other place where they translate these words they translate it properly. Check it for yourself:
As we can see if the intent of the author to be understood he would use a phraseology and grammar that was common understanding to himself and his contemporaries.
Matthew 2:6 omits this phrase because he knows it refers to the giving of the Davidic covenant. Modern day translators twist the translation solely in this place to make it sound like this messiah was alive since the beginning of time. It's a real problem, that people have intentionally misquoted and mistranslated this verse so that you will believe something the text never said.
If you just open Micah 5:1 and read one or two verses, it certainly does sound perhaps like it could be talking about something. But actually Micah 5:1 is Micah 4:14. If you read Micah 4, which the average Christian does not, it will immediately be seen that it belongs at the end of chapter 4 and that 5:2 in a Christian bible is a new context. Similarly, if you read the rest of Micah (ex. 5:4 to the end) or if you read Micah 6 it will immediately be seen that this book cannot possibly be about Jesus.
For if it was, if 5:1-3 was about Jesus, then when this figure appears earlier and later in Micah, it would necessarily have to refer to the same Messiah. After all, how many Messiahs are there going to be in the end times?
There are multiple problems here; One, Jesus simply did not fulfil any of the prophecies in Micah 4, 5 or 6. Secondly, Micah 6 explicitly rejects the idea of an innocent human dying for the sins of others as ridiculous. The intent of the author of Micah is absolutely against the idea of the vicarious atonement of a suffering Messiah.
The truth is stumbled upon quite by accident. In their desire to make this about Jesus, the Christian Church numbered Micah 4:14 as 5:1, because in the gospels it mentions that Jesus is slapped by a soldier (although not with a rod, but is possibly not problematic; see Rashi on Psalms 3:8:1). However, the phrase “daughter” is exceedingly strange here.
Upon closer examination of biblical eschatology we see that this phrase refers to the Virgin Daughter of Zion, which refers to Jerusalem, and is a Virgin because it has never been taken by force. The Daughter of Zion has been mentioned around 20 times in the hebrew scriptures. In these supporting verses such as
* Isaiah 37:21-22 21 .. “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Because you have prayed to me concerning Sennacherib king of Assyria, 22 this is the word that the Lord has spoken concerning him: “‘She despises you, she scorns you—the virgin daughter of Zion; she wags her head behind you—the daughter of Jerusalem.
We are immediately led to the story of Hezekiah and Sessacherib at Jerusalem, which is historical; the Babylonian historian Berossus, also quoted also by historian Josephus, reports that a plague killed 185,000 of Sennacherib's men in a single night.
This is discussed in multiple places in scripture. See for example 2 Kings 18:13-19:37. All contemporaneous prophets mention this event. In Isaiah for example there are three sections which mention this and three prophecies are given:
Therefore as is made abundantly clear in the scriptures, the prophecy in Micah 5:2 already happened.
What now remains is the return of the lost ten tribes and many other messianic prophecies; as stated in for example Micah 5:7-8, the revelation of God to the nations of the world (Micah 5:15) and so forth.
Micah 5:2-3 is not about Jesus; what is it about?
From Rashi: It's Israel (Jerusalem). But we already knew that from the plain reading.
Therefore, He shall deliver them until the time a woman in confinement gives birth—He shall deliver them into the hands of their enemies until the coming of the time that Zion has felt the pangs of labor and borne her children; Zion, which is now seized by the pangs of labor, is now called a woman in confinement. [I.e., now the labor pains will cease and the redempyion will come about.] But our Sages state that from here we deduce that the son of David will not come until the wicked kingdom spreads over the entire world for nine months (Yoma 10b, Sanh. 98b). But, according to its simple meaning, this is the structure as I explained.Rashi on Micah 4:14