4. Micah 5:2

“But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall he come forth to Me, the One to be a ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2) [1st verse in the Hebrew text.]This prophecy asserts that the birthplace of the Messiah will be the town of Bethlehem in Judaea and that this ruler (Messiah) will be of Divine origin. A.W. Kac states,“Bethlehem was not large enough to have a thousand families or family clans, a truly insignificant town. The mention of Bethlehem was not merely to indicate Messiah’s birthplace, but his lowly human background as contrasted with his exalted Divine origin, ‘whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting.’ The future Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth reach back into eternity is to spring from insignificant Bethlehem, like has ancestor King David.” 49The New Testament affirms concerning the birthplace of Jesus, – “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judaea in the days of Herod…” (Matthew 2:1).“And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house of lineage of David)” And she brought forth her firstborn son, …” (Luke 2:4,7a).The New Testament also states that Jesus was indeed Divine and that His “coming forth” was from everlasting.“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God…rnAnd the Word became flesh and dwelt among us …” (John 1:1, 14).“Jesus said to them, Most assuredly I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).

Jewish Objections

The Jewish polemic objections to this prophecy as it relates to Jesus are fourfold: A) The passage does not describe the birthplace of the Messiah. B) The New Testament is unclear regarding the birthplace of Jesus. C) Even if Jesus was born in Bethlehem, so were thousands of others who were not the Messiah. D) This passage does not indicate the Divine Origin of the Messiah.

A.“The passage does not describe the birthplace of the Messiah.”

Samuel Levine describes the first argument;“The verse seems to refer explicitly to David, since it parallels 1 Samuel 17:12. Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem … This verse is saying, You, David, though you ought to be the little among the thousands of Judah, yet from you will come … Messiah. It does not say that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, but that the father (the distant father) will be born in Bethlehem”. 50Isaac Troki relates the same explanation of Micah 5:2. He says,“But the sense of the verse is this: Thou, Bethlehem, although one of the minor localities among the cities of Judah, from thee a man shall come forth, (i.e., trace his descent back to thee), who shall be ruler in Israel, and that same man will be a descendant of David who came from Bethlehem”. 51The problem with this interpretation is that Micah 5:2 is not describing the ‘birthplace of the father of the Messiah,’ but rather is referring to the birthplace of the Anointed One Himself as the obvious and clear reading of the context indicates. If this passage were referring to the family line of the Messiah, the reading would state that. But no mention is made that would indicate that the Messiah “traces his descent back” to Bethlehem. An examination of ancient rabbinic exegesis of Micah 5:2 reveals that Bethlehem was considered the birthplace of the Messiah. 52 Therefore, to interpret this passage in this manner is not only faulty exegesis, it is not even proper Jewish exegesis.

B. “The New Testament is unclear regarding the birthplace of Jesus.”

The second Jewish argument is stated by Gerald Sigal;“Christian missionaries allege that Jesus fulfilled Micah’s prophecy in that he was supposedly born in Bethlehem. Matthew’s claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1) is supported by Luke 2:4-7. Mark is silent on the matter. John relates that some people believed that the Messiah will come from Bethlehem (John 7:42), but does not take advantage of the opportunity to demonstrate that Micah’s prophecy was fulfilled by claiming that Jesus was actually born there. This is highly unusual and leads one to suspect that John did not agree with the assertion that Jesus was a Bethlehemite. He lets stand the opposing assertion that Jesus was really of Galilean origin, (John 1:46, 7:41). Except for the references found in Matthew and Luke, all indications, even in the writings of these two evangelists, point to the fact that Jesus was from Nazareth.” 53Both of the Gospels which deal with the birth narrative of Jesus (Matthew and Luke), state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7). The Gospel of Mark does not state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem for the simple reason that is does not deal at all with the subject of Christ’s birth; therefore, there is no reason to mention Bethlehem as Jesus’ place of birth. The Gospel of John also does not mention Bethlehem as Jesus’ birthplace because, like the Gospel of Mark, it does not deal with any discussion regarding the birth of Christ.According to Mr. Sigal, the Gospel of John implies that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Here, Mr. Sigal reveals a lack of knowledge concerning the New Testament. All four Gospels and the Book of Acts affirm that Jesus grew up and lived the major portion of His life in Nazareth. The Gospel of Luke states that Joseph and Mary left their hometown of Nazareth and traveled to Bethlehem for a special Roman taxing and while they were there, Jesus was born (Luke 2:1-7). Luke 2:39 states that sometime after Jesus’ birth, they returned to Nazareth. Matthew also relates that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and later returned to Nazareth (Matthew 2:1, 19-23). John 1:46; 7:41 do not mention anything regarding Jesus’ birth. These are simple statements affirming that Jesus lived in Nazareth with no information on His place of birth. This is indeed an interesting but extremely invalid argument.

C. “Even if Jesus was born in Bethlehem, so were thousands of others who were not the Messiah.”

Regarding the third objection to this prophecy, Isaac Troki agrues;“The birth of Jesus in Bethlehem does not entitle him to the claim of being the Messiah, for hundreds and thousands of children were born at Bethlehem, and that causality did not constitute them Messiahs.” 54Obviously, by simply being born in Bethlehem, one does not thereby demonstrate to be the Messiah. However, this prophecy does eliminate every other city in the world and states that from the small town of Bethlehem, the Messiah will be brought forth. Jesus’ birth in this location is then extremely important, for had he not been born in Bethlehem, He would have had no right to make any further Messianic claims.

D. “This passage does not indicate the Divine Origin of the Messiah.”

The last argument against the Christian exegesis of Micah 5:2 deals with the last sentence in the verse; “whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting.” The Christian understanding of this phrase is that it refers to the Divine, eternal pre-existence of the Messiah. The word “everlasting”, “olam,” in Hebrew, is used numerous times in the Old Testament. It translates as “everlasting” or “age-lasting” and is applied to the everlasting, eternal nature of God (Genesis 21:33; Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 41:13 90:2; Jeremiah 10:10). 55 It is also used to describe God’s covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:13, 19), God’s righteousness and salvation (Psalm 119:144; Isaiah 45:17), and everlasting life (Daniel 12:2).The Jewish rejection of the Christian interpretation of the last phrase of Micah 5:2 is given by Isaac Troki;“… nor can it be asserted that an allusion to the Eternal God is implied by ‘and his coming forth is from ancient time from the days of old.’ We cannot possibly attribute to the Infinite Being a coming forth…” 56The answer to this is that the term “coming forth” is the appropriate term to be used in describing the Divine qualities of the Messiah and His pre-existence. J.B. Payne states,“Attempts have been made to minimize either the uncreatedness or the eternity of the One whose coming forth is here anticipated: the RSV, for example, reads that from Bethlehem ‘shall come forth for me one whose origin (not, coming forth) is from ancient days’ (not, from everlasting). Yet the nouns ‘mosa’ and ‘mosa a’ ‘coming/going forth’ are never found at any other point in scripture to signify ‘origin’ and their verbal root, in the line just preceding, clearly maintains the standard meaning of ‘come forth.” 57The Christian doctrine of the Messiah agrees with this term “coming forth.” There was never a moment or time when Messiah was not God. He has always existed. This term “coming forth” in no way means “origin,” but rather it refers to the ongoing existence of the Messiah. Just as:“…the sun goes forth – Genesis 19:23 … morning by morning, but it does not begin to be each morning, so with the Messiah.” 58There is good evidence that the Talmudic view of this portion of Scripture interpreted it to indicate the pre-existence of the Messiah. Raphael Patai, professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem stated,“…the concept of the pre-existence of the messiah accords with the general Talmudic view which holds that ‘The Holy One, blessed be He’ prepares the remedy before the wound.” 59He continues by saying,“The names by which Messiah is called are revealing. In the First Book of Enoch, he is called ‘Head of Days’ … alluding to his pre-existence … He is also called the ‘Son of Man,’ others applied to him the name of God, a daring procedure in the Jewish context.” 60The Targum Jonathan, a Second Century Aramaic paraphrase of the Scriptures interprets Micah 5:2 by saying:“And you, O Bethlehem Ephrath, you who were still too small to be numbered among the thousands of the house of Judah, from you shall come forth before Me the Messiah, to exercise dominion over Israel, he whose name was mentioned from before, from the days of creation.” 61From these citations it is evident that the Christian exegesis of Micah 5:2 is not far removed from the Talmudic and traditional interpretation. However, the New Testament goes beyond the traditional Jewish view of the Messiah and teaches the deity of Christ. When this is coupled with Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 9:6, Proverbs 30:4 and Jeremiah 23:5-6, the case for the Messiah’s deity and pre-existence is strengthened.

4. Summary

When Micah 5:2 is examined in the light of the New Testament account of Christ’s birth, another prophetic element finds its fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth. Jewish polemicists offer no evidence to refute this prophetic fulfillment primarily because there is none. They just simply try to pass this prophecy off as unimportant. Yet the fact remains, Jesus met the requirements of this Messianic prediction.