Micah 5:1—The Birthplace of Messiah

christmas-1010749_1280

“And you, Bethlehem Ephratah, least among the thousands of Judah, from you one shall come forth to rule Israel for Me, one whose origins is from old, from ancient times”

Claim: The passage proves two things: (1) The Messiah’s birthplace is Bethlehem, so Jesus must have been the Messiah. (2) The end of the verse which in the Hebrew says mimei olam is to be translated literally— “from eternity,” proving that the Messiah has eternal divinity.

Response: Let’s first respond quickly to the second claim of theirs. Although they display an image of innocence by translating it so literal, their translation is deeply mistaken and contradictory to many other passages. The phrase in Hebrew mimei olam is used in many other places in the Bible. Yet every missionary would agree that in those places it is translated as “days of old” and not as “Eternity.” They will admit so because these passages force them to. These verses include Isaiah 23:7, Malachi 3:4, Micah 7:14, Jeremiah 46:26, Amos 9:11, Micah 7:20 and Isaiah 51:9.

And now regarding the first point: Unlike the other “proof-texts,” this one is quite explicit, quite direct, and would have been quite convincing… if not for two major flaws it contains.

(1) The verse isn’t referring to the actual Messiah, that he would be born in Bethlehem. Rather, that he would be a descendant from a clan that originated in Bethlehem. This clan is the Davidic dynasty. King David is frequently referenced in Scripture as from the city of Bethlehem[i]. One may ask why Scripture here would associate Messiah to a random ancestor of his, King David? The answer is that Scripture always does so and it’s no new concept the counter-missionaries invented to disassociate the verse from Jesus. King David is often called the Messiah.[ii] Additionally, Messiah himself is so often called “Son of David.”[iii] This is because the kingdom of Israel was promised to be from the Tribe of Judah[iv], and more particularly, from the dynasty of David.[v] So, Messiah, coming to restore the kingdom in Israel, is in effect restoring the dynasty back to King David of whose origins is of Bethlehem.

Although this interpretation of the verse cannot be proven, it transforms the Christian interpretation from proof to opinion.

(2) Even if it’s referring to Messiah himself being born in Bethlehem, missionaries encounter more problems. First of all, a fair argument would be that while Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem, so did hundreds of thousands of others throughout the generations. So why does Jesus, according to the missionaries, possess Messianic criteria beyond anyone else from the city?! There were other claimed messiahs from the city.[1] Or even if they didn’t claim they were the messiah that wouldn’t disqualify them as a Messiah candidate. Moreover, though the city of Bethlehem is currently inhabited by Arabs, who is to say that it will remain so forever and that no Jews will ever re-inhabit the city? Hence, any future Jew from the city may also crown himself or be crowned by others with the “Messiah” title.

(3) This that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is something known to us only via the New Testament, a book we still haven’t verified as authentic. The very same author of the New Testament who claims this alleged historical fact about Jesus, is the one who wants to paint Jesus into every passage he believed to be messianic, including Micah 5:1 regarding the Messiah originating from Bethlehem. That’s what we call “circular reasoning”; crowning Jesus as the Messiah because of an act he did that is recorded only in a book whose sole goal is to title him the Messiah. So why should we believe that he was actually born in Bethlehem?

Say I were to claim my great, great, great grandfather was the Messiah. I’ll say that he even fulfills messianic requirements: he performed miracles, he suffered for our sins, was rejected by his people, was named Emmanuel, rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and was born in Bethlehem. There’s only one twist: I fabricated all these facts about him just in order to paint him as the Messiah.

But the problems with affiliating Jesus as the candidate for Micah 5 don’t end here. Fabricating this fact about Jesus’ childhood wasn’t easy for the authors of the New Testament; they bumped into a major issue and struggled to come up with a proper theory as a solution. All throughout the early writings about Jesus, including the letters of Paul and the book of Mark, Jesus is associated with the city of Nazarene, having been born there and called by the populace as Jesus the Nazarene. As time passed, early Christians attempted to associate as many messianic prophecies on Jesus as possible, Micah 5 included. But Paul and Mark put them in a narrow corner having affiliated Jesus with the city of Nazareth. So here’s what they came up with.

The evangelist Luke thought of basing his theory on a census that was taken by Rome in the year 6 A.C.E. As he claims, the census required everyone to return to their ancestral homeland to get counted. Joseph, father of Jesus, originated from Bethlehem and thus returned there with his wife Mary and thereafter gave birth to Jesus, fulfilling the prophecy.

Luke’s theory might sound good, but it encounters some technical issues.[vi] As the Roman recordings tell us, the census was taken only in Judea, Samaria and Idumea and not in Galilee, the north of Israel, where the city of Nazareth is located. So Joseph would have no reason to budge from his city. Additionally, the Roman recordings tell us, the census was taken for taxation purposes. Roman taxation law was according to the land of residence, not that of one’s ancestors.

Luke’s theory was a cute attempt, but it ultimately fails upon further historical examination. So, not only is the alleged fact of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem recorded only by those who want to associate him with Micah 5, but this very fact established by (some of) the New Testament writers is only done through rewriting what we know of history. Now, I am aware that there is a discussion about this with Christian believers and critics battling this issue. My point here isn’t to enter this controversy and settle the case but to merely show that this story of Luke, which we have no reason to believe as discussed before, also has some historical issues which may or may not have been resolved—again, a controversy we will not address.

 


 

[1]E.g. Menachem ben Hezekiah mentioned in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 8b); see Talmud Yerushalmi Berachos 2:4 (5a).

[i]See 1 Samuel 17:12, 20:6, 2 Samuel 2:32.

[ii] For example, see Ezekiel 37:25.

[iii] See for example Hosea 3:5.

[iv]Genesis 49:10.

[v]Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5-6 and 33:14.

[vi] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-jesus/2013/09/26/b08e8272-1c98-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.af26c08c5fd8

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *