At some point in their history, the ancient Jews apparently believed in a created being alongside YHWH, who was subsequently used to bring the sum total of reality ("all things") into existence. This belief is reflected in the rabbinic writings, but it is also latent in the Hebrew Scriptures themselves. Micah 5:2 reads: "out of you [Bethlehem] shall One come forth for Me Who is to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth have been of old, from ancient days (eternity)" (Amplified Bible).
Now while it is true that the Amplified Bible and other translations render the Hebrew OLAM as "eternity"--the rendition "ancient days" seem to be preferable in this context: "'Origin' (MOSAOT, elsewhere only 2 Kings 10:27 with a quite different meaning!) echoes the verb 'come forth' (YS') and thinks of children originating in the loins of their father (BDB, YS', 1h, p. 423). Bethlehem as the 'parent' of the ruler belongs to a period now viewed as an era behind the current order and so belonging to 'ancient days' " (James Mays. Micah [Old Testament Library], pp. 115-116).
By no means do I necessarily agree with every sentiment expressed by Mays--in a sense, Bethlehem would bring forth the promised Messiah. Nevertheless, his years would stretch back to "ancient days" because he existed in heaven before coming to the earth. This does not imply that the Messiah was not created, however: he issued forth from his Father as the first creation of God and was not eternal in his preexistence (see Rev. 3:14). This point (about OLAM meaning "ancient days") is also forcefully brought out by Joseph Klausner:
"the words, 'from of old, from ancient days' indicate only the antiquity of his origin (since from the time of David to the time of Micah several centuries had passed), but nothing more" (The Messianic Idea in Israel. p. 76).
Probably supplying even more robust evidence for the idea of a created preexistent being with God is Prov. 8:22: "The Lord formed me and brought me [Wisdom] forth at the beginning of His way, before his acts of old" (Amplified Bible).
While admittedly this verse has been hotly debated, it seems most appropriate to translate QANAH as "created" instead of "possessed" as others construe this passage. In poetic contexts, QANAH is understood to mean "create" or "form" (Gen. 14:19-22; Ps. 139:13). Interestingly in Deut. 32:6, the word is parallel to ASAH ("to make") suggesting that it may have the meaning "create." Thus if the preexistent Messiah is under consideration as the figure of Wisdom in Prov. 8:22--then it would seem fitting to view him as being the first creation of Yahweh, then afterwards being used to create all things as the intermediary agent of the Most High God.
http://www.seedofabraham.net/Micah_Messiah_Deity.html
ReplyDeleteThis hinges on how olam is to be understood.
Proverbs 8:12 is of interest.
Wisdom dwells with?
Micah 5:2 LXX καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος
ReplyDeleteProverbs 8:21(A)LXX ἐὰν ἀναγγείλω ὑμῖν τὰ καθ' ἡμέραν γινόμενα μνημονεύσω τὰ ἐξ αἰῶνος ἀριθμῆσαι
Both Prov. 8 and Micah 5 LXX speak of ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος and τὰ ἐξ αἰῶνος.
Gk., ἐξ denotes origin.
And Micah 5:2 LXX ἀπ' ἀρχῆς = from of a beginning!
Gk., αἰῶνος = an age of undetermined length characterized by certain events that occur in it.
In the case of Proverbs 8:22 LXX it is the age, or time characterized by ἐν ἀρχῇ, i.e. ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ and Gen. 1.1 ἐν ἀρχῇ and John 1.1 ἐν ἀρχῇ.
Could this be the same ἀρχῇ that Micah 5:2 ἀρχῆς speaks of?
Justin Martyr certainly thought so. He both spoke of the Logos as γένητος “created” (with a single "ν") in the manuscripts, not γέννητος “begotten” (with the double "νν"), as the Tri{3}nitairan printed texts have deviously corrupted.
Dial. 61.1A = γεγένηκε = MSS, BNF 450
Dial. 61.1A = γεγένηκε = MSS, Claromontanus
Dial. 61.1A Tri{3}nitarian Printed Texts: = γεγέννηκε
GREEK TEXT: “...τι ἀρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ θεὸς γεγένηκε δύναμίν τινα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικήν...” - (Dial. 61.1A; Folio 113b, BNF 450 Text.)
JUSTIN MARTYR (circa. 110-165 C.E.): “...because as a beginning, prior to all of those things that were created,{1} He who [Or: “that”] is [the] definitive God caused a certain kind of rational power [Gk., ( γεγένηκε )] to be created,{2} having it's origin from out of Him-Self.{3}...” - (Dial. Chapter 61:1-3; “Dialogue with Trypho a Jew”)
[FOOTNOTE 1]: Or: “that have been created”
[FOOTNOTE 2]: Lit., “to begin existence“ Or: “to be made” “to begin to be.”
Codex Regius Parisinus Graecus 450, or BNF (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, gr. 450), Folio 113b, can now (finally!) be seen online at this link below:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722125b/f119.item.r=450.zoom
Codex Claromontanus, Folio 87v, can be seen online at this link below:
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_82951_f087v
Of significant interest here is Mat 2:1-6, Mat 1:1-5, 1 Samuel 16:1, 1 Samuel 7:12, Luke 2:11, Mat 2:1,6, Luke 1:32-33.
ReplyDeleteSorry - 1 Samuel 7:12 should be 17:12.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhat I find confusing is how someone can "preexist" themselves. A point Anthony Buzzard frequently makes.
Anthony F. Buzzard @AnthonyFBuzzard
"[Preexistence] puts a being, a life in (paradoxical) relation to a being which has always existed." Otto, Kingdom of God & Son of Man, p175
“Preexistence” appears to be a way of papering over the obvious cracks in the theory that a single person can preexist himself.
"One cannot preexist oneself! Preexistence is a clever cover-up term for holding to “two existences,” and thus two distinct persons."
“How can someone exist before existing? How can ‘Jesus Christ’ exist before Jesus was born in Bethlehem?" Johnson, The Creed, 2003, p 108.
QANAH - Genesis 4:1 - "And the man knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said 'I have gotten (qana) a man with the help of the LORD.'"-KJV
ReplyDelete"In face of this evidence we must surely conclude that the ground-meaning of kana is that of acquiring something not previously possessed, which may be done by buying or MAKING it, in the case of a child by BEGETTING it."
C.F Bruce -Christ as the APXH of Creation, JTS,27 (1926) PP. 160-77, capitalisation mine.
Could we conclude that Jehovah "possessed" or "acquired" wisdom (the messiah) by begetting/creating it/him? I think this is how scripture paints it.
@anonymous I've always understood it as Jesus's PREHUMAN existence, opposed to the paradox of complete preexistence, as spirit form is a different kind of life/existence.
The idea that having two distinct existences necessitates two distinct "persons" to live in them seems like an either/or argument to me. But I may have missed something...
On Micah 5:2, from NET Bible:
ReplyDelete"As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, 6 seemingly insignificant 7 among the clans of Judah – from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, 8 one whose origins 9 are in the distant past.10"
9 tn Heb “his goings out.” The term may refer to the ruler’s origins (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) or to his activities.
10 tn Heb “from the past, from the days of antiquity.” Elsewhere both phrases refer to the early periods in the history of the world or of the nation of Israel. For מִקֶּדֶם (miqqedem, “from the past”) see Neh 12:46; Pss 74:12; 77:11; Isa 45:21; 46:10. For מִימֵי עוֹלָם (mimey ’olam, “from the days of antiquity”) see Isa 63:9, 11; Amos 9:11; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4. In Neh 12:46 and Amos 9:11 the Davidic era is in view.
sn In riddle-like fashion this verse alludes to David, as the references to Bethlehem and to his ancient origins/activities indicate. The passage anticipates the second coming of the great king to usher in a new era of national glory for Israel. Other prophets are more direct and name this coming ideal ruler “David” (Jer 30:9; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos 3:5). Of course, this prophecy of “David’s” second coming is actually fulfilled through his descendant, the Messiah, who will rule in the spirit and power of his famous ancestor and bring to realization the Davidic royal ideal in an even greater way than the historical David (see Isa 11:1, 10; Jer 33:15).
Regarding QANAH, a friend once wrote:
ReplyDeleteAt Proverbs 8:22 the Hebrew word under discussion is transliterated:
"kah-NAH'-nee." We are told in the passage that Jehovah "kah-NAH-nee." The "nee" suffix indicates the pronoun "me" in this sentence." But what is the core verb?
From Whence The Word?
On pages 888 and 889 of The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew English Lexicon (1979) under "Kah-NAH" [transliterated], we find: "get, acquire...(a0 of God, as originating, creating...Gn 14:,19,22, Dt 32:6, Ps 139:13; Prov 8:22" Note how this reference work relates this word to the subject word found in Proverbs 8:22. Further, on pages 663 of Gesenius Hebrew Grammar by Kautzsch (1988), we are informed that "kah-NAH-nee" derives from "kah-NAH" which on page 662 we are told means: "(1) to form, create (2) to get, acquire, to obtain (3) to buy, to purchase." Next, Strong's Concordance links "kah-NAH" to Proverbs 8:22 and defines "kah-NAH" as "to erect, to create, to procure, esp. by purchase; by implication to own, buy"
This means that Wisdom [Christ] was declaring that "Jehovah created, originated, formed me."
I find it interesting that reshit can mean head (summit -http://www.juf.org/news/israel.aspx?id=431896 ) & that the ABP translation of Prov 8:22 LXX is translated this way:-
ReplyDeletePro 8:22 The lord created me the head of his ways for his works.
Genesis 2:10 LXX
(ABP-G+) ποταμος δε εκπορευεται εξ Εδεν ποτιζειν τον παραδεισον εκειθεν αφοριζεται εις τεσσαρας αρχας
is interesting when compared to (YLT) And a river is going out from Eden to water the garden, and from thence it is parted, and hath become four chief rivers ;
Of course, Rosh Hashanah can mean "the head of the year," and there has been some debate as to whether the Greek kephale can mean "head" in the sense of "source." But D.A. Carson and Vern Poythress evidently "put paid" to that idea.
ReplyDeleteThe particular issue to which their debate relates had not occurred to me but since you mentioned it I do not think that it is over yet.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.empowerinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Miles-Kephale.pdf
A third option?
I did read the article and will peruse it again later, to be fair, but the literature on kephale firmly supports the meaning "authority over." What I like about Poythress is that he carefully reviews instances of the word in the literature, and D.A. Carson's discussion also carefully points out the fallacies of the dissenters. The major lexica also support the meaning "authority over." Like all things in scholarship, nothing is usally thought to be conclusive. Yet we have to consider the preponderance of the evidence.
ReplyDeleteSee http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2011/09/cotterell-and-turner-on-kefalh.html
ReplyDeleteExelente explicación, hola soy Testigo de Jehová mi nombre Omar sirvo como precursor auxiliar en Perú lima , tal ves pueda habilitarme sus estudios en español? Le agradecería muchísimo le dejo mi correo electrónico y/o facebook omarfox_2@hotmail.com
ReplyDeleteThank you, omar. Good for you to introduce yourself, brother. Maybe catch you on facebook.
ReplyDeleteThe term "olam" in Hebrew is often translated as "eternity" or "everlasting," and is used in several passages to describe God's eternal nature (Psalm 90:2, Habakkuk 1:12). In Micah 5:2, when it says, "whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting [olam]," the term clearly emphasizes the eternal existence of the Messiah, not a created origin. The ancient Jewish understanding, as reflected in the Septuagint (LXX) and Vulgate, translates this as "from the days of eternity," reinforcing the idea of eternal preexistence.
ReplyDeleteThe verse describes a ruler who will come forth from Bethlehem but whose origins are from eternity. The passage makes a clear distinction between the physical birth in Bethlehem and the Messiah’s eternal preexistence. This is in harmony with Christian theology, which views Christ as eternally existing with God (John 1:1-2) and entering history through the Incarnation.
Joseph Klausner argues that "ancient days" refers merely to the antiquity of the Messiah’s origin. However, this interpretation misses the broader use of "olam" in the Hebrew Bible, which often refers to the eternal and not just a distant past. Additionally, the Messiah’s role as the "Everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6) and the one "whose goings forth are from everlasting" supports the idea of eternal preexistence, not mere antiquity.
Proverbs 8:22 is frequently misapplied to argue that Jesus, as Wisdom personified, was created. However, the Hebrew verb qanah here does not necessitate creation in the sense of being brought into existence out of nothing. Qanah can also mean "possess" or "acquire," as demonstrated by its usage in Genesis 14:19 and Psalm 139:13. The early Church Fathers, including Athanasius, saw Wisdom as eternally existing with God, not as a created entity. The idea of Wisdom being created undermines the broader biblical context, which presents the Logos (the Word) as eternal (John 1:1-3) and the agent of creation.
Jehovah’s Witnesses often point to Revelation 3:14, which refers to Christ as the "beginning of the creation of God," to suggest that Jesus was the first created being. However, the Greek term "arche" can mean "source" or "origin." In this context, Christ is the originator or ruler of all creation, not the first creature. Colossians 1:16 clarifies that all things were created "through him and for him," emphasizing His role as the Creator rather than a created being.
The title "firstborn" (Greek: prototokos) in Colossians 1:15 does not imply that Jesus was the first created being. Rather, it is a title of preeminence, indicating His authority and sovereignty over all creation. In ancient Jewish culture, the firstborn was the heir and had a position of authority. Christ, as the "firstborn" of creation, has the highest rank and authority over all things, as affirmed in the following verse (Colossians 1:16), which states that all things were created through Him.
Finally, the argument that "the Word had a beginning" based on John 1:1 is unfounded. John 1:1 explicitly states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The use of the imperfect tense for "was" (ēn) indicates continuous existence, meaning that the Word (Christ) always existed and did not have a beginning. This aligns with the understanding that Christ is eternal, coexisting with the Father from eternity.
In the Hebrew Bible, the term olam (עוֹלָם) is most commonly translated as "eternity" or "everlasting." While some translations might render it as "ancient days," this fails to capture the full theological depth of the term, especially when describing the Messiah. The majority of scholarly and traditional translations, including the Septuagint (LXX) and Vulgate, translate olam as "eternity" or "from ancient days," referring to the eternal, preexistent nature of the Messiah.
ReplyDeleteThe NET Bible commentary recognizes that miqqedem (from of old) and mimey olam (from the days of eternity) refer to the Messiah's eternal nature, not a mere distant past. The phrases used, especially mimey olam, consistently describe God’s eternal attributes (Psalm 90:2, Habakkuk 1:12), affirming that the Messiah's "goings forth" are from eternity.
Micah 5:2 specifically refers to Bethlehem as the place where the eternal ruler will emerge, but His origin (His "goings forth") is from eternity, pointing to the eternal preexistence of the Messiah. This contradicts the notion of the Messiah being a created being.
In Proverbs 8:22, archē is used in the context of wisdom and is often debated between "created" and "possessed." However, the traditional Christian understanding, supported by early Church Fathers like Athanasius, is that qanah (the Hebrew word) in this context means "possessed" or "appointed," not "created." Wisdom is seen as an intrinsic part of God’s nature, just as the Logos (Christ) is described as eternally with God (John 1:1-2).
In Micah 5:2, the LXX's use of archē (from the beginning) in no way implies a created being. The phrase refers to the eternal preexistence of the Messiah, who exists before all things. The connection between archē and aiōnos in both texts emphasizes eternal existence, not creation.
The argument that Justin Martyr referred to the Logos as "created" (γεγένηκε) rather than "begotten" (γεγέννηκε) relies on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Justin’s writings. Justin Martyr consistently defended the eternal preexistence of the Logos. In his "Dialogue with Trypho," he speaks of the Logos as the begotten Son of God, not as a created being. The distinction between gegennētos (begotten) and gegennetos (created) in manuscript variants is a minor textual issue that does not reflect the overall theology of Justin, who affirmed the eternal nature of Christ.
The claim that Trinitarian texts "deviously corrupted" Justin’s writings is unfounded and reflects a misunderstanding of early Christian theology. Justin argued for the divinity of the Logos and His eternal relationship with the Father, consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity.
Micah 5:2 (5:1 LXX): καὶ σύ Βηθλεεμ οἶκος τοῦ Εφραθα ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ιουδα ἐκ σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος
ReplyDeleteHere's the actual NET Bible note:
ReplyDeleteHeb “from the past, from the days of antiquity.” Elsewhere both phrases refer to the early periods in the history of the world or of the nation of Israel. For מִקֶּדֶם (miqqedem, “from the past”) see Neh 12:46; Pss 74:12; 77:11; Isa 45:21; 46:10
Isaiah 46:10 NET
who announces the end from the beginning and reveals beforehand what has not yet occurred; who...
. For מִימֵי עוֹלָם (mime ʿolam, “from the days of antiquity”) see Isa 63:9, 11; Amos 9:11; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4. In Neh 12:46 and Amos 9:11 the Davidic era is in view.sn In riddle-like fashion this verse alludes to David, as the references to Bethlehem and to his ancient origins/activities indicate. The passage anticipates the second coming of the great king to usher in a new era of national glory for Israel. Other prophets are more direct and name this coming ideal ruler “David” (Jer 30:9; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos 3:5). Of course, this prophecy of “David’s” second coming is actually fulfilled through his descendant, the Messiah, who will rule in the spirit and power of his famous ancestor and bring to realization the Davidic royal ideal in an even greater way than the historical David (see Isa 11:1, 10; Jer 33:15).
The term "OLAM", translated as "everlasting" or "eternity," carries a significant meaning in the Hebrew Bible, denoting an eternal or perpetual state. This word is frequently used in Scripture to describe God's eternal nature, as seen in Psalm 90:2, Habakkuk 1:12, and Isaiah 9:6. In the context of Micah 5:2, this term refers not merely to ancient history or antiquity but to the eternal preexistence of the Messiah.
DeleteThe NET Bible note suggests that both "MIQQEDEM" (from of old) and "MIMEY OLAM" (from the days of eternity) refer to earlier periods. However, this should be understood as describing the eternal preexistence of the Messiah rather than a finite past. The phrases used, particularly “MIMEY OLAM”, describe a ruler whose origins are not just historical but ETERNAL—a concept consistent with Christ’s divine nature, affirmed in John 1:1 and Colossians 1:16-17.
The note mentions that Micah 5:2 refers to David and his origins, but it is clear that the verse points beyond David to the Messiah, as seen by its eschatological implications. While David was born in Bethlehem and had earthly beginnings, the prophecy describes someone whose "goings forth" are from ETERNITY, not from a mere historical past. This is crucial because it indicates that the ruler being spoken of is not a mere human descendant of David, but the eternal Messiah, fulfilling the Davidic royal ideal in a divine and eternal capacity.
The emphasis on "from the days of eternity" points to the Messiah’s divine nature, not just his human lineage through David. This understanding aligns with Isaiah 9:6, where the Messiah is called the "Everlasting Father," and the New Testament's portrayal of Christ as existing before creation (John 1:1-3).
The Septuagint translation of Micah 5:2 uses the phrase "ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς" (from the beginning), which does not imply a created being. Instead, it reinforces the idea of eternal existence. The Greek phrase ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος (from the days of eternity) supports the notion of a timeless existence, not merely antiquity. The early Church Fathers interpreted this verse in light of Christ's eternal nature, identifying the Messiah as co-eternal with God.
The idea that Jesus cannot be the Creator if He is heir of all things misunderstands the theological concept of inheritance. In Hebrews 1:2, Christ is appointed heir because of His preeminent status as God's Son, not because He is a created being. In ancient Jewish culture, the heir held authority and sovereignty over all that the Father possessed. Therefore, Jesus as the heir signifies His rightful rule and authority over creation, aligning with His role as Creator in Colossians 1:16 ("all things were created through Him and for Him").
1)Olam does not necessarily refer to eternity in Micah 5:2: did ancient Jews understand the Hebrew or Greeek that way? I've read a number of commentaries and lexical works that would dispute your claim.
ReplyDeleteSee Micah 7:14; 7:20.
JPS 1917: "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, Which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, Out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; Whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days."
See also https://www.sefaria.org/Micah.5.2?lang=bi&with=Targum&lang2=en
2) For ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, compare 2 Peter 3:4; 1 John 1:1; 1 John 3:8.
The Catholic New American Bibler RE translates Micah 5:2-- "But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah
ReplyDeleteleast among the clans of Judah,
From you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel;
Whose origin is from of old,
from ancient times."
The note for the verse reads: Salvation will come through a “messiah,” an anointed ruler. The Book of Micah shares with Isaiah the expectation that God will deliver Israel through a king in the line of David. Bethlehem-Ephrathah is the home of the Davidic line.
https://www.academia.edu/41559628/Micah_5_2_and_Matthew_2_5_6_The_eternal_deity_of_Messiah
ReplyDeleteYou argue that OLAM in Micah 5:2 refers to antiquity rather than eternity. However, while “olam” CAN refer to long periods of time, its broader biblical usage supports the interpretation of eternity, particularly when describing God’s or the Messiah’s nature. The Hebrew word "olam" is frequently used in the Bible to describe eternity, not just "ancient days." For example:
ReplyDeletePsalm 90:2: "From everlasting (OLAM) to everlasting, you are God" – clearly indicating God's eternal nature.
Habakkuk 1:12: "Are you not from everlasting (OLAM)?" – a rhetorical question emphasizing God's timeless existence.
These passages demonstrate that "olam" goes beyond mere ancientness and implies timeless, eternal existence. Thus, interpreting "olam" as "eternity" in Micah 5:2 is consistent with its broader use throughout Scripture, especially when referring to divine qualities. Similarly, Micah 5:2 uses OLAM in conjunction with MIQEDEM ("from of old"), reinforcing that the Messiah’s origin is not merely from antiquity but from eternity, as His "goings forth" are tied to God’s eternal nature. This supports the Christian interpretation that the Messiah existed from eternity, not merely from a distant past.
While you reference OLAM as "ancient days" rather than eternity, the Septuagint translates OLAM with the Greek term AIŌNOS (αἰῶνος), which can mean "eternity" or "age." Early Jewish scholars clearly saw the Messiah's "goings forth" as related to the eternal timeline rather than merely ancient history.
The claim that the passage in Micah refers to historical events such as the Davidic covenant or the promise to Abraham (as argued in the uploaded document) misses the theological depth of the passage. While the Davidic covenant is certainly in view, the prophecy points to a future ruler whose existence is anchored not just in David's lineage but in eternity itself. This dual aspect—both the Davidic descent and eternal origin—highlights the Messianic nature of the prophecy. The NET Bible note emphasizes that the phrase "from the days of eternity" is frequently used to describe God's eternal attributes and points out that Micah 5:2 reflects the Davidic messianic hope, but in a far more significant sense—connecting the Messiah with eternity, not just the distant past.
Micah 5:2 clearly distinguishes between the physical birthplace of the Messiah (Bethlehem) and His eternal origin ("whose goings forth are from everlasting"). This distinction aligns with Christian theology, which holds that the Messiah (Jesus) existed eternally with God before His earthly birth. The phrase "from everlasting" (OLAM) speaks to this eternal preexistence, not merely an ancient origin as the document suggests.
Your article tries to limit the interpretation of Micah 5:2 to only a historical Davidic context, stating that "ancient days" refer to David’s lineage rather than the Messiah's eternal nature. However, this perspective neglects the broader scriptural connections, particularly Isaiah 9:6, where the Messiah is described as "Everlasting Father." This, in combination with Micah 5:2, paints a clear picture of a Messiah who transcends time.
You argue that Matthew's quotation of Micah 5:2 (in Matthew 2:6) omits references to the Messiah's eternal nature and focuses only on His Davidic lineage. However, the fact that Matthew identifies Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecy about Bethlehem already implies a deeper Messianic significance. While Matthew emphasizes Jesus' Davidic origin, the full context of Micah 5:2—especially its reference to the Messiah's "goings forth from of old, from eternity"—points to His eternal preexistence. The absence of the specific phrase in Matthew does not negate its theological import in Micah’s prophecy.
I believe that we have to understand words in their literary context and that is what philologists and lexicologists teach us. Of course, olam denotes eternity at times, but there are other cases where it clearly does not as I illustrated with other verses from Micah. Micah 7:14 and 7:20 belie the claim that olam has to mean eternity in Micah 5:2 and I have a hard time believing that ancient Jews read the verse that way. Why not consult the Hermeneia commentary and note what it states about Micah 5:2? I've read others that would put serious questions to your claims, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteNincsnevem, you repeatedly talk about the "theological depth" of passages, but what about lexical semantics, philology and grammar? What about the theology of the people wrote originally wrote and copied Micah 5:2? One cannot impose his/her theology on them.
Like many other Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe Micah 52 is a messianic prophecy about Jesus Christ. However, that does not mean I think olam means eternity in the passage, nor do I believe the verse ascribes "deity" to Christ.
@Edgar Foster
DeleteYou're correct in noting that OLAM can mean different things depending on the context, but this does not negate the possibility of it meaning "eternity" in certain passages, including Micah 5:2. OLAM frequently refers to eternity in relation to God's eternal nature (e.g., Psalm 90:2).
The Hermeneia commentary and other sources might lean towards "ancient days," but broader biblical and theological contexts suggest otherwise. Micah 5:2 refers to the Messiah whose origin is from eternity (miqqedem, mimey olam). The difference between these terms is crucial: MIQQEDEM might refer to "ancient days," but MIMEY OLAM is consistently linked with eternal, divine attributes in Scripture (as seen in Isaiah 9:6, Psalm 90:2, and Habakkuk 1:12).
While it’s important to consider philology and grammar, theological consistency within the Bible must also be addressed. Ancient Jewish interpretation—such as seen in the Septuagint (LXX) and Targum Jonathan—leans towards understanding OLAM as eternal in Micah 5:2, referring to a Messiah with divine pre-existence.
Even if certain Jewish interpreters might not have ascribed deity to the Messiah, the Christian theological interpretation clearly sees the Messiah’s eternal nature. Jesus, as the "Eternal Father" (Isaiah 9:6) and the pre-existent "Word" (John 1:1-2), cannot merely have an "ancient" origin, but must be eternal.
While different interpretations of OLAM exist, a more holistic understanding of the term in Micah 5:2—supported by context, biblical theology, and historical interpretation—points to an eternal Messiah, not a created being. The interpretation of OLAM as simply "ancient" is inconsistent with other key Scriptures that highlight Christ's eternal pre-existence.
With all respect, guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Nincsnevem because I do not believe that the LXX or the Targum of Jonathan supports the eternal understanding for olam. I read both of them today.
ReplyDeleteSomething else that is hard to conceive is that second temple Jews believed the Messiah would be God or coeternal likke God. I've seen no evidence to buttress this claim, from the ancient Jewish documents themselves.
It’s essential to acknowledge that OLAM indeed has a range of meanings, including both "eternity" and "ancient days," so the interpretation in Micah 5:2 depends on the theological context and the overall biblical narrative. So we must consider the broader usage of OLAM in Scripture. For instance, in Psalm 90:2 and Habakkuk 1:12, OLAM clearly refers to God’s eternal nature, and in Isaiah 9:6, the Messiah is explicitly called "Everlasting Father" (אֲבִי עַד). Thus, olam often implies eternity, especially in Messianic contexts.
Deletehttps://biblehub.com/hebrew/5703.htm
The LXX and other Jewish sources do not rule out the understanding of OLAM as "eternity" in Messianic prophecies. The fact that some Jews, including Rashi, saw preexistence in Micah 5:2 suggests that even ancient Jewish interpreters left room for an eternal Messiah. While it is true that OLAM in itself can mean "ancient days," its usage in Messianic contexts frequently points to eternal preexistence. The fact that the Messiah’s origins are described as MIMEY OLAM (from the days of eternity) fits within the broader understanding of Christ’s eternal existence with God. The traditional Christian interpretation aligns well with this, seeing the Messiah as both eternal and divine.
Scholar Michael Brown writes regarding Micah 5:2:
ReplyDelete" ‘olam clearly means ‘forever,’ as commonly rendered in both Jewish and Christian versions. This would point clearly to a similar rendering just a few verses later in 5: 2. In Micah 7: 14, however, the expression ‘as in the days of ‘olam’ is used in a non-eternal sense, the whole verse being translated in the King James with, ‘Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old.’ This indicates we cannot be dogmatic about the translation of Micah 5: 2 , since the context allows for an ‘eternal’ or merely ‘ancient’ meaning."
See https://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2016/04/18/does-micah-52-indicate-that-the-messiah-is-divine/
Here is what Radak (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kimhi) says:
Delete"And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah. It says 'Ephrathah' to clarify which Bethlehem, and likewise, 'I buried her there on the way to Ephrath, that is, Bethlehem.' And it says, 'Bethlehem of Judah,' it seems that there was another Bethlehem, and it says about this Bethlehem, 'You, Bethlehem, are small among the clans of Judah.' Even though you were small among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me a ruler to be a ruler in Israel, and this is the King Messiah. And the explanation is: Though you are now insignificant among the cities of the clans of Judah, small in comparison to them, nevertheless, from you will come forth the Messiah for me, for he will be from the seed of David who was from Bethlehem. And this is what is said: 'And his origins are from old, from the days of eternity.' For it will be said in the time of the Messiah that his origins were from long ago, from this Bethlehem—this is David, for there is a long time between David and the King Messiah.
(And this is what is meant by 'He is from the days of old, from the days of eternity'—there is a response to this, for he [Jesus] did not rule in Israel, but they ruled over him. And what is said, 'For who was from the days of old but God?' This is false, for God existed before the days of the world, and they say that his origins were from long ago, that is, that he [Jesus] emerged then. And God is eternal, without beginning.)
[Another version: And those who err and say this verse refers to Jesus, may his name be obliterated, and say that he was born in Bethlehem, and that this is 'from the days of old, from the days of eternity,' there is a response to them, for Jesus did not rule in Israel, but they ruled over him and hanged him. And what they say, 'For who was from the days of old but God?'—this is false, for God existed before the days of the world, and he [the prophet] says that his origins were from long ago, meaning then he emerged. And God is eternal, without beginning.]
And what is said, 'From everlasting to everlasting, You are God,' means before the world, as it is said, 'Before the mountains were born.' And similarly, 'From everlasting I have been established,' before the world, as it is said, 'Before He made the earth and its open spaces.' And the Targum [Aramaic translation] similarly says: 'And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,' etc."
Perush Maharzu on Bereshit Rabbah 1:4:6
DeleteAnd in Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, after bringing this proof of 'Before the sun,' it brings another proof, as follows: One verse says, 'But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah...' and 'his origins are from ancient times' (Micah 5:1). The text there says: 'But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, small among the clans of Judah, from you will come forth for me to be a ruler in Israel, and his origins are from ancient times, from days of eternity,' meaning from before the world was created. And this refers to our righteous Messiah, who comes from David, who is called the Ephrathite from Bethlehem, as it is written in 1 Samuel 17, 'And David was the son of an Ephrathite from Bethlehem in Judah.'"
Radak (Rabbi David Kimhi) interprets MIQQEDEM MIME Y OLAM (מִקֶּדֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם) as signifying the eternal preexistence of the Messiah. He links it to David's lineage, emphasizing that the Messiah's origins go back to eternity. This commentary shows that Radak connects the Messiah’s role to God’s eternal kingship, transcending time.
DeleteIn the Targum of Jonathan on Micah 5:1 (5:2 in Hebrew), the Messiah is described as having been appointed by God "MIYOMÉ ‘ALMĀ" (מִיוֹמֵי עָלְמָא)—"from the days of eternity." The word ‘ALMĀ (עוֹלָם) in Aramaic reflects eternity. The Targum implies the Messiah’s eternal existence, preexisting even the creation of the world.
The Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer speaks of the name of the Messiah existing before the creation of the world, referencing Micah 5:2 and highlighting that the Messiah's origins are from eternity (MIYOMÉ ‘ALMĀ), further reinforcing the Messiah's timeless nature.
Nics, as for psalm 90:2 I would be interested to hear what you have to say about generations in psalms 90:1 and what https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/72-3.htm is talking about???
ReplyDelete@Duncan
DeleteThe verse in Psalm 72:3 refers to mountains and hills bringing peace and righteousness. The Hebrew term "hā-rîm" (mountains) and "ū-ḡə-ḇā-‘ō-wṯ" (hills) are used metaphorically to represent stability, grandeur, and prosperity for the people, often connected to peace and righteousness. This emphasizes that the divine blessings flow down, much like natural elements symbolizing abundance and peace.
Regarding Psalm 90:1-2, the "generations" emphasize God's eternal presence across all time, reinforcing the theme of divine continuity from eternity (olam) to everlasting. This adds to the broader theological understanding that God transcends temporal limits, linking it to discussions about eternity.
Robert Alter's Translation: "And you, Bethlehem of Ephrath,
ReplyDeletethe least of Judah’s clans,
from you shall one come forth for Me
to be ruler of Israel
whose origins are from ancient times,
from days of yore."
Another Hebrew scholar and Trinitarian, who does not apply Micah 5:1-2 to Jesus' eternality or understand olam that way in Micah is Bruce Waltke. He contends:
ReplyDelete"In 5:1A(2A) yese' refers to his local origin in Bethlehem; in 5:1B(2B) it refers to his temporal and, by implication, his ancestral origin. His local coming from Bethlehem implies his ancestral origin from Jesse and the house of David. A connection with a mythological Urmensch, while lexically possible, is co-textually arbitrary. The ablative sense of the inseparable preposition min in miqqedem (from of old) marks the movement away from a specified beginning point, and this sense underlies the designation of origin.53 gedem 'in front of' can refer to space, 'the East' (Gen 2:8), or time, 'earlier time, remote antiquity.' In contrast to `olam and `ad, which denote 'perpetuity,' qedem denotes an idyllic state."
Also, Waltke observes:
e qedem, `olam opens the lexical door to the possibility of a past Urtime, but that door is closed by the construct yeme. E.Jenni says that `olam can refer to the Urtime "except when the nomen regens already contains a definite time (`days, "Years," generations'; Deut 32:7; Isa 51:9; 61:9, 11; Amos 9:11; Mic 5:1[2]; 7:14; Mal 3:4; Ps 77:6[5]...)." The reference to the house of David in Amos 9a1 parallels "the days of long ago" in Mic 5:1(2); both refer to the founding and rebuilding of David's house. Says B. Renaud:57 "If the mention of Bethlehem refers to the childhood of David, the `ancient days, the times of old' must correspond to the times of David.... Amos 9:11 associates in a completely similar fashion `the raising up and reparation of the hut of David (the theme of beginning again of Davidic history as in Mic 5:1[2])' with `the days of old (kymy)
Bruce Waltke argues that Micah 5:2 refers to an “idyllic” past (based on QEDEM and OLAM) rather than eternity. We should first acknowledge that the passage can carry layers of meaning, but Waltke’s interpretation overly narrows it. QEDEM often refers to "ancient days" or "times of old," yet in prophetic contexts, especially messianic ones, OLAM denotes a time beyond mere antiquity—often extending to eternity (e.g., Psalm 90:2).
DeleteWaltke’s argument hinges on the local and ancestral aspects of the Messiah coming from Bethlehem. However, Micah 5:2 also points to the eternal nature of the Messiah. The phrase "goings forth... from days of eternity" (MIQEDEM MIMEI OLAM) indicates not only an ancient past but eternal origins, as corroborated by the broader usage of OLAM in Scripture, where it denotes perpetuity or eternal existence, particularly when speaking of God or divine matters.
While Waltke dismisses the possibility of OLAM referring to eternity in this instance, the Targum, Septuagint, and other Jewish interpretations, as well as early Christian understandings, point to a deeper, more eternal significance. The reference to the Messiah's "goings forth" aligns with this preexistent, eternal understanding, emphasizing Christ’s divine origin, not just a temporal or ancestral one.
An old post I still agree with - https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/definition/eternity.htm
ReplyDeleteNics, it is man and his generations that us of prime concern in Psalms 90 and a number of key term point to moses encounter with God on the mountain.
ReplyDeleteSee also psalms 72:5.
ReplyDelete@ Duncan
ReplyDeletePsalm 90:1-2 does emphasize generations, but OLAM (eternity) emphasizes God's eternal existence, transcending time and generations, reinforcing the divine nature of God as the ultimate origin and end of all things. This is a common theme when OLAM is used concerning God (e.g., Psalm 90:2 - "from everlasting to everlasting").
Psalm 72:3, referencing mountains and hills bringing peace, symbolizes divine blessings of peace and righteousness, often seen as metaphors for stability and permanence, not mere human generations.
In Jeff A. Benner's interpretation of OLAM as "beyond the horizon," it's important to note that the Hebrew understanding of time and eternity involves the unknowable past and future. Still, in contexts like Micah 5:2 and Psalm 90, OLAM implies eternity beyond mere distant history, as God’s nature transcends any temporal boundaries.
Your view neglects this broader and more divine understanding of OLAM.
https://www.sefaria.org/Proverbs.8.25?lang=bi&with=all
ReplyDeletehttps://www.hebrewversity.com/connection-aaron-mountain/
ReplyDelete