Barr discusses how OLAM can mean both "eternity" and "perpetuity," depending on the context. He acknowledges that while OLAM may not always imply absolute eternity, its use in passages referring to God's nature or messianic prophecies can convey a deeper meaning tied to divine qualities. This applies to Micah 5:2, where OLAM points to the Messiah’s eternal origins, consistent with messianic expectations and interpretations in traditional Jewish and Christian thought.
In Micah 5:2, the context surrounding the "goings forth" of the Messiah indicates more than a temporal past; it suggests an eternal, preexistent nature. This is supported by how OLAM is used in other scriptures, such as Psalm 90:2 ("from everlasting to everlasting") and Isaiah 40:28 ("the everlasting God"). Furthermore, the Septuagint and other ancient Jewish sources (including the Targum) reflect this understanding, with interpretations emphasizing the Messiah's eternal origins.
Additionally, Barr’s point about OLAM being used in "construct groups and prepositional phrases" ties to its frequent association with divine and eternal matters, reinforcing the argument that Micah 5:2 refers to an eternal figure. Even though OLAM can sometimes refer to an indefinite or ancient past, the Messianic context in Micah 5:2 strongly points to an eternal interpretation.
Regarding the broader context of Micah 7:14 and 7:20, these verses use OLAM to refer to God's enduring promises and covenant faithfulness, further supporting the idea of OLAM as signifying continuity or eternal duration when applied to God or the Messiah. Therefore, the claim that Micah 5:2 refers merely to ancient days, without implying eternity, oversimplifies the word's use in prophetic and theological contexts.
“Furthermore, the Septuagint and other ancient Jewish sources (including the Targum) reflect this understanding, with interpretations emphasizing the Messiah's eternal origins.” - or the common usage of the word as expressing an indefinite period, no KNOWN/ explicitly stated beginning or end. The period is indefinite rather than eternally ongoing.
Nincsnevem, I disagree that the Targum or LXX support the Trinitarian understanding of Micah 5:2. The LXX uses aion, but that word does not have to mean "eternal" and more than one Hebrew scholar--even the Trinitarians--have noted that olam is qualified in Micah 5:2 by the accompanying words plus if we're honest about its usage elsewhere in Micah, that also argues against eternal as the meaning. Lastly, I've seen no good evidence that ancient Jews thought the Messiah was eternal, especially not in the relevant sense you claim.
Another Trinitarian speaks (Gary V. Smith, The NIV Application Commentary: Hosea, Amos, Micah):
Several things are said about this messianic ruler. From a human standpoint, he will come from one of the smallest families in the tribe of Judah; but from the divine standpoint, he will go out “for me” (“for God” as in 1 Sam. 16:1, though not reflected in NIV)—that is, in order to do God’s will and to be God’s “ruler” over Israel. The reference to his origins “from ancient times” has been connected to the eternal preexistence of Christ the Messiah,12 but the parallelism with the preceding line suggests Micah is probably pointing back to the ancient line of David.
While it's true that AION can refer to indefinite time periods, its meaning in Micah 5:2 aligns with the eternal context, particularly when discussing the Messiah. In Psalm 90:2, where AION describes God’s eternal nature, it mirrors Micah’s language of eternity, supporting a similar interpretation for the Messiah.
Some ancient Jewish sources, such as Targum Jonathan, do suggest a messianic figure with eternal origins. The Targum reads the passage as indicating a preexistent ruler coming from "the days of the world" (MI-YOME OLAM), underscoring a timeless interpretation.
While Micah 5:2 includes references to David’s lineage, the phrase "from ancient times" (MIQQEDEM) paired with "from days of OLAM" clearly goes beyond merely historical or genealogical connections. The distinction drawn between Bethlehem as a birthplace and the Messiah's eternal "goings forth" is central to this prophetic vision, a contrast that points to a deeper, eternal identity rather than a mere temporal or historical one.
Smith may favor the interpretation that OLAM refers to the Davidic line, but many other scholars—both Jewish and Christian—agree that Micah 5:2 also includes eternal implications. The argument does not negate the possibility that the Messiah has both human and divine attributes, with an eternal preexistence. Even in a Davidic context, the phrase “from ancient days” can signify something far more significant than a mere historical allusion.
5 comments:
Barr discusses how OLAM can mean both "eternity" and "perpetuity," depending on the context. He acknowledges that while OLAM may not always imply absolute eternity, its use in passages referring to God's nature or messianic prophecies can convey a deeper meaning tied to divine qualities. This applies to Micah 5:2, where OLAM points to the Messiah’s eternal origins, consistent with messianic expectations and interpretations in traditional Jewish and Christian thought.
In Micah 5:2, the context surrounding the "goings forth" of the Messiah indicates more than a temporal past; it suggests an eternal, preexistent nature. This is supported by how OLAM is used in other scriptures, such as Psalm 90:2 ("from everlasting to everlasting") and Isaiah 40:28 ("the everlasting God"). Furthermore, the Septuagint and other ancient Jewish sources (including the Targum) reflect this understanding, with interpretations emphasizing the Messiah's eternal origins.
Additionally, Barr’s point about OLAM being used in "construct groups and prepositional phrases" ties to its frequent association with divine and eternal matters, reinforcing the argument that Micah 5:2 refers to an eternal figure. Even though OLAM can sometimes refer to an indefinite or ancient past, the Messianic context in Micah 5:2 strongly points to an eternal interpretation.
Regarding the broader context of Micah 7:14 and 7:20, these verses use OLAM to refer to God's enduring promises and covenant faithfulness, further supporting the idea of OLAM as signifying continuity or eternal duration when applied to God or the Messiah. Therefore, the claim that Micah 5:2 refers merely to ancient days, without implying eternity, oversimplifies the word's use in prophetic and theological contexts.
“Furthermore, the Septuagint and other ancient Jewish sources (including the Targum) reflect this understanding, with interpretations emphasizing the Messiah's eternal origins.” - or the common usage of the word as expressing an indefinite period, no KNOWN/ explicitly stated beginning or end.
The period is indefinite rather than eternally ongoing.
Nincsnevem, I disagree that the Targum or LXX support the Trinitarian understanding of Micah 5:2. The LXX uses aion, but that word does not have to mean "eternal" and more than one Hebrew scholar--even the Trinitarians--have noted that olam is qualified in Micah 5:2 by the accompanying words plus if we're honest about its usage elsewhere in Micah, that also argues against eternal as the meaning. Lastly, I've seen no good evidence that ancient Jews thought the Messiah was eternal, especially not in the relevant sense you claim.
Another Trinitarian speaks (Gary V. Smith, The NIV Application Commentary: Hosea, Amos, Micah):
Several things are said about this messianic ruler. From a human standpoint, he will come from one of the smallest families in the tribe of Judah; but from the divine standpoint, he
will go out “for me” (“for God” as in 1 Sam. 16:1, though not reflected in NIV)—that is, in order to do God’s will and to be God’s “ruler” over Israel. The reference to his origins “from ancient times” has been connected to the eternal preexistence of Christ the Messiah,12 but the parallelism with the preceding line suggests Micah is probably pointing back to the ancient line of David.
While it's true that AION can refer to indefinite time periods, its meaning in Micah 5:2 aligns with the eternal context, particularly when discussing the Messiah. In Psalm 90:2, where AION describes God’s eternal nature, it mirrors Micah’s language of eternity, supporting a similar interpretation for the Messiah.
Some ancient Jewish sources, such as Targum Jonathan, do suggest a messianic figure with eternal origins. The Targum reads the passage as indicating a preexistent ruler coming from "the days of the world" (MI-YOME OLAM), underscoring a timeless interpretation.
While Micah 5:2 includes references to David’s lineage, the phrase "from ancient times" (MIQQEDEM) paired with "from days of OLAM" clearly goes beyond merely historical or genealogical connections. The distinction drawn between Bethlehem as a birthplace and the Messiah's eternal "goings forth" is central to this prophetic vision, a contrast that points to a deeper, eternal identity rather than a mere temporal or historical one.
Smith may favor the interpretation that OLAM refers to the Davidic line, but many other scholars—both Jewish and Christian—agree that Micah 5:2 also includes eternal implications. The argument does not negate the possibility that the Messiah has both human and divine attributes, with an eternal preexistence. Even in a Davidic context, the phrase “from ancient days” can signify something far more significant than a mere historical allusion.
Post a Comment