The following is adapted from a Trinitarian response I gave to a Unitarian on Facebook regarding Micah 5:2.
The Hebrew of Micah 5:2 isn't so clear that we can certainly say whether it's everlasting or whether it had an origination in time. Isaiah 9:6 refers to the messiah as "father of eternity" ["Everlasting Father" in the KJV]. It has the meaning of "possessor of (the attribute of) eternity." That's more in keeping with an eternal origination, rather than an origination that began at a finite time ago in the distant past.
Robert Morey states in his book "The Trinity: Evidences and Issues" on page 312:
//Micah 5:2 is an example of Hebrew parallelism in which the second phrase expands upon and goes beyond the first phrase to deepen its meaning. In this sense, you go from the lesser to the greater as you proceed from the first phrase to the second phrase. It is a classic example of climactic parallelism.
The first word [HEBREW] "long ago" is found many times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and has several different meanings depending on the context. When used geographically, it refers to east as opposed to west (i.e., Isa. 9:12; Ezek. 25:10). When used chronologically, it means "before" (i.e., Prov. 8:22). It is also used to describe the eternity of God in (Deut. 33:27; Ps. 74:12; Hab. 1:12).
Since Micah is using climactic parallelism, he begins by saying that the "goings forth" of the Messiah took place "a very long time ago." How far back "his goings forth" goes is determined by the words of the second phrase.
The Hebrew word [HEBREW] "eternity" used in the second phrase, is found in the Old Testament 420 times. Langenscheidt defines it as:
time immemorial, time past, eternity, distant future, duration, everlasting time, pl. ages, endless time.
All the standard Hebrew Lexicons and grammars agree with Langenscheidt. It is a word which was used to contrast one thing to another. The mountains are seemingly "everlasting" when contrasted with the brief life span of man (Hab. 3:6). But when used of God in such places as Psalms 90:2, it means that He is eternal in contrast to the universe which had a beginning and will have an end.
In Micah 5:2, the prophet emphasizes that the Messiah not only pre-existed "a long time ago," but He has in fact existed "from eternity!" In Lange's Commentary, Kleinnert pointed out that Micah's use of the word [HEBREW] "gives a strict proof of the antemundane life of the Messiah." Laetsch's Commentary states that [HEBREW] here means "the timeless eons of eternity."
A Liberal Objection Answered
Some liberal commentators have attempted to reduce "the days of eternity" to just "a long time ago." But this is grammatically faulty because they are going backwards. In this kind of parallelism, you go from the lesser to the greater and not the other way around. Thus, the parallelism in Micah 5:2 reveals that the Messiah was "from a long time ago," i.e., "from days of eternity." //
-Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues
[I've heard that] If the author wanted to refer to an everlasting origination, then he used the only Hebrew words and phrasing available to him to mean that. Also, there are some Hebrew authorities who do think it more likely refers to an everlasting origination, even though there is technically no specific Hebrew term for it.
See also the following commentaries here:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/micah/5-2.htm
Benson Commentary states:
//Whose goings forth have been of old from everlasting — Hebrew, מימי עולם מקדם, rendered by the LXX., απ αχης, εξ ημεων αιωνος; and exactly in the same sense by the Vulgate, ab initio, a diebus æternitatis, from the beginning, from the days of eternity. So these Hebrew expressions must of necessity signify in divers places of Scripture, being used to signify the eternity of God: see Psalm 55:19; Psalm 90:2; Proverbs 8:23; Habakkuk 1:12. The words naturally import an original, distinct from the birth of Christ mentioned in the foregoing sentence, which original is here declared to be from all eternity.//
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states:
//goings forth … from everlasting—The plain antithesis of this clause, to "come forth out of thee" (from Beth-lehem), shows that the eternal generation of the Son is meant. The terms convey the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable (compare Ps 90:2; Pr 8:22, 23; Joh 1:1). Messiah's generation as man coming forth unto God to do His will on earth is from Beth-lehem; but as Son of God, His goings forth are from everlasting. //
The famous OT commentary Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament states:
//The future Ruler of Israel, whose goings forth reach back into eternity, is to spring from the insignificant Bethlehem, like His ancestor, king David.//
see also:
Christ’s Origin? Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Study of Micah 5:2
http://www.doorwaychristianoutreach.info/439585463
Michael L. Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a visiting or adjunct professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary, Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary (Charlotte), Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Fuller Theological Seminary, Denver Theological Seminary, the King’s Seminary, and Regent University School of Divinity.
Michael Brown has almost 3 page addressing Micah 5:2 in volume 3 of his "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus." Here's an excerpt of pages 38-40:
//... Which translation is right? It comes down to the rendering of the Hebrew phrase describing the nature of the Messiah's origins, miqedem mi-yemey ‘olam. The first word simply means "from of old" and is used elsewhere in Micah to refer back to God's promises to the patriarchs, which he made "from days of qedem" (Micah 7:20, rendered in the King James with "from the days of old"). The next two words, however, would most naturally be translated "from eternity" (literally from "days of eternity"), unless context indicated a translation of "from ancient days" (in other words, way back in the very distant past). In most cases in the Scriptures, ‘olam clearly means eternity, as in Psalm 90:2, where God's existence is described as me‘olam we‘ad‘olam, "from eternity to eternity" (cf. NJPSV). There are, however, some cases where ‘olam cannot mean "eternal" but rather "for a long time" (either past or present). How then does Micah use the word?
In Micah 2:9; 4:5, 7, ‘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[1]. 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[1], since the context allows for an "eternal" or merely "ancient" meaning...... [Then after about four paragraphs that I'll skip over because it's too long for me to type up, Michael Brown states].......So then, Micah 5:2[1] can also be understood as pointing to the Messiah's eternal nature, undergirding our reading of Isaiah 9:6[5] as pointing to the Messiah's divinity."
[[I typed up the quotations from Morey and Brown myself. I apologize if there are any typos in the quotations. Also, some Hebrew words were used and instead of reproducing them, I just typed [HEBREW] because I don't know the Hebrew language and so couldn't reproduce them.]]
The article I linked to above make some interesting points, including the fact that "goings forth" in the Hebrew is plural, not singular. Why plural? The article has its own explanation. Maybe it's right. But I wonder and speculate that maybe the first phrase that Morey talks about in the quote I gave might refer to Jesus' origin as to His human nature which has a finite past in His human ancestry, while the second phrase might refer to Jesus' origin as to His divine nature which is from everlasting/eternity. Similar to how Rom. 9:5 refers to both Jesus' human and divine natures.
No comments:
Post a Comment