Q: In Matthew 2:5-6, Matthew claims that Jesus birth in Bethlehem fulfills the prophecy given in Micah 5:2. But some interprets claim that the Bethlehem referred to by Micah is a clan, not a town, and that the prophecied individual is a literal warrior, not a spiritual leader as Jesus was. Whats the deal here?
A: Ill take this in three parts.
First, Matthew does not directly make such a claim. Matthew simply presents the statement of the advisors of King Herod when Herod asked them where the Messiah was to be born. So, if their answer is actually an interpretive paraphrase of Micah, thats a reflection on Herods advisors who said it, not on Matthew who reported it.
Second, Micah 5:2 is a tough passage to translate. Its no surprise that Herods advisors resorted to paraphrasing it; even by their time the meaning of the Hebrew term that Micah employed to describe Bethlehem Ephrathah had changed somewhat. The basic idea is that the territory of Bethlehem Ephrathah was (in the days of Micah) either too sparsely populated to be considered a recruitment-district for the Judean militia, or that it was the least populous of all recruitment-districts. (The Hebrew term sometimes rendered clans is a very flexible word; its meaning here as recruitment-district -- which would approximate the territory owned by a particular clan -- is deduced via a consideration of the context and a comparison with Judges 6:15. (Dr. George Mendenhall established this aspect of the word in the course of research about the census-numbers in Numbers, btw.) The idea is that the clan of Bethlehem Ephrathah, the members of which owned and occupied the land in the town of Bethlehem and its vicinity, was called upon to provide men to serve in Judahs militia -- taken from among the men occupying that territory, which would include but not be limited to members of the clan/family itself -- and that of all clan-territories with such a responsibility, Bethlehem Ephrathah was required to provide the lowest number of men.)
Third, the prophecy-oracle that Micah gives in v. 2 continues to the first part of v. 5 (This one will be our peace) and stops there. The following material (beginning with When the Assyrian invades our land) is a separate prophecy. What about the phrase And he will deliver us from the hand of the Assyrian in v. 6, you ask? Some interpreters think that a leader arising from the seven or eight shepherds (mentioned in v. 5) is thus alluded to, but I think that this is a simple case of copyist error, and the text should be amended to read they rather than he. But to go into the details of that would be a comment on Micahs text rather than Matthews.
So, theres simply no problem here in Matthew 2:5-6; one needs only to consider the components of Matthews text /in situ/ and the question, as far as it relates to Matthews text, is resolved. Herod asked his advisors where the Messiah would be born. Not In what clan? or In what family? but Where?. They gave him an answer based on Micah 5:2s statement about Bethlehem. And, as it turned out, Bethlehem was where Jesus was born (which Matthews readers know coming into this part of the narrative). From that small territory, which in Micahs day had mustered the smallest of all the nation's military contingents, came forth one who was to be Ruler in Israel -- whose goings-forth, Micah had said, "are from long ago, from the days of eternity.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: Ill take this in three parts.
First, Matthew does not directly make such a claim. Matthew simply presents the statement of the advisors of King Herod when Herod asked them where the Messiah was to be born. So, if their answer is actually an interpretive paraphrase of Micah, thats a reflection on Herods advisors who said it, not on Matthew who reported it.
Second, Micah 5:2 is a tough passage to translate. Its no surprise that Herods advisors resorted to paraphrasing it; even by their time the meaning of the Hebrew term that Micah employed to describe Bethlehem Ephrathah had changed somewhat. The basic idea is that the territory of Bethlehem Ephrathah was (in the days of Micah) either too sparsely populated to be considered a recruitment-district for the Judean militia, or that it was the least populous of all recruitment-districts. (The Hebrew term sometimes rendered clans is a very flexible word; its meaning here as recruitment-district -- which would approximate the territory owned by a particular clan -- is deduced via a consideration of the context and a comparison with Judges 6:15. (Dr. George Mendenhall established this aspect of the word in the course of research about the census-numbers in Numbers, btw.) The idea is that the clan of Bethlehem Ephrathah, the members of which owned and occupied the land in the town of Bethlehem and its vicinity, was called upon to provide men to serve in Judahs militia -- taken from among the men occupying that territory, which would include but not be limited to members of the clan/family itself -- and that of all clan-territories with such a responsibility, Bethlehem Ephrathah was required to provide the lowest number of men.)
Third, the prophecy-oracle that Micah gives in v. 2 continues to the first part of v. 5 (This one will be our peace) and stops there. The following material (beginning with When the Assyrian invades our land) is a separate prophecy. What about the phrase And he will deliver us from the hand of the Assyrian in v. 6, you ask? Some interpreters think that a leader arising from the seven or eight shepherds (mentioned in v. 5) is thus alluded to, but I think that this is a simple case of copyist error, and the text should be amended to read they rather than he. But to go into the details of that would be a comment on Micahs text rather than Matthews.
So, theres simply no problem here in Matthew 2:5-6; one needs only to consider the components of Matthews text /in situ/ and the question, as far as it relates to Matthews text, is resolved. Herod asked his advisors where the Messiah would be born. Not In what clan? or In what family? but Where?. They gave him an answer based on Micah 5:2s statement about Bethlehem. And, as it turned out, Bethlehem was where Jesus was born (which Matthews readers know coming into this part of the narrative). From that small territory, which in Micahs day had mustered the smallest of all the nation's military contingents, came forth one who was to be Ruler in Israel -- whose goings-forth, Micah had said, "are from long ago, from the days of eternity.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
