Last updated 4/31/15 This document is nineteen pages long

Some say that Micah 5:2 refers to Jesus as the ruler over Israel and if he is from old and from ancient times then
Jesus must be God. Other translations say from eternity or from everlasting which is said to then increases the
strength of this theory.
Although I agree that it is a prophetical passage referring to Christ, I will show that this interpretation is incorrect
and that Micah 5:2 does NOT show Jesus to be God.
NIV Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you
will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.
The following study is to determine if this passage says Jesus is God, or not, is centered on the translations,
definitions, and interpretations of four of the last few words.
The Hebrew words are H4163/mosaa/origins, H6924/qedem/old, H5769/owlam/ancient, H3117/yowm/times.
Before analyzing Micah 5:1-6 in Part 6, and the relationship of Christ with God, I am going to provide some
evidence that has to be taken into account when interpreting our passage.
Whether you agree or disagree, in part or in whole, big or small, please email me any feedback to help improve this
study. I would also appreciate any help with its logic, grammar, typos, editing etc.
Part 1
Part 2A
Part 2B
Part 3A
Part 3B
Part 4A
Part 4B
Part 5A
Part 5B

Outline
Origins
Origins
Old
Old
Times
Times
Ancient
Ancient

Part 6A
Part 6B
Part 6C
Part 6D

Micah Background
Micah 5:1-6 David Overview
Micah 5:1-6 Hezekiah Overview
Micah 5:1-6 Zedekiah Overview

Part 7A
Part 7B
Part 7C
Part 8

Bethlehem in Jesus Ancestry

Micah 5:1-6 Prophetical Jesus Overview
NT Fulfillment in Mathew
Summaries and Final Conclusion

H4163
H4163
H6924
H6924
H3117
H3117
H5769
H5769

Translation Differences
Comparable Passages
Translation Differences
Comparable Passages
Translation Differences
Comparable Passages
Translation Differences
Comparable Passages

Part 1 Outline
Like other prophecies the passage in Micah 5:2 would have meant something to the people of the time, and only
later be understood to be prophetical for Jesus. Each and every one of the words had to be understood in a way that
made sense at that time and applicable to a human ruler. Those alive with Micah would have asked him what he
meant and he would have been able to tell them the basics. If they had believed Micah to be saying that God was
coming to the earth why did he not write it several times or expand on the idea? Surely such an important revelation
would have had more discussion. At the time this passage was written Micah and his readers believed it to be
written about a human ruler, therefore each word would have fitted into that way of understanding.

Part 2A H4163/Mosaa/Origins Translation Differences

Depending on which translation you are reading, the Hebrew word H4163/mosaa has been translated differently
and therefore can be interpreted differently. Transliterated to English it is also written mowtsa-ah.
Strong's Definition
H4163/Mosaa, mowtsa-ah, means: A family descent, going forth, origin, place of going out from.
It is the feminine of H4161.
Hebrew:
Strongs
Translation:

Yisrael hu mosaa min qedem min

yowm owlam
H3478 1931 H4163 H4481 H6924 H4481 H3117 H5769
Israel whose ????? from antiquity from days old

Here is how the following translations differ over the Hebrew word H4163/mosaa
A/ whose going forth is from old
DR,
B/ whose goings forth is from old
Darby, ASV, AV, KJV, NASB, NKJV,
C/ whose coming forth is from
ESV
D/ his comings forth are from
YLT
E/ his origin is from
HCSB, NRSV, RSV,
F/ his origins go back/is from/are in
GW, LEB, NET, NIV, NLT, TNIV,
G/ he comes from very old times
NCV,
H/ his family line goes back
NIRV,
If going/s forth is the correct translation for H4163/mosaa then the subject was "going forth" in prior times and
was therefore alive at that point. If he was alive at that prior point then he is a heavenly being, possibly God.
If origin/s is the correct translation for H4163/mosaa then the subject had a beginning and is therefore a human
being, possibly a heavenly being, but certainly not God who did not have a beginning.
Considerations:
We always first have to ask, "what did it mean to the people of the time?" In context the passage had to be
understood at the time of writing and would therefore been interpreted as referring to a human ruler, our current
interpretation has to always be based on, and begin with, that.
If the understanding of H4163/mosaa changed over time from one understanding to another, which may or may not
have happened, then we need additional proof because on its own this passage does not support that idea.
The older translations have goings forth and the newer translations generally have origin/s.
Most believe that H4163/mosaa is the plural of H4161. (This would disagree with A, C, and E which are all
singular.) Should H4163/mosaa be singular or plural, why are the translators divided?
Does it make Hebrew, or English, grammatical sense to have origins plural?
Regarding the Trinitarian translations that wrote "origin/s," we have to ask "why would they admit that the ruler had
an origin? Why would they take a position which is in opposition to their own belief system?" Perhaps because it is
difficult to honestly translate the H4163/mosaa with a word that does not include this understanding. Even when
"goings forth" is the rendering, it appears it should also be with the understanding of "originating." For example, if
we said "the command went forth from the King," we obviously mean the command originated with - or sprang
from - the king! And when Micah 5:2 says of the Messiah: "O Bethlehem ..., from you shall come forth [the
Messiah]," it can only mean that he originated. Obviously for so many respected Trinitarian translators to choose
this meaning ("origin") they must feel there is no other honest choice.

Analysis:
The rulers H4163/mosaa could not have meant his goings forth because a ruler who was yet to come was not
also able to go forth in prior times.
The rulers H4163/mosaa certainly could have meant "origin/s."
The rulers H4163/mosaa could have been plural or singular in referring to one or several parts of his ancestry, and
one or several parts of his origin, or origins. At the ultimate level, God is the rulers singular origin.
Summary:
This passage had to be, and was, understandable to Micah and the people of the time. Because in context this
passage was originally written in reference to a human ruler and it had to be relevant to him, then H4163 would not
have been understood to mean goings forth because the ruler had no goings forth in days of old. Rather
H4163/mosaa would have been in reference to his ancestry, his origin/s, because his ancestry and origin/s were
from days of old, the days of the old kings.

Part 2B H4163/Origins Comparable Passages

H4163/mosaa, mowtsa-ah, is in the bible only once.
Its root word is H4161 mowtsa or motsa
from 3318; a going forth, i.e. (the act) an egress, or (the place) an exit; hence a source or product; spec.
dawn, the rising of the sun (the East), exportation, utterance, a gate, a fountain, a mine, a meadow (as
producing grass):brought out, bud, that which came out, east, going forth, goings out, that which (thing
that) is gone out, outgoing, proceeded out, spring, vein, [water-] course [springs]
Some say that H4280/mahara (also in the bible once) in 2 Kings 10:27 is the same Hebrew word as H4163/mosaa,
this seems difficult to believe because H4280 is translated as latrine! I am unsure which translation this idea comes
from or how this argument is substantiated.
Because H4163 is in the bible only once then we have no directly comparable passages however its root word
H4161 is in the bible twenty seven times including
Numbers 30:12 then whatever proceeds out of her lips
Numbers 33:2 Moses wrote down their starting places.
Deut 8:3 , but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD
2 Samuel 3:25 and to know your going out and your coming in
2 Kings 2:21 Then he went to the spring of water
Psalm 19:6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
Each of these show that H4161 is a word to describe a beginning, a starting point, an origin etc.
Many, if not all, of these could also be translated as "going forth" or similar
God has a H4161/motsa
Hosea 6:3 Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out (H4161) is sure as the dawn;
Even though different translations have H4161 translated as "going forth," "appearance," "rising," "come to us," etc
the word "his" always precedes therefore the H4161 belongs to the LORD God.
It is generally considered that H4161 is singular, therefore it could be understood that God has only one going
out/forth, which could seem strange as we know he has many. If H4161 in Micah 5:2 means "goings forth" plural,

we could wonder why the singular is used for the LORD God in Hosea. We could then wonder why "dawn" is
singular and not plural. These don't seem like legitimate concerns to me at this stage.
If going/s forth is the correct translation for H4161 then this passage is saying it is sure to happen just like it is
sure that the sun will rise. God will "go forth" daily.
We know that God is "going forth" daily therefore this, or something similar, must be the correct translation.
If origin/s is the correct translation for H4163 then God must have had an origin. We know God does not have an
origin as he is without beginning and has lived into the infinite past, therefore "origin" is not the correct translation
in this context.
H3318/yatsa which is the root word of H4161, and in the bible 1069 times, is usually written "out" in a way to
describe going out or coming out or departing etc.
Summary:
From the group of passages shown using the word H4161/motsa, it is easy to see that they could mean either
going/s forth or origin/s.
In Hosea 6:3, H4161/motsa has to mean "going forth" because God does not have an origin.
Each translation of H4161 has to be based on its context, which in Micah 5:2 is referring to a ruler understood by
Micah and his readers shown in 2A, therefore the translation in that case is, "origin/s."
Some would argue that; it may have been understood to mean "origin" when Micah 5:2 was first written however it
now means "going forth" when applied to Jesus.
This opposing argument is not valid based on Micah 5:2 only, or on passages that use H4161/motsa, it is a theory
which may or may not be true! It is a theory that has to have additional proof and support from the rest of the
passage or from other scriptures, which there is not.

Part 3A Old/H6924 Translation Differences

Strong's definition: H6924 qedem of old: 1) east, antiquity, front, that which is before, aforetime a) front, from the
front or east, in front, mount of the East b) ancient time, aforetime, ancient, from of old, earliest time
KJV Translation word count 87: east 32, old 17, eastward 11, ancient 6, east side 5, before 3, east part 2, ancient
time 2, aforetime 1, eternal 1, misc 7
Hebrew:
Strongs
Translation:

Yisrael hu mosaa min qedem min

yowm owlam
H3478 1931 H4163 H4481 H6924 H4481 H3117 H5769
Israel whose origins from
???? from days old

Here are how the following translations differ over the Hebrew word H6924/qedem
A/ whose goings forth are from of old
Darby, ASV, AV, ESV, KJV, LEB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV, TNIV,
YLT
B/ his origins go back to the distant past
GW, NET, NLT,
C/ his origin is from antiquity,
HCSB,
D/ his goings forth are from long ago
NASB, NIRV,
E/ he comes from very old times
NCV,
F/ his going forth is from the beginning
DR,

The Hebrew "qedem" is the word usually translated as "east." Since the sun dawns in the east and the day begins in
the east it is a front place where the day begins. This Hebrew word does not really mean "old" but conveys the idea
of a "beginning" or a "front" and so with respect to time it implies the idea of old beginnings.
Summary:
Even though there are several variations in translation of the Hebrew word H6924/qedem in Micah 5:2, they all
have the same feel in that they are expressing a period inside human history. Any one of these translations could be
used. Even the DR which has a different meaning is referring to a start point, a beginning, an origin, again within or
at the start of time. None of the translators have any variations of eternity or perpetual and everlasting past.

Part 3B H6924/Qedem/Old Comparable Passages

From 6923; the front, of place (absol. the fore part, rel. the East) or time (antiquity); often used adv. (before,
anciently, eastward):aforetime, ancient (time), before, east (end, part, side, -ward), eternal, ever (-lasting),
forward, old, past.
Of the 89 times the word H6924/qedem appears in the OT, half of them are translated east, eastward, or eastern,
with no indication of time. Of the remaining 40+ passages I have shown some that refer to within human history
and others that refer to God without beginning.
Within Human History
These following passages use H6924/qedem in a similar way as those in Micah 5:2, they apply the same words to
human beings during the history of the human race.
Micah 7:20 You will be true to Jacob, and show mercy to Abraham, as you pledged on oath to our fathers
in days long ago
The last three words are from the two Hebrew words yowm/H3117 and qedem/H6924. Micah 7:20 could easily be
worded a similar way as Micah 5:20 such as from ancient times, or from antiquity, it doesnt imply that Jacob
or Abraham are God but rather that it was a long time ago when days existed.
2 kings 19:25 I planned from days of old (H6924) what now I bring to pass,
Nehemiah 12:46 For long ago (H6924) in the days of David
This says regarding human history H4481/min/ago H6924/qedem/long.
There are many others to consider including, Job 29:2, Psalm 44:1, 55:19, 74:2, 74:12 etc
The Hebrew word qedem/H6924 is used to describe the distant past in reference to people in these passages and
others totaling around 30 of the 89 uses of qedem.
From the Infinite Past
These following passages use H6924/qedem in direct reference to the LORD God, to mean perpetual past or infinite
past. This happens only twice in the ESV from 89 uses.
Deuteronomy 33:27 The eternal (H6924) God is your dwelling place, and underneath are the everlasting arms
Qedem is translated to eternal in this reference to God.
Habakkuk 1:12 Are you not from everlasting, O LORD my God, my Holy One?
Qedem is translated as everlasting here.

This says God is H4481/min/from H6924/qedem/everlasting.

These are the same two words that refer to a limited past for human beings in Nehemiah 12:46 and are under
analysis in Micah 5:2
Summary:
H6924/qedem is in the OT 89 times, more than half of those are referring to east or eastward, most of the rest refers
to human history, in the two cases referring to God it is translated to mean perpetual past. Because God is not
mentioned by name in Micah 5:2 then based on the other comparisons H6924/qedem should not be understood to
mean perpetual past in that context.

Part 4A H3117/Yowm/Times Translation Differences

Strong's Definition: H3117. ywm, yome; from an unused root mean. to be hot; a day (as the warm hours),
whether lit. (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or fig. (a space of time defined by an associated
term), [often used adv.]:age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a,
two) days (agone) + elder, end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), full, life, as (so) long as ( live),
(even now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process
of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (+ age), (full)
year (-ly), + younger
Hebrew:
Strongs
Translation:

Yisrael hu mosaa min qedem min

yowm owlam
H3478 1931 H4163 H4481 H6924 H4481 H3117 H5769
Israel whose origins from antiquity from ???? old

Here are how the following translations differ over the Hebrew word H3117/yowm
1/ From ancient days
AV, ESV, LEB, NRSV, RSV,
2/ From the days of eternity
Darby, DR, NASB,
3/ To/From days long ago
GW, NCV, NIRV,
4/ From the days of antiquity
YLT
5/ From ancient times
NIV
6/ In the distant past
NET, NLT,
7/ From everlasting
ASV, KJV, NKJV,
8/ From eternity
HCSB,
Of the nineteen translation examples, six of them choose to ignore the word H3117/yowm.
Although the NET and NLT don't use H3117, they write "distant past" signifying within time.
The ASV, KJV, NKJV, and HCSB although ignoring the word H3117/yowm, do write "from" in order to signify a
point within H5769/owlam/eternity/everlasting rather than saying "is" which would not signify a point.
Summary:
The word H3117/yowm is a key word in understanding this passage. Because it is written then it signifies the
passage is referring to inside of time, if days existed then the point/time it was referencing was after creation began.
The only alternative is that the word is figurative in which case the argument could be made of the entire passage.

Part 4B H3117/Yowm/Times Comparable Passages

Time and days had a beginning point.

Genesis 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there
was morning, the first day
God existed before time, or days, began. He existed in a state of timelessness, a state when there were no days, then
He created time which included days.
Summary
The first day was one that was created by God. Therefore there was a point when there was not the first day, or any
day, or any time. This is an extremely relevant point when assessing Micah 5 which talks about days being the
point of origin, or going forth, for the subject ruler.

Part 5A H5769/Owlam/Ancient Translation Differences:

Depending on which translation you are reading, the last few words of vs2 can be interpreted very differently. It is
the last word owlam that causes a major difference in interpretation.
Strong's definition: H5769 Owlam ancient times: 1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting,
evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world a) ancient time, long time (of past) b) (of future) 1) for ever, always 2)
continuous existence, perpetual 3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity
Hebrew:
Strongs
Translation:

Yisrael hu mosaa min qedem min

yowm owlam
H3478 1931 H4163 H4481 H6924 H4481 H3117 H5769
Israel whose origins from antiquity from days ????

Here are how the following translations differ over the last three Hebrew words.
A/ To days long ago:
GW, NCV, NIRV,
B/ From ancient days:
ESV, LEB, NRSV, RSV,
C/ Origins in the distant past:
NET, NLT,
D/ From ancient times:
TNIV,
E/ From the days of antiquity:
Youngs
F/ From the days of eternity:
Darby, DR, NASB,
G/ From eternity:
HCSB
H/ From everlasting:
ASV, AV, KJV,
I have listed the translation differences in order of how they seem to determine time, from my perspective.
Group A to days long ago could mean 50-200 years before that time. Groups B-E could likely be interpreted as
perhaps 500-1000 years before that time. Group F says days of eternity which implies after or during creation
when days existed because it says days. Days however signify during time and creation, therefore group F have
created a contradiction because there are no days in eternity. It is only when we look at groups F-H, that we start to
think before the creation of the world/time and even then it says he is from everlasting not that he is everlasting.
However we interpret the different translations there is no denying that it is very easy to interpret groups A-E very
differently to groups F-G.
If we suppose, for the sake of argument, that Jesus was indeed the first thing created, it is still quite easy to
observe from this passage that he was created from eternity as the starting point and origin of his existence.
Creation had its beginning and origin in/at eternity because this is where God exists. Since then Jesus'
created existence would be the first thing in the time and space of creation, then his origin would be "from
eternity." Eternity would be ground zero of creation and the starting point and origin of the first thing
created. In other words, if Jesus was the first created thing, the place from which he was created would
necessarily be eternity.

If we translated the Hebrew word olam as "eternity," the passage would literally say "days of eternity."
There are no "days of eternity." Eternity is timelessness not never-ending time. God created the ages, He did
not live in never-ending time before He created time. It is an absurd concept. Time is a relative measurement
of created objects in motion; it is a measurement defining the duration of one object moving in relation to
another object. Eternity is rather timelessness.
When owlam is in reference to created things or people it is translated to mean old, ancient, antiquity, past etc
identifying a distant past age but still inside time. Psalm 22:28, Isaiah 44:7 etc. When it is in reference to God it
means perpetual/infinite past, or perpetual/infinite future, everlasting or the like, indicating no beginning or origin
and no end. Psalm 90:2,
Summary:
When comparing nineteen translations, the true definition of H5769/owlam hinges on the fact that the word
H3117/yowm/days is written before the word H5769/owlam. This being so, groups F-H are incorrect because they
cannot make logical sense as there are no days or time in eternity. Therefore the true translation of H5769/owlam is
a word that refers to being inside of time, long ago, ancient, distant past, or antiquity all work well.

Part 5B H5769/Owlam/Ancient Passages

The following passages use H5769/owlam either within human history, or refer to God from the perpetual past.
Within Human History
These passages use H5769/owlam in a way that is not referring to eternity or the perpetual past.
Micah 7:14 Shepherd your people with Your scepter, the flock of Your possession which dwells by itself
in the woodland, in the midst of a fruitful field. Let them feed in Bashan and Gilead as in the days of old
Malachi 3:4 Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and
as in former years
The term days of old from the Hebrew words yown/H3117 owlam/H5769 means the distant past, or ancient days
etc. These are the exact same last two words that are at the end of Micah 5:2. Obviously, the term "days of olam"
does not mean "eternity" as "everlasting time," or "never ending time," or anything of the like, or we have the
ridiculous problem of explaining just how the Jews were to feed the flock just as they had done in the "days of
eternity when there were not days etc.
Deuteronomy 32:7 Remember the days of old; consider the years of many generations; ask your father,
Isaiah 63:9 he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.
Isaiah 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, of Moses and his people
Amos 9:11 and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old,
Each of these passages, and others, use H3117/yowm and H5769/owlam together to describe times during human
history.
There are other examples of H5769/owlam that are in reference to within human history, Passover feast (Ex 12:14),
circumcision (Gen 17:10-14) and the weekly Sabbath day (Exodus 31:16-17) are all described as an (OLAM)
"eternal ordinance", yet all are abolished (Col 2:16) for they were bound to the "Jewish age and law" and we are in
the "age of Christ and grace"
From the Infinite Past.
There are several passages that are understood to show the LORD God to be without beginning, from a perpetual or
infinite past. Here are some of them.

1 Chronicles 29:10 Therefore David blessed the LORD in the presence of all the assembly. And David said:
Blessed are you, O LORD, the God of Israel our father, forever and
ever
Owlam ad
Owlam
Nehemiah 9:5 Then the Levites, Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabneiah, Sherebiah, Hodiah, Shebaniah, and
Pethahiah, said, Stand up and bless the LORD your God from everlasting (Owlam/H5769) to everlasting
(Owlam/H5769). Blessed be your glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise.
Psalm 90:2 Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations.
2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to
everlasting you are God.
From everlasting to everlasting is owlam ad owlam el
Genesis 21:33 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called upon the name of the
LORD, the Eternal God.
The final three words are Jehovah Owlam El or LORD Eternal God
Others include Psalm 93:2, 103:17, 106:48, Isaiah 26:4, 40:28, Jeremiah 10:10, etc
For an in depth study see 01B the Eternal God xxxx link
Summary:
When in reference to people, the passages that include the word H5769/owlam have no indication of infinite past,
the word H3117/yowm is included, and there is no reference to God.
When a passage is in reference to God, firstly H3117/yowm is not included and secondly there is a clear reference
to God. In ten OT cases, but not always, the word H5769/owlam is written twice in close succession.
There is never a time when H5769/owlam is describing God and there is any sign of a time limitation.

Summaries so Far:
Part 1 Each and every one of the words had to applicable to a human ruler and be understood in a way that made
sense at that time.
Part 2A When comparing nineteen translations, and because this passage was understandable to Micah and the
people of the time, H4163/mosaa was in reference to a human ruler. Therefore did not mean goings
forth but rather referred to his ancestry, his "origin/s."
Part 2B When comparing other passages that use the word H4161, H4163/mosaa could mean either
goings forth or origin/s.
Part 3A When comparing nineteen translations, H6924/qedem means of old, distant past, antiquity, long ago, all of
which are inside of creation and time
Part 3B Based on a study of all 89 times H6924/qedem is in the bible, because God is not mentioned by name
then Micah 5:2 does not mean perpetual past.
Part 4A When comparing nineteen translations, because H3117/yowm/days existed, then this passage signifies
inside of time or after creation began.
Part 4B The first day was created by God. Therefore there was a point when there was not the first day. Because
"days" existed at the point of reference in Micah 5:2 then that alone signifies within creation not eternity.
Part 5A When comparing nineteen translations, the definition of H5769/owlam comes from the fact that the word
H3117/yowm is written before the word H5769; long ago, ancient, distant past, or antiquity all work well.

Part 5B When comparing other passages that use the word H5769/owlam, because of their contexts, we know that
in Micah 5:2 the definition will signify within human history and not infinite past.
The decision regarding all interpretation of Micah 5:2 has to be from the information and summaries of Part 1-5.
These show that it had to be understandable to the people of the times, and it happened during days which were
created by God. The word origin along with the date of his origin being days, show that the prophetic Jesus had a
beginning and it was in days, inside time, which eliminates the idea that he can be God for who none of these apply.

Part 6A Micah 5:1-6 Background

Before reading Micah 5:1-6 in context to establish a true interpretation, it is relative to know the following.
Micah means who is like YHWH."
Micah wrote this book in approximately 742-687BC, he lived near Gath about 20 miles south-west of Jerusalem.
He lived at the same time as the prophets Isaiah 740-681, Amos and Hosea.
The kings in those times were; Jotham reigned 751-735. Ahaz reigned 736-715. Hezekiah reigned 729-687.
Manasseh 697-643. Amon 643-640BC. Josiah 641-609. Jehoiakim 608-598. Jehoiachin 598-597. Zedekiah 597.
Shealtiel 597
Sennacherib was the son of Sargon II, whom he succeeded on the throne of Assyria (705 681 BC).
Others outside of Micah's Lifetime
King David lived from 1040-970BC
The Assyrian empire fell between 627-605 BC
Jeremiah lived 655-586 and referred to Micah in Jeremiah 26:18
Nebuchadnezzar lived 634-562 BC and reigned from 605 until his death

Part 6B Micah 5:1-6 David Overview

Here are a couple of varying viewpoints in the theory that Micah 5:1-6 is referring to King David
David was born in Bethlehem, 1 Sam. 16:1, 1819; 17:12
Well, it refers to King David. David was of Bethlehem of Judah, the least of the clans, and did indeed
come forth to rule Israel. King David fits the description 100%, where it could be argued that Jesus was
neither from Bethlehem of Ephrath, nor did he rule Israel.
Jesus was from Bethlehem and rules Israel in a spiritual way as he is the only way to God.
there are certain events that did not happen during Jesus lifespan, but did happen within the lifespan of
King David
Verse 4 of chapter 5 states, Should Assyria invade our land, and tread upon our fortresses. Now, Assyria
was not a threat during the lifespan of Jesus. However, this was a very real threat during the reign of King
David.

Verse 5 reiterates, Thus he will deliver us from Assyria, should it invade our land, and should it trample
our country. Again, there was no threat of Assyria invading during the lifespan of Jesus, although
David did fit this description quite well. It is also important to note that Jesus did not deliver anyone from
any armies, while King David did. Furthermore, in this verse it speaks of a very physical deliverance from
a very real and physical nation Assyria.
Assyria, although real in Kind David's time, became a figurative threatening invader, perhaps symbolizing Satan,
for future believers.
Jesus saves us from this figurative Assyria
Summary:
The main problem with the idea that Micah 5:2 was originally in reference to King David is that David lived from
1040-970BC which was 300 years before Micah and Jews always understood this as a prophecy, as do Christians,
not a historical account.

Part 6C Micah 5:1-6 Hezekiah Overview

Hezekiah reigned 729-687
Micah seems personally involved in this prophecy; he refers to the present in the word "now" and includes
himself among the population in the word "us." The context seems to be sometime after Assyria defeated
Samaria and took the northern tribes into exile in 721 BC. The fulfillment of this prophecy was probably
when Sennacherib, King of Assyria, invaded Judah, set up a siege against Jerusalem, and began to insult
King Hezekiah in 701 BC. (See 2 Kings 18-19; he is reported to have said in his journals that he had
Hezekiah trapped "like a bird in a cage." See alsoTyndale Old Testament Commentaries by D. J. Wiseman.)
Hezekiah was a godly king and trusted God to deliver him and Judah from Assyria. Based on
that trust, God
sent an angel of death among the Assyrian army (some 185,000 men), "...and when men arose early in the
morning, behold, all of these were dead." Sennacherib went home in disgrace only to be killed by his sons when
he went into the temple of his god to pray (see 2 Kings 19:35-37; Isaiah 37:36- 38).
Hezekiah In Hebrew means the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace, the Wondrous Adviser,
and the Government
that was on his shoulder as predicted in Isaiah chapter nine. Hezekiah
was the King of the Jews, he was
anointed, and there was peace in the land for many years.
He was truly the Messiah

Summary:
The theory that Micah 5:2 referred originally to King Hezekiah seems to have some validity although I would like
more information before addressing it.

Part 6D Micah 5:1-6 Zedekiah Overview

Some say that Micah is prophesying to Zedekiah who was born in 627 and reigned approximately 606/601-586BC.
There are FIVE Zedekiah's in the bible:
son of King Josiah; made king of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar (This is the Zedekiah from Micah 5)
son of Chenaanah; a false prophet in the kingdom of King Ahab
son of King Jehoiachin a signer of the covenant to obey the law with Nehemiah
son of Maaseiah; a false prophet in the time of King Jehoiachin
son of Hananiah; a prince of Judah in the time of Jehoiakim
Zedekiah is not mentioned in the genealogy of Christ, his life was concurrent approximately with Shealtiel who is
in the genealogy.

The meaning of the name Zedekiah is my righteousness is YHWH. Jesus is closely tied to Zedekiah by that
meaning in that he is referred to as a scepter of righteousness in Hebrews 1:8
His original name was Mattaniah; but when Nebuchadnezzar placed him on the throne as the successor to
Jehoiachin he changed his name to Zedekiah. The prophet Jeremiah was his counselor, yet "he did evil in
the sight of the Lord" (2 Kings 24:19, 20; Jer. 52:2, 3). He ascended the throne at the age of twenty-one
years. The kingdom was at that time tributary to Nebuchadnezzar; but, despite the strong remonstrance's of
Jeremiah and others, as well as the example of Jehoiachin, he threw off the yoke of Babylon, and
entered
into an alliance with Hophra, king of Egypt. This brought up Nebuchadnezzar, "with all his host"
(2 King
25:1), against Jerusalem. During this siege, which lasted about eighteen months, "every worst woe
befell the
devoted city, which drank the cup of God's fury to the dregs" (2 Kings 25:3; Lam. 4:4, 5, 10).
The city was
plundered and laid in ruins. Zedekiah and his followers, attempting to escape, were made captive and taken to
Riblah. There, after seeing his own children put to death, his own eyes were put out,
and, being loaded with
chains, he was carried captive (B.C. 588) to Babylon (2 Kings 25:1-7; 2 Chr.
36:12; Jer. 32:4,5; 34:2, 3; 39:17; 52:4-11; Ezek. 12:12), where he remained a prisoner, how long is
unknown, to the day of his death.
An interesting viewpoint is that 5:1 should actually be at the end of chapter four. Therefore 5:2 should actually be
5:1. This is a very legitimate statement.
Micah 5:1 Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the
judge of Israel on the cheek.
Judge of Israel, who will be smitten with a rod upon the cheek, is not a reference to the humiliation of
Jesus. The reference is to the deportation of Israels rulers, perhaps especially King Zedekiah, and to his
shameful treatment at the hands of Babylon (2 Kings 25).
I agree.
O daughter of troops - The Chaldeans, whose armies were composed of troops from various nations.
Micah's contemporary, Isaiah, spoke of the Assyrian army as a rod (see Isaiah 10:5).
Micah did not identify the ruler of Israel except to say that he would be "struck on the cheek with a rod." (To
strike someone on the cheek was to humiliate him; cf. 1 Kings 22:24; Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30.) Some
suggest
this ruler was Christ, because (a) Christ was struck on the head (Matt. 27:30; Mark 15:19) and face (John 19:3)
and (b) He is referred to in Micah 5:2. However, several factors show that the ruler is
probably Judahs king
Zedekiah:
(1) The first part of verse 1 refers to the Babylonian attack on Jerusalem.
(2) The word ruler translates ppt (judge),
whereas the word for ruler in verse 2, which does clearly

refer to Christ, is ml. (ppt forms

an interesting wordplay on the similar-sounding word for rod,

et.)
(3) Christ was not smitten by troops of an enemy nation while Jerusalem was besieged. However,
Nebuchadnezzar did capture Zedekiah and torture him (2 Kings 25:17)
It could be argued that Jesus was smitten by troops of an enemy nation, the Romans.
Ezekiel 21:24-27 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Because you have made your guilt to be
remembered, in that your transgressions are uncovered, so that in all your deeds your sins appear
because you have come to remembrance, you shall be taken in hand. And you, O profane wicked one,
prince of Israel, whose day has come, the time of your final punishment, thus says the Lord GOD: Remove
the turban and take off the crown. Things shall not remain as they are. Exalt that which is low, and bring low

that which is exalted. A ruin, ruin, ruin I will make it. This also shall not be, until he comes, the one to
judgment belongs, and I will give it to him.

whom

The "profane and wicked one" is Zedekiah

"Exalt which is low" is in reference to Jesus Christ
NASB Micah 7:14 Shepherd your people with your scepter, the flock of your possession which dwells by
itself.
Zedekiah is referred to as a scepter in the NASB, just as Jesus is elsewhere.
Summary:
The idea that Micah 5:2 was originally in reference is very strong, however I need more input on this viewpoint.

Part 7A Bethlehem in Jesus Ancestry

Bethlehem was the home of some of Jesus' ancestors.
There are TWO towns called Bethlehem, about 100 miles apart.
Bethlehem Ephratah, or Bethlehem of Judea, is located 5 miles (8 km) south of Jerusalem, near the ancient main
road to Hebron. This is where Jesus was born.
The Galilean location, Bethlehem of Zebulun (currently Beit Lahm), is referenced in Joshua 91:15, and is located
approximately 7 miles (11 km) northwest of Nazareth
Nazareth is 90 miles directly north of Jerusalem.
1 Samuel 16:1 send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided for myself a king among his sons
1 Samuel 17:12 Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse,
Jesse, Jesus ancestor, was from Bethlehem
Jesses son King David, Jesus ancestor, was born in Bethlehem.
Genesis 48:7 As for me, when I came from Paddan, to my sorrow Rachel died in the land of Canaan on
the way, when there was still some distance to go to Ephrath, and I buried her there on the way to Ephrath
(that is, Bethlehem).
Rachel and Jacob were on their way to Bethlehem where Rachel was buried.
Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah
Bethlehem is one of the clans of Judah, Jesus is a descendant and called the Lion of Judah.
It is my understanding that Ephrathah is the older name of Bethlehem per Gen 35:16, 19 and 48:7.
Others may include Naomi and Ruth from the book of Ruth,
The word Bethlehem has a double meaning. It signifies "the house of bread," and "the house of war."
The word Ephratah means, "fruitfulness," or "abundance."
Ephrathah and Bethelehem were father and son mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2:50, 4:4. It is possible that Micah 5:2 is
referring to those persons, rather than the city. Personally, I dont agree with this theory because in context Micah is

referring to someone coming out of the clans/groups, therefore cities, rather than individuals. He also uses Israel
and Judah as direct comparisons, therefore comparing like with like. The validity of that claim is not relevant to our
argument because either way it is a point of origin.
Summary:
Bethlehem was the death place of Jacob's wife Rachel, the home of Jesse and the birthplace of King David. All of
these people are in Jesus ancestry. These factors are relevant when interpreting Micah 5.

Part 7B Micah 5:1-6 Jesus Overview

Based on the definitions from Parts 2-5 here we review the prophecy for Christ.
RSV Micah 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be 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
days.
NIV Micah 5:1-4 Marshal your troops, O city of troops, for a siege is laid against us. They will strike Israels
ruler on the cheek with a rod.
2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for
me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.
3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor gives birth and the rest of his
brothers return to join the Israelites.
4 He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his
God. And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth.
5 And he shall be their peace. When the Assyrian comes into our land and treads in our palaces, then we will
raise against him seven shepherds and eight princes of men;
6 they shall shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod at its entrances; and he shall
deliver us from the Assyrian when he comes into our land and treads within our border.
Vs2 "Judah, out of you" signifies a source, an inception, a beginning, a start, a point of origination.
Vs2 "will come" H3318/yatsa means, go out, come out, or go forth to signify a beginning.
Vs2 for me, referring to the LORD God. Whoever will come, will come for God, on his behalf.
Vs2 one at the time was referring to a ruler who was not God. "One" who would minister on YHWH's behalf.
Vs2 "for me one" signifies a God and a ruler, a sender and one who is sent, two distinct and separate beings. God is
not talking about Himself, he is clearly signifying another will come for Him.
Vs2 "will be ruler" signifies a time he was not ruler, "will be" is never said of God who "always was/is" the ultimate
ruler.
Vs2 We showed earlier that "origin" is the correct translation for the word "H4163/mosaa," therefore the ruler had
an origin, a source, a beginning. This is a repetition of the statement "Judah, out of you" which also showed
origination. In referring to Jesus, his H4163/mosaa could also have been plural or singular in referring to several
parts of his origin, human ancestry, or it could be singular only if we believe he was a created heavenly being from
God at the start of creation.
Vs2 H6924/qedem meaning "old", or similar, is the era inside time when the rulers origin began, a part of time or an
age he came to exist. The rulers family ancestry was from a long time in the peoples historical past. As shown in
Part 2A "old" is the correct translation rather than "eternal."
Vs2 "Ancient times," "yowm owlam," signifies days or times which only exist within creation. The correct
translations as shown in Part 4A and 5A are "days," per the RSV, and "ancient" not "eternity" or similar. Because
the ruler/Jesus is "from days" then he is also within creation.
Vs3 This refers not to Marys giving birth to Jesus, but to Israels national re-gathering (Micah 2:12; 4:67), likened
here to a childbirth when his brothers (fellow Israelites; Deut. 17:15) will return and join other Israelites. Christ will
be one of them.

Vs3 The ruler had brothers, Jesus had brothers, God does not have brothers. The people in Micah's time would not
even considered this possibility, and it is not a possibility now.
Vs4 The ruler will shepherd his flocks in the strength of YHWH. The ruler, prophetically Jesus, needs to rely on
Gods strength. God does not need to rely on anothers strength.
Vs4 YHWH is the ruler's God, God does not have a God. This ruler would not be YHWH, but YHWH would be the
God of the ruler.
See section 02N Jesus has a God, Jesus and God xxxx linked here in 2016
Vs5 "He" shall be their peace, is prophetically Jesus.
Vs5 Although Assyria will not exist it represents those that come against Jerusalem.
H3318/yatsa in Micah 5:2 translated as come for as in come for God. This being the case then what we have
here is another being coming for God which means God is not coming himself. Therefore if you understand H4163
to mean God is coming himself, then we would have a direct contradiction within the same verse!
Both H3318 and H4163 are in support of each other and both refer to a human ruler coming for God.
Summary:
"Judah, out of you"
"will come"
"for me one"
"will be ruler"
"whose origin"
"from"
"qedem/old"
"ancient times"
"his brothers"
"in the strength of"
"the LORD his God"

a source, an origination.
H3318/yatsa: go out, come out, or go forth
God and a ruler, a sender and a sent.
Signifies a time he "was not" ruler.
The ruler had an origin/H4163/mosaa
The ruler is "from" somewhere
The ruler is from "old"
The ruler is from ancient times/days
The ruler will have brothers
The ruler relies on another's strength
The ruler has a God

God does not have either

The ruler would come
God and another distinct being
"will be ruler' cannot be said of God.
God does not have an origin
God is not "from" anywhere, he always was/is
God is not from old
God is not from within days of creation
God does not have brothers
God does not rely or need another's strength
God does not have a God

Any one of these reasons on their own is sufficient to prove that the ruler would not be God. That I have identified
eleven is overwhelming. In order for Jesus to be God all eleven have to be proven wrong!
There is nothing in Micah 5:1-6 that says Jesus is God.

Part 7C NT Fulfillment Mathew 2

Mathew 2:6 quotes Micah 5 and combines it with 2 Samuel 5:2
2 Samuel 5:2 You will shepherd my people Israel, and you will become their ruler
Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you
will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.
Mathew 2:1-6 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold,
wise men from the east came to Jerusalem,
2 saying, Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have
come to worship him.
3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him;
4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was
to be born.
5 They told him, In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

6 And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for
from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.
What Matthew has done here is to combine Micah 5:2 and 2 Samuel 5:2. Combining the two verses
emphasizes Matthews conviction that the King who brings the kingdom is a Shepherd-King. Which, by the
way, is the same thought communicated two verses further on in Micah 5:4.
It seems that Matthew was not concerned about rendering Micah 5:2 word for word, as long as he communicated
accurate understanding. That King would act as Gods Shepherd over Israel and Jesus is that Shepherd/King.
Vs4 Herod asks where the Christ/Messiah is to be born
Vs5 The wise men said Bethlehem because of what Micah had said in Micah 5:2.
Vs6 We see that Bethlehem was the town where the ruler would be born in the future times which Jesus was about
to fulfill. Bethlehem was not understood to be the place of Jesus ancestry in Micah 5:2 as many people currently
understand it to say.
Vs6 "A ruler who will shepherd my people" is identifying another being who would come and rule on God's behalf.
It should then be clear that the ruler who will shepherd Israel is not Yahweh God but someone who is ruling on
God's behalf.
Supporting Passage:
John 7:40 When they heard these words, some of the people said, This really is the Prophet. Others said,
This is the Christ. But some said, Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the Scripture said that the
Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?
John tells us that Christ comes both from the offspring of David and Bethlehem where David was. This could be
interpreted to mean Jesus had his ancestry and origins from Bethlehem in the past, or he would come from
Bethlehem in the future. Both interpretations are possible from this passage.
Summary:
Mathew 2:1 Jesus was born in Bethlehem
Vs5 The wise men quoted the prophet, Micah chapter five.
Vs6 The wise men understood Micah 5:2 to be predicting where the ruler would come from, not where his origins
or ancestry had been. This passage doesn't change any of the previous interpretation of Micah 5:2 in Part 7B.

Part 8 The Jewish Viewpoint

Tanakh Micah 5:1 And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath, Least among the clans of Judah, From you one shall
come forth To rule Israel for Me One whose origin is from of old, From ancient times
The Jewish OT Tanakh translates in this way.
This passage was recognized by the Jews as a Messianic text, especially in all of the Jewish paraphrases
and interpretations of the Old Testament known as Targums.[7] The Aramaic Targum Jonathan translates
as . . . out of thee shall proceed in my presence the Messiah to exercise sovereignty over Israel; whose
name has been called from eternity, from the days of the everlasting.[8] Likewise, the priests and scribes
during Herods day likewise thought that it was Messianic (Matthew 2:5-6; John 7:42).
Quoting the Targum Jonathan.

The ancient Jews read this verse and realized that it spoke of the birth and birthplace of the Messiah. One
of the few things the Jews at the time of Jesus did understand about the Messiah was that he would be
born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:3-6). Yet of the Jews who read, studied, and understood the verse, there is no
record that any of them concluded from the wording that Jesus had to be God incarnate.
Summary:
Although there may have been exceptions, Jews of the time generally did not understood Micah 5:2 to mean that
the ruler would be God.
Summaries and Final Conclusion:
Part 1
Part 2A This passage had to be, and was, understandable to Micah and the people of the time. Because in context
this passage was originally written in reference to a human ruler and it had to be relevant to him, then
H4163 would not have been understood to mean goings forth because the ruler had no goings forth in
days of old. Rather H4163/mosaa would have been in reference to his ancestry, his origin/s, because his
ancestry and origin/s were from days of old, the days of the old kings.
Part 2B From the group of passages shown using the word H4161/motsa, it is easy to see that they could mean
either going/s forth or origin/s.
Each translation of H4161 has to be based on its context, which in Micah 5:2 is referring to a ruler
understood by Micah and his readers shown in 2A, therefore the translation in that case is, "origin/s."
Part 3A Even though there are several variations in translation of the Hebrew word H6924/qedem in Micah 5:2,
they all have the same feel in that they are expressing a period inside human history. Any one of these
translations could be used. Even the DR which has a different meaning is referring to a start point, a
beginning, an origin, again within or at the start of time. None of the translators have any variations of
eternity or perpetual and everlasting past.
Part 3B H6924/qedem is in the OT 89 times, more than half of those are referring to east or eastward, most of the
rest refers to human history, in the two cases referring to God it is translated to mean perpetual past.
Because God is not mentioned by name in Micah 5:2 then based on the other comparisons H6924/qedem
should not be understood to mean perpetual past in that context.
Part 4A The word H3117/yowm is a key word in understanding this passage. Because it is written then it
signifies the passage is referring to inside of time, if days existed then the point/time it was referencing
was after creation began. The only alternative is that the word is figurative in which case the argument
could be made of the entire passage.
Part 4B The first day was one that was created by God. Therefore there was a point when there was not the first
day, or any day, or any time. This is an extremely relevant point when assessing Micah 5 which talks
about days being the point of origin, or going forth, for the subject ruler.
Part 5A When comparing nineteen translations, the true definition of H5769/owlam hinges on the fact that the
word H3117/yowm/days is written before the word H5769/owlam. This being so, groups F-H are incorrect
because they cannot make logical sense as there are no days or time in eternity. Therefore the true
translation of H5769/owlam is a word that refers to being inside of time, long ago, ancient, distant past, or
antiquity all work well.
Part 5B When in reference to people, the passages that include the word H5769/owlam have no indication of
infinite past, the word H3117/yowm is included, and there is no reference to God.

When a passage is in reference to God, firstly H3117/yowm is not included and secondly there is a clear
reference to God. In ten OT cases, but not always, the word H5769/owlam is written twice in close
succession.
There is never a time when H5769/owlam is describing God and there is any sign of a time limitation.
Part 6A Micah background overview
Part 6B The main problem with the idea that Micah 5:2 was originally in reference to King David is that David
lived from 1040-970BC which was 300 years before Micah and Jews always understood this as a prophecy, as do
Christians, not a historical account.
Part 6C The theory that Micah 5:2 referred originally to King Hezekiah seems to have some validity although I
would like more information before addressing it.
Part 6D The idea that Micah 5:2 was originally in reference is very strong, however I need more input on this
viewpoint.
Part 7A Bethlehem was the death place of Jacob's wife Rachel, the home of Jesse and the birthplace of King
David. All of these people are in Jesus ancestry. These factors are relevant when interpreting Micah 5.
Part 7B "Judah, out of you"
"will come"
"for me one"
"will be ruler"
"whose origin"
"from"

a source, an origination.
H3318/yatsa: go out, come out, or go forth
God and a ruler, a sender and a sent.
Signifies a time he "was not" ruler.
The ruler had an origin/H4163/mosaa
The ruler is "from" somewhere

"qedem/old"
"ancient times"

The ruler is from "old"

The ruler is from ancient times/days

"his brothers"
"in the strength of"

The ruler will have brothers

The ruler relies on another's strength

"the LORD his God" The ruler has a God

God does not have either

The ruler would come
God and another distinct being
"will be ruler' cannot be said of God.
God does not have an origin
God is not "from" anywhere, he
always was/is
God is not from old
God is not from within days of
creation
God does not have brothers
God does not rely or need another's
strength
God does not have a God

Any one of these reasons on their own is sufficient to prove that the ruler would not be God. That I have
identified eleven is overwhelming. In order for Jesus to be God all eleven have to be proven wrong!
There is nothing in Micah 5:1-6 that says Jesus is God.
Part 7C Mathew 2:1 Jesus was born in Bethlehem
Vs5 The wise men quoted the prophet, Micah chapter five.
Vs6 The wise men understood Micah 5:2 to be predicting where the ruler would come from, not where his
origins or ancestry had been. This passage doesn't change any of the previous interpretation of Micah 5:2
in Part 7B.
Part 8 Although there may have been exceptions, Jews of the time generally did not understood Micah 5:2 to
mean that the ruler would be God.
Final Conclusion:

From Micah 5:2 alone, It is not clear if Jesus origins are from the days of his ancestors or from the dawn of
creation. However what we do have is proof that it is one or the other, therefore Jesus cannot be God.
Micah did not think or write, nor did his believers of the time understand it to say, that the ruler would be God.
Jesus was the firstborn of all creation per Colossians 1:15, born before or at the start of the creation, and so his
origins (place of going out from) are certainly of old and from ancient times. Jesus origins are in effect from the
first days at the edge of eternity. No scripture that talks about God being qedem or owlam has it combined with
origins or days.
To say that Jesus is without beginning and therefore God based on Micah 5:2 is not what the passage says.