Micah 5:2 confusion

Our concept of "context" and that of Jews in the late 2nd temple period are vastly different.

The obvious answer is "Both." All of Hebrew scripture and especially the poetry (almost all of the prophets' writings are in poetic verse in Hebrew) has multiple layers of meaning.

Passages can be multivalent, i.e. having more than one application/interpretation. Micah 5:2 can (and I believe does) refer both to the one who would deliver them from the Assyrians as well as to Jesus as the foretold Messiah.

fishmansf said:

While Matthew uses this verse to point to Jesus Messianic birth, if read in context, it sounds as if it is speaking of a literal ruler that will delivers them from the Assyrians. I’m confused on this, I know many Jews believe that the Messiah will be a physics ruler to deliver the Jewish people. This scripture makes me sort of think that as well and is having me struggle in my faith. Does Micah 5:2 (through the rest of the chapter) really refer to Jesus birthplace or as in a Davidic leader?

Click to expand...

Hello, the verse itself shows it is talking about the coming Messiah for he is from everlasting, eternity which can only be the Son of God.

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. [everlasting: Heb. the days of eternity] (Mic 5:2, KJV)

The bracketed above is the KJV Marginal Note for the the verse. Below is the English translation of the Septuagint which was used by Jesus and the Apostles.

"And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity." (Mic 5:2, LXXE)

The idea of a verse having more than one interpretation or meaning is contrary to sound principles of interpretation.

"It is an unscientific method of interpretation. 1. It assumes without evidence that the writers of the Bible were not revealers, but concealers, of truth; for many of the meanings are hidden rather than manifested by the authors. 2. It assumes that it were better for man that God should cover up much of the truth than that He should openly declare it. 3. It turns all Biblical interpretation into the realm of fancy and fiction; for, since only one meaning appears in the text, the fancy of the interpreter must
supply the others. 4. It affords no limit to the distortions which hermeneutical dreamers may produce in Biblical exegesis. 5. It fails utterly to develop any new truth, since the interpreters must bring to each passage from some other source all the spiritual meaning which they allege that it should bear.
These facts, that are apparent to every unprejudiced reader, lead us to the only natural and scientific ground, which we may express in the

RULE:—Any expression in any given connection should yield but one meaning. page 138, 139"

http://icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf

That is from Principles of Interpretation by Clinton Lockhart, 2nd Edition 1915 and the link above has the entire textbook on interpretation.

fishmansf said:

While Matthew uses this verse to point to Jesus Messianic birth, if read in context, it sounds as if it is speaking of a literal ruler that will delivers them from the Assyrians. I’m confused on this, I know many Jews believe that the Messiah will be a physics ruler to deliver the Jewish people. This scripture makes me sort of think that as well and is having me struggle in my faith. Does Micah 5:2 (through the rest of the chapter) really refer to Jesus birthplace or as in a Davidic leader?

Click to expand...

Since the Lord knows the beginning to the end, He can ... and does ... uses historical and incorporates future events and often uses them simultaneously ... it is amazing how He does this ... AMAZING

I think the key may be whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.

Back then they had a method of interpretation known as Midrash which does not follow the rules that our culture uses.

You can find an example in this: Hidden Treasures, pages 13-14. Here is explained a relation between an ancient rabbinic midrash, Micah 2:12-13 and Matthew 11:12, the extract is:

The Lord was wondering how He could know which of His servants serve Him out of fear and which of them serve Him out of love. He devised a method that would discover this knowledge. He built a room four by four, a four-square room with only one small peep hole of four by four spans. The Lord put all His servants into this room. Those servants who served Him out of fear stood in that “four by four” room and said: “If the Lord had wanted us to break out of this room He would not have built it and put us into it.” The servants who loved the Lord said, “We want to break out of this room and join the Lord in the outside in the wide open spaces.” However the little peep hole was too small, and they had to make themselves suffer and lose much weight to be able to fit through the small peep hole in the door and join the Lord in the wide open spaces. They loved the Lord so much that they could not stay closed in the “four by four” room even knowing that the Lord had built it and placed them there.I They wanted to “break out” by force and violence from the “four by four” room and join the Lord who was sitting on His throne in the wide open spaces.

This midrash is very interesting in many ways. The first important truth from this midrash is that it is based on the text of Micah 2:12-13, “I will surely assemble all of you, O Jacob, I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together like sheep of the fold, like a flock in the midst of their pasture. They shall make a loud noise because of so many people. The one who breaks open will come up before them; they will break out. Pass through the gate, and go out by it; their king will pass before them, with the LORD at their head.” The use of the word, “breaker” or “poretz” in Hebrew, which also means “violent man,” brings us to Yeshua(Jesus,ישוע)’s words in the Gospel of Matthew 11:12, “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.” The Prophet Micah says that God will put Israel in the “sheep fold.” Then the “one that breaks open” will “go out,” and “their King will pass before them, with the LORD at their head.” The whole story from the midrash is here in the words of Micah the prophet. Yeshua captures the story by describing the entrance into the Kingdom of God as a forceful, violent act of breaking out and entering the realm where the King is, outside of the fold. Here, therefore, we have a Rabbinic use of the text of Micah in the framework of a “parable” that demonstrates the words of the Prophet in relationship to the King and the Lord who walks out before the whole multitude.

The Midrash is taken from the Tana Debi Eliyahu, Ish-Shalom Edition, p. 82.

What is "Midrash" and how does it relate to Christian principles of hermeneutics?

fishmansf said:

While Matthew uses this verse to point to Jesus Messianic birth, if read in context, it sounds as if it is speaking of a literal ruler that will delivers them from the Assyrians. I’m confused on this, I know many Jews believe that the Messiah will be a physics ruler to deliver the Jewish people. This scripture makes me sort of think that as well and is having me struggle in my faith. Does Micah 5:2 (through the rest of the chapter) really refer to Jesus birthplace or as in a Davidic leader?

Click to expand...

There were two Bethlehem and this one is where Messiah was had to be born. The Lord called Himself the Bread that came down from heaven and Bethlehem means House Of Bread. One last thing it was at this Bethlehem Migdal Eder stood. Migdal Eder means Tower of the Flock here the lambs for sacrifice were raised and of course here the Lamb of God was born.

A.ModerateOne said:

Hello, the verse itself shows it is talking about the coming Messiah for he is from everlasting, eternity which can only be the Son of God.

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. [everlasting: Heb. the days of eternity] (Mic 5:2, KJV)

The bracketed above is the KJV Marginal Note for the the verse. Below is the English translation of the Septuagint which was used by Jesus and the Apostles.

"And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity." (Mic 5:2, LXXE)

The idea of a verse having more than one interpretation or meaning is contrary to sound principles of interpretation.

"It is an unscientific method of interpretation. 1. It assumes without evidence that the writers of the Bible were not revealers, but concealers, of truth; for many of the meanings are hidden rather than manifested by the authors. 2. It assumes that it were better for man that God should cover up much of the truth than that He should openly declare it. 3. It turns all Biblical interpretation into the realm of fancy and fiction; for, since only one meaning appears in the text, the fancy of the interpreter must
supply the others. 4. It affords no limit to the distortions which hermeneutical dreamers may produce in Biblical exegesis. 5. It fails utterly to develop any new truth, since the interpreters must bring to each passage from some other source all the spiritual meaning which they allege that it should bear.
These facts, that are apparent to every unprejudiced reader, lead us to the only natural and scientific ground, which we may express in the

RULE:—Any expression in any given connection should yield but one meaning. page 138, 139"

http://icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf

That is from Principles of Interpretation by Clinton Lockhart, 2nd Edition 1915 and the link above has the entire textbook on interpretation.

Click to expand...

God conceals when he tells both Daniel and John to conceal what they saw and heard. That's 1 where you are wrong in your understanding and assertion.

St. Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
St. Matthew 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
St. Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

That's 2 (even in relation to your 1st and 2nd points from the Principles of Interpretation.)