The chief priests and scribes of the people were called together by king Herod and the king demanded that they tell him (Opinion: most likely at the risk of losing their lives if they didn’t co-operate), where the Messiah king would be born — according to prophecy:
And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. (Mat 2:5,6)
The writer of Matthew quoted this segment of the book of Micah as if it were fulfillment of prophecy that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem of Judaea. But was the prophet speaking about a Messiah king centuries into the future? And Micah doesn’t say Bethlehem of Judaea he says Bethlehem Ephratah — is it even the same city? Is it even a city? This could be a person.
The word translated “Governor” has also been translated princes, rulers, leaders, shepherds, governors, towns, cities, clans in other versions of the Bible. The majority of translations are agreed that Bethlehem is referring to a person and the minority of translations consider it a place (towns, cities, villages). Ephratah (Mic 5:2) was the name of Caleb’s second wife and is also the name for those of the tribe of Judah.
The Bible is so vague that scholars and translators find it almost impossible to come to a consensus about many things. This passage sounds like it is connected to Messianic prophecy seeing the passage in Micah is linked to the tribe of Judah. It is generally assumed that Jesus was the Messiah since he was of the tribe of Judah, and other reasons.
Jesus was definitely NOT a political leader.
If “Governor” specifically referred to the Messiah, king of the Jews, who the Jews were expecting to come, how could this “Governor” or “Ruler” or “Prince” be Jesus? But is Micah here actually prophesying about the Messiah? A governor or ruler is a political leader — which Jesus was definitely not, at least not according to New Testament writings.
Putting the prophecy of Micah 5 in Context
So this is what the prophet wrote:
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. (Mic 5:2 : KJV)
Opinion: This “ruler in Israel” was most likely a great king who leads Israel’s armies into battle against her enemies at the time of the prophecy. The part “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting”, could also be referring to the king at that time, since in those days the people considered kings as gods.
Opinion: So it wasn’t necessarily about the Messiah or Almighty God. Just another piece of scripture pulled out of context and taken advantage of to make this fantastic story sound more convincing to deceive — even if Jesus actually was born in Bethlehem. However, the Jews did expect the Messiah to be a literal king who would raise an actual army to defeat their enemies as the messianic prophecies allude to.
Was Jesus a “ruler in Israel”? He was called King of the Jews, but was he really a king? What we read about Jesus in the Gospels, he is no more than a teacher, prophet and/or priest at most. From the reality that the Gospels depict he wouldn’t and didn’t fulfill this prophecy.
Micah goes on with the prophecy:
And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.
And they (this man’s forces) shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he (this man) deliver us from the Assyrian, when he (the Assyrian not the Roman) cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders. (Mic 5:5,6)
“This man” is referring to the “ruler in Israel” of the prophecy. Did the Assyrians come into their land in the days of Jesus? No. Did Jesus “deliver Israel from the Assyrian”? No. Even if this prophecy were a “shadow of things to come”, we couldn’t say that Jesus was a king that raised an army, to “deliver” his people from the Romans, militarily speaking (unless Jesus lead an army that was never recorded in the New Testament).
Takeaways:
Jesus does not fulfill the prophecy in Micah because:
- He was never a “ruler in Israel”.
- The Assyrians did not invade Israel in Jesus’s day.
- Jesus did not “deliver Israel from the Assyrian” (nor the Romans).
- In vs 10 – 15 the ruler of the prophecy utterly destroys everything of their enemies — this Jesus did not do — even with the Romans.
- Neither did Jesus, as “king of the Jews”, raise an army against the Romans to overthrow them.
This prophecy could not have been about Jesus, because he was not “this man”; he was not a ruler in Israel, and he didn’t overthrow Israel’s enemy, the Romans (as The Messiah was expected to do). It’s not even clear if “Bethlehem Ephratah” was a city or a person (see: Mic 5:2).
Next: Jesus’ Childhood | Nazarene