Micah Chapter 5 is prophecy?

[rikuoamero]

Several times on this website, a Christian has pointed to Micah Chapter 5 as being true prophecy that correctly predicts Jesus Christ.
Specifically...they point to Verse 2. Recently, a Christian quoted that verse in another thread having made the claim that this is true prophecy.

"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."~Micah

I want to ask Christians on this site how this is any way refers to Jesus Christ? I am aware the Gospels place Jesus's birthplace as being the town of Bethlehem, but the clan known as Bethlehem Ephrathah?

I also want to ask Christians how they can say Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, and more importantly, that they can prove it? This verse says that the one who is to come, will be ruler over Israel.
I as a skeptic cannot accept claims of Jesus being ruler of Israel in a theological sense (such as saying Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, or sits at the right hand of God who gave him dominion of all things). That would be yet another claim that would have to be proven, and thus cannot itself be used as the "evidence" for the fulfillment of verse 2.

What about verses 5 and 6?
And he will be our peace
when the Assyrians invade our land
and march through our fortresses.
We will raise against them seven shepherds,
even eight commanders,
6 who will rule[c] the land of Assyria with the sword,
the land of Nimrod with drawn sword.[d]
He will deliver us from the Assyrians
when they invade our land
and march across our borders.

Did Jesus have anything to do with the Assyrians? I did a keyword search for "Assyria", "Assyrian" and "Assyrians" on Biblegateway, searching through the KJV, NIV, ASV, GNT and ESV publications of the Bible, from Matthew to Revelations.
I got ZERO results for all three searches, and this is Biblegateway! Not exactly a bastion of blaspheming atheist heathens.

Unless you want to completely rewrite languages, and give new definitions, new meanings to commonly known words...it seems to me that Micah Chapter 5 is talking about some sort of military leader, who will send generals to rule Assyria, conquer it, and protect Israel from invading Assyrians.

Question for Discussion - Christians, why is it you guys quote Verse 2 when it obviously has nothing at all to do with your Jesus Christ? Why is it you guys NEVER quote Verses 5 and 6, whenever you are challenged to provide true prophecy predicting Jesus?

[polonius]

...Why is it you guys NEVER quote Verses 5 and 6, whenever you are challenged to provide true prophecy predicting Jesus?

There is no reason to assume all that was told about Jesus, should have happened yet. There is still time for all that was said to be fulfilled. And it seems world is going fast to that fulfillment.

RESPONSE:

But Jesus's "some of those standing here will see..." is pretty time specific, isn't it?

[PinSeeker]

I'm reading Micah and I am not seeing any delineation between Christ's first and supposed second coming.

What I said was pretty clear, Riko.

If it is talking about the second, as you claim, then Micah 5:2 (and verse 3) cannot be pointed to by Christians as prophecy that has been fulfilled, as in past tense, because obviously Christians believe the second coming has yet to happen (well, other than the JWs that is...).

The answer to this is yes and no. Let me explain:

As I said, "In verse 2, there is an anticipation of His first coming. But in the verse that follows (3), there is an anticipation of His second coming."

So yes, verse 2 has been fulfilled, and verse 3 has yet to be, in terms of Jesus's coming and return.

But prophecy is not just "prediction of future events." Prophecy is relating God's word to His people. That's why you hear the prophets say over and over again, "Thus says the Lord." As such, Micah is not really predicting Jesus's coming and return in this passage; he's just relating to the Israelites (and to us) that Jesus has always been there (from everlasting), He's going to come, and He's going to return -- in other words, He's always with us, so we can take comfort even in times of hardship and strife. So in that sense, it's not really a prediction of any kind, it's just an exhortation to trust in God and His providence, that He will not leave us or forsake us, and will work everything together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

Micah is "prophesying" that their Messiah, who it is obviously apparent is not and cannot be Jesus, will have something to do with the Assyrians.

No, he's prophesying that when the Assyrians invade, there will be people raised up to shepherd and lead men -- raised up by the Israelites themselves, as the latter part of verse 5 says. In in all this, Jesus will shepherd His flock -- He will not literally be there leading the fight, but He will ultimately deliver His people, figuratively speaking, through the work of these leaders and the Israelites themselves.

Would you take this stance if it had said the Persians? The Babylonians? Any other nation that had conquered Israel?

Sure. Or, in today's times, the Russians, or the North Koreans, or whoever else. God works all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. He will preserve Israel -- not necessarily physical Israel, because God's Israel is a people, not a country, and specifically believers, not any one single ethnicity. As verse 8 of this passage says, "(t)he remnant of Jacob will be among the nations, among many peoples."

I notice you don't even attempt to counter my rebuttal of the part where it mentions the messiah raising up military commanders "who will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword."
When and where did Jesus take part in any sort of military campaigns? When did Israel rule over Assyria?

See above. I think I've answered this quite sufficiently.

The "we" near the end of verse 5 refers to the Israelites.

Who, as I just said, were apparently supposed to send military commanders who are to rule over Assyria by the sword.

The "military commanders" were not predicted to be Israelites, See my original post above.

If Micah was really foretelling the future thanks to God, why didn't God have him say the Messiah would free them from the Romans?

Because Micah's prophecy had immediate fulfillment for the coming Assyrian invasion. God delivered Israel through that conflict.

It's really not that hard.

Yes it is.

Nope.

You literally ignore parts of the so called prophecy...

No, you just misread them. Don't worry, you're surely not alone. Hopefully I've cleared up at least some of your misconceptions. But if you want to cling to them, that's up to you, but I would advise against that...

[1213]

But Jesus's "some of those standing here will see..." is pretty time specific, isn't it?

Yeah, and it came true after few days, if you read the following:

After six days, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain by themselves. He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light. Behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them talking with him.
Matt. 17:1-3

[polonius]

But Jesus's "some of those standing here will see..." is pretty time specific, isn't it?

Yeah, and it came true after few days, if you read the following:

After six days, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain by themselves. He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light. Behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them talking with him.
Matt. 17:1-3

RESPONSE: You seem a bit confused. The "transfiguration" is an entirely different matter then any "Second Homing."

At the Transfiguration, Jesus was already here, he hadn't ascended. You have you time sequences confused.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by PinSeeker]

Pinseeker, your reply is all over the place. Let me see if I can condense what you say into a series of numbered points

1) Micah Chapter 5 is about Jesus
2) It talks about Jesus's two comings, the first one 2,000 years ago, and one yet to occur from the time of the typing of this comment in August of 2018 AD.
3) You say one verse refers to Jesus's first coming, but that another verse refers to his second coming, even though the text when read does not say that.
4) Micah isn't predicting Jesus's coming and return
5) It's just an exhortation to trust in God
6) Micah is prophesying that when the Assyrians invade, there will be people raised up to lead and protect the Israelites (who may or may not be of Israeli descent themselves).
7) Jesus will not be doing anything actually concrete in terms of this conflict, he is there figuratively speaking, and is being credited for the work of the military leaders/shepherds.
8) No matter which nation it is that conquers Israel, had posed a threat to it, you'd be saying these same things, even if its clear Israel never ruled over these enemies, whether Assyria, Rome, North Korea, Russia etc.
9) You say it's about Israel as a people and not the land named Israel.
10) You claim to have answered the part about Israel sending military commanders to rule Assyria by the sword
11) The military commanders are not predicted to be Israelites themselves
12) Micah's prophecy was immediately fulfilled with the Assyrian invasion at the time of its writing.

So it's not a prediction, it's an exhortation to trust God. It's about Jesus, what Jesus did in his time and what he will do during his second coming...but it was immediately fulfilled shortly after it was written. You claim to have shown when and where the Israeli-sent military commanders ruled Assyria by the sword.

[PinSeeker]

Pinseeker, your reply is all over the place.

No, Riko, as is your modus operandi, you're intentionally twisting it with the preconceived idea of making a caricature of it. Which is uncool, but nobody can keep you from doing that...

So it's not a prediction, it's an exhortation to trust God.

Right... Well, it's both, actually... or rather a warning of coming events and an exhortation from God to persevere. Read on...

It's about Jesus,...

Well, yes, all of Scripture is really about Jesus, as He Himself said. But Jesus is not immediately the subject of Micah's prophecy.

...what Jesus did in his time and what he will do during his second coming...

No, as I said, in verses 2 and 3, God is saying -- through Micah -- "Take comfort even in the hard times to come, because I am always with you. Though it may not seem like it, and bad things are going to happen, I am always in control. Even in the midst of trouble and strife, I will be working all things together for your good, and My promises to deliver you that I made long ago are true and will not fail." Much the same as I or any other Christian might tell any other Christian right now; the Assyrian of Micah's day represent the enemies of God's people in every age.

...it was immediately fulfilled shortly after it was written.

Sure. The fulfillment of the prophecy itself was pretty immediate; the Assyrians invaded in short order.

You claim to have shown when and where the Israeli-sent military commanders ruled Assyria by the sword.

The "seven shepherds" and "eight princes" are a traditional formula, or an idiom, for a full and sufficient number of leaders, more than enough for the task that we also see see in Ecclesiastes 11, which says:

• "Cast your bread on the surface of the waters, for you will find it after many days. Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth. If the clouds are full, they pour out rain upon the earth; and whether a tree falls toward the south or toward the north, wherever the tree falls, there it lies. He who watches the wind will not sow and he who looks at the clouds will not reap. Just as you do not know the path of the wind and how bones are formed in the womb of the pregnant woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things."

The implication here is concerning those who faithfully lead in Christ's place, even though He is not physically present. This is evidenced in verse 6 by the main verbs "they shall shepherd" and "He will deliver."

I was unclear about one thing, and that is that the "seven shepherds" and "eight leaders of men" are not necessarily Israelites:

The "seven shepherds" are necessarily Israelites. the number is not literally seven, as seven is Biblically a symbolic number denoting completeness. They are manifestly inferior, spiritual, shepherds, acting under the One Shepherd, by His authority, and He in them.

The "leaders of men" are a civil power. The number is not literally eight, as eight symbolizes a number that is "more than enough," as it were. These are not necessarily Israelites, but may include others, and did, in the form of the Babylonians in the late 7th century B.C., which was the fulfillment of Micah's warning/prophecy. Together, they repelled the Assyrians.

The problem for the Israelites was, the Babyonians then took them into captivity and away from the Promised Land, but that's beyond the immediate point.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 16 by PinSeeker]

The "seven shepherds" and "eight princes" are a traditional formula, or an idiom, for a full and sufficient number of leaders, more than enough for the task that we also see see in Ecclesiastes 11, which says:

If what you point to as a fulfillment of prophecy is nothing more than word play and numerology, then its virtually useless.
Christians play up Micah as being fulfilled. They say Jesus did it. So I'm looking for the who, what, when and where. If you don't give me that, I can hardly agree with you that it was fulfilled.

The "seven shepherds" are necessarily Israelites. the number is not literally seven, as seven is Biblically a symbolic number denoting completeness. They are manifestly inferior, spiritual, shepherds, acting under the One Shepherd, by His authority, and He in them.

For me to consider this prophecy fulfilled, it needs to be an event that occurred in the past. I need to know who, when and where ruled over Assyria for Israel.
That hasn't happened.

the Assyrian of Micah's day represent the enemies of God's people in every age.

This means you've just given yourself leave to invite metaphor into a discussion about predictions. If I or those on my side point out a prophecy mentions one particular thing by name only this isn't the case, you've just allowed yourself to say (in so many words) that the name isn't important, it's a representation of something else.

These are not necessarily Israelites, but may include others, and did, in the form of the Babylonians in the late 7th century B.C., which was the fulfillment of Micah's warning/prophecy. Together, they repelled the Assyrians.

Did the Israelites command, send or otherwise suborn the Babylonians to conquer Assyria?
Nope, is the answer.

The problem for the Israelites was, the Babyonians then took them into captivity and away from the Promised Land, but that's beyond the immediate point.

Beside the immediate point. Really. Something known from history that completely and irrevocably refutes your prophecy...and it's beside the point.

[PinSeeker]

I need to know who, when and where ruled over Assyria for Israel. That hasn't happened.
Nobody for Israel ruled over Assyria, Rik. I never said anything of the sort. The Assyrians didn't even rule over Israel, except in the sense that, upon invading the Northern Kingdom of Israel, they captured the Israelites and relocated them to Babylon. And this happened under Sennecherib in 701 B.C. This was the crux of Micah's warning to the Israelites from God in chapter 5 of his prophecy.

the Assyrian of Micah's day represent the enemies of God's people in every age.

This means you've just given yourself leave to invite metaphor into a discussion about predictions.

As I said, there was an immediate fulfillment of the warning God sent to the Israelites through the prophet Micah. But what happened around 700 B.C. is a warning to us all in every age, but also a promise, immediately for the Israelites of Micah's day but also for us all in every age: God will send His Christ (for us now that God sent His Christ) and He will return at the end of the age to finally and completely defeat all sin and death.

Did the Israelites command, send or otherwise suborn the Babylonians to conquer Assyria? Nope, is the answer.

Right, but I'm not sure how you got in your head that I was insinuating such. This question itself shows your lack of understanding. Babylonia was part of the Assyrian Empire. How does one conquer themselves? That makes no sense whatsoever. Again, the Assyrians, under Sennecherib in 701 B.C., took the Israelites captive and relocated them -- most of them -- to Babylon, in Bablylonia, which was part of the Assyrian Empire. My goodness.

The problem for the Israelites was, the Babyonians then took them into captivity and away from the Promised Land, but that's beyond the immediate point.

Beside the immediate point. Really. Something known from history that completely and irrevocably refutes your prophecy...and it's beside the point.

No, I didn't say it was "beside the point." I said it was beyond the immediate point. You miss the point altogether. Which seems to be a repeating pattern.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 18 by PinSeeker]

Babylonia was part of the Assyrian Empire. How does one conquer themselves?

Prussia was part of the Germanic states, and eventually its king became the ruler of all Germany.
It's actually not that much of a stretch of imagination to think of a province or city rising up to conquer its former conqueror. It is certainly possible for a Venice, for example, to attack and conquer a Rome (note, I am not arguing that this has in fact happened, merely offering it as a hypothetical).

Nobody for Israel ruled over Assyria, Rik. I never said anything of the sort.

You did and do when you assert that Micah 5 is a true prophecy that has (or will be, depending on what exactly you're saying) come true.
As for nobody from or for Israel ruling over Assyria...great. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot.

The Assyrians didn't even rule over Israel, except in the sense that, upon invading the Northern Kingdom of Israel, they captured the Israelites and relocated them to Babylon.

So the Assyrians didn't rule over Israel...except for when they did this one time.
That's what I got from you.

This was the crux of Micah's warning to the Israelites from God in chapter 5 of his prophecy.

So it was not about any future enemies to the Israelites. Just the Assyrians. I mean, it's not like Micah could see the future and foretell the coming of the Romans, right?

As I said, there was an immediate fulfillment of the warning God sent to the Israelites through the prophet Micah. But what happened around 700 B.C. is a warning to us all in every age, but also a promise, immediately for the Israelites of Micah's day but also for us all in every age: God will send His Christ (for us now that God sent His Christ) and He will return at the end of the age to finally and completely defeat all sin and death.

The point I raised about how you're now using metaphor is that now you're making the claim that Jesus fulfilled Micah unfalsifiable. There's no way for us to make sure if he did or did not do what Micah predicts, because now...we don't know what Micah predicts. We're not sure of what it's saying.
What did Micah predict, that you claim Jesus did in fact do? I read Micah 5 and I see references to Israelites sending military leaders to rule Assyria by the sword...what do you see?

Right, but I'm not sure how you got in your head that I was insinuating such.

Because that's what Micah 5 says, the very thing you are asserting is true. I see now you're going the metaphor route, which I have to re-point out, means now no one can be sure what Micah meant. If Micah talking about military leaders ruling Assyria doesn't mean that there were Israelite generals conquering and taking over the land known as Assyria...what the heck does that mean? It can mean anything, and we have no way to find out.
Heck, you've gone so far as to say Assyria doesn't have to mean the land Assyria. Apparently it can mean any list of powers foreign to Israel that conquered it.

How does one conquer themselves?

Might as well answer this for real.
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/fall_of_assyria.htm
I also have to remind you of Post 7, which you wrote, where you agreed with the idea of Bablyon conquering Assyria, but which now for some reason you find the idea of to be strange and outlandish.
". Micah wrote his prophecy somewhere between 750 and 650 B.C. Assyria invaded shortly after that (and fell to Babylon in 605 B.C.) "

No, I didn't say it was "beside the point." I said it was beyond the immediate point. You miss the point altogether. Which seems to be a repeating pattern.

Let's look at Micah 5 again shall we? What are the leaders sent by Israel supposed to have done?

We will raise against them seven shepherds,
even eight commanders,
6 who will rule[c] the land of Assyria with the sword,
the land of Nimrod with drawn sword.[d]
He will deliver us from the Assyrians
when they invade our land
and march across our borders.

According to you, the gist of what I'm getting from you, is that these commanders are supposed to have been sent from God, to protect the Israelite people from their foreign invaders.
However, how can this be the case when you admit that the thing these protectors are famous for doing...is taking the population and holding them captive?
What makes these deliverers from Assyrians any better than the Assyrians?

[PinSeeker]

Nobody for Israel ruled over Assyria, Rik. I never said anything of the sort.

You did...

I absolutely did not. I said Assyria invaded Israel. Israel would have had to have won and then invaded Assyria for that to happen, and neither is what occurred. You thinking or asserting that I said that is absolutely astounding.

The Assyrians didn't even rule over Israel, except in the sense that, upon invading the Northern Kingdom of Israel, they captured the Israelites and relocated them to Babylon.

So the Assyrians didn't rule over Israel...except for when they did this one time. That's what I got from you.

LOL! No, the Israelites were taken captive and assimilated into the Assyrian Empire. Good God. And actually, they were placed in Babylon, which was ruled by the Babylonians. The Babylonians were the ones who fell directly under Assyrian rule. Until they rose up against the Assyrians and drove them out of Nineveh, which I'll get to in a moment.

This was the crux of Micah's warning to the Israelites from God in chapter 5 of his prophecy.

So it was not about any future enemies to the Israelites. Just the Assyrians. I mean, it's not like Micah could see the future and foretell the coming of the Romans, right?

That's right. He only related the word of God to the Israelites. That's what Biblical prophecy is. Biblical prophecy is not prediction of the future, Riko. Open your mind. Forget about Nostradamus. LOL!

The point I raised about how you're now using metaphor is that now you're making the claim that Jesus fulfilled Micah unfalsifiable. There's no way for us to make sure if he did or did not do what Micah predicts, because now...we don't know what Micah predicts. We're not sure of what it's saying. What did Micah predict, that you claim Jesus did in fact do?

Once again: MICAH. DID. NOT. PREDICT. ANYTHING. He related the word of God to the Israelites.

Micah told the Israelites that the Assyrians would invade, because God told him to tell them that. He told them that. The Assyrians invaded.

Micah told the Israelites that God's promises were still true, that God would send them a Messiah, because God told him to tell them that. He told them that. Jesus was born 700 years later (give or take a year or two).

Micah told the Israelites that God's promises were still true, that God would send the Messiah back, because God told him to tell them that. He told them that. Jesus hasn't yet returned, but He most definitely will.

But -- one more time -- Micah was not and is not predicting anything. He was merely relating to the Israelites -- and to us -- WHAT GOD SAID.

I read Micah 5 and I see references to Israelites sending military leaders to rule Assyria by the sword...what do you see?

Yeah, you "see" wrongly. This is what I've been saying. The seven shepherds and eight leaders of men (again, not merely 15 people, but "enough" and "more than enough" men to accomplish the task) are the Medes and Babylonians, who took advantage of the weakness of the Assyrian kingdom, humbled partly by the destruction of Sennacherib’s army and the murder of Sennacherib himself, and partly by the civil wars which ensued. They took arms and succeeded in the attempt of subduing the Assyrian kingdom and driving it from the land, with much slaughter and bloodshed. Merodach-baladan was the king of Babylon and was the one who sent the congratulatory letter and embassy to Hezekiah, King of Judah (the Northern Kingdom of Israel) and delivered the Israelites from Assyrian power (Isaiah 39:1-2). And the land of Nimrod is the same as the land of Assyria. The "Land of Nimrod" is used as a synonym for Assyria or Mesopotamia.

What God said would happen indeed happened.

How does one conquer themselves?

Might as well answer this for real.
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/fall_of_assyria.htm
I also have to remind you of Post 7, which you wrote, where you agreed with the idea of Bablyon conquering Assyria, but which now for some reason you find the idea of to be strange and outlandish.
". Micah wrote his prophecy somewhere between 750 and 650 B.C. Assyria invaded shortly after that (and fell to Babylon in 605 B.C.) "

You're very confused, and I take some responsibility for that. Babylonia and Assyria were once separate. In 603 B.C., they became separate once again, as the Babylonians -- with the help of the Medes and the Scythians -- overtook the Assyrian capital of Nineveh. You can read all about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carchemish

The Assyrians were never under Babylonian rule, but driven out. And this is what I said immediately above.