Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: March 2010

[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; C/E quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [CED blog]

The following are quotes added to my Unclassified Quotes database in March 2010.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.

[Index: Jan, Feb, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec]

"As with Isaiah 9:6-7 the setting of this prediction in Micah 5:2 is one which envisions the people of God in 
dire straits. The city of Jerusalem is under siege, but more significant, the Davidic dynasty is at a low ebb. 
Israel's `judge' (shophet) has been `struck on the cheek with a rod' (5:1; MT, 4:14). Micah then delivered 
the prophecy presently under discussion: `But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, [though you are] small among 
the thousands of Judah, From you for me will go forth [the one] to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth 
[have been] from of old, [even] from everlasting.'" (Reymond, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New 
Testament and Old Testament Witness," [1990], Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, p.128)

"The prophetic utterance itself provides ample warrant for viewing' the oracle as a messianic prediction: (1) 
Bethlehem, being David's birthplace, was a `royal' city; (2) the prediction speaks of him who was to come 
forth from Bethlehem as being `ruler in Israel'; and (3) as Israel's ruler he would `shepherd' Yahweh's flock in 
the strength of the Lord and be `great to the ends of the earth' (5:4). This is also clearly the New Testament's 
understanding. For when Herod inquired of the chief priests and teachers of the Law `where the Messiah 
was to be born,' Matthew reports that they answered, `in Bethlehem of Judea,' and that they then cited 
Micah 5:2 (and 2 Sam 5:2, doubtless due to the suggestion in Mic 5:4) as the basis of their response (Matt 
2:3-6)." (Reymond, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament and Old Testament Witness," [1990], 
Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, p.128)

"It would be asking a whole lot of the reader to believe that Matthew, who cites the Old Testament himself a 
great deal, was merely recording their response with no concurrence on his part in their answer, particularly 
when we learn from John 7:42 that it was common belief in Israel that the Messiah would come `from David's 
family and from Bethlehem.' Such official (and common) opinion could have come only from Micah 5:2 since 
it is the only passage that teaches so. Consequently, it is a fair deduction that by his inclusion of the 
religious leaders' Old Testament citation in his Gospel Matthew was agreeing with both their response and 
the Old Testament basis for it. I will proceed, therefore, on the assumption that Micah 5:2 is directly 
messianic and a prediction concerning the Messiah." (Reymond, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New 
Testament and Old Testament Witness," [1990], Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp.128-129)

"There is little significant difference of opinion respecting the meaning of the first two lines: Micah is simply 
prophesying that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Beyond all doubt, then, being born in 
Bethlehem, the Messiah was to be a man like other men. The true humanity of the Messiah is a clear 
implicate of this verse but that is not the issue before us now." (Reymond, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: 
The New Testament and Old Testament Witness," [1990], Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, p.129)

"The point of dispute turns rather on the intention of the third line-between those who see and those who 
do not see in it an intimation of the Messiah's pre-existence prior to his birth in Bethlehem. Those who do 
not see it' insist, first, that the noun translated above by `whose goings forth' (mosa'otha[y]w) really 
means `whose origin,' and second, that the time phrases, `from of old' (miqqedem) and `from days of 
eternity' (mime `olam),actually refer, as the latter phrase does in Amos 9:11, most probably to the days of 
David. On this construction, a paraphrase of the third line would read: `whose origin [or roots] goes back to 
the time of David.'" (Reymond, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament and Old Testament 
Witness," [1990], Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp.129-130)

"This interpretation, in my opinion, however, is suspect on two accounts, one biblical/theological, the other 
exegetical. First, this view implies that the messianic idea in Israel (and thus the hope of a messianic King) 
originated in and grew out of the failed monarchy in Israel. That is to say, as the elect remnant saw less and 
less reason to pin their hopes on the kings of Israel and Judah, more and more did they begin to long for a 
King in whom there would be only virtues and no vices and who would be able to do (and would do) for 
them what the kings before him were unable (or unwilling) to do: to provide for them and to protect and to 
care for them. But as Edmond Jacob rightly says: `...the messianic hope ...has...roots which go further back 
than the institution of Kingship, though the latter gave it its dominant orientation. Since the return of the 
golden age formed part of the most ancient religious patrimony of Israel it is quite natural to suppose that it 
also included the hope of the return of man as he existed in the beginning.' [Jacob, E., `Theology of the Old 
Testament,' Harpers: New York, 1958, p.327] The point I am making here is that it is arbitrary, simply on the 
basis of the reference to Bethlehem, David's city, to insist that Micah's intention was to trace the Messiah's 
origin back to David and no farther as if that origin sufficiently marked out the point of beginning of Israel's 
messianic hope. Although the Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7 is indeed significant for Israel's messianic 
vision, the idea of kingship in Israel went back at least to Abraham (Gen 17:6) and was anticipated in Genesis 
49:10 and in the Deuteronomic covenant renewal treaty (17:14-20) of the Mosaic age. Ezekiel alludes to 
Genesis 49:10 in Ezekiel 21:27, evidencing his awareness of the antiquity of the idea of the monarchy and 
messianism. Certainly the New Testament is also aware of the idea's antiquity (see Matt 1:1-2; Luke 3:23-37; 
Rom 9:5; Gal 3:16; Heb 7:14). Consequently, as I said, it is arbitrary to suggest that the intention of the third 
line is simply to trace the Messiah's origin back to the time of David and the Davidic covenant and no 
farther. I am aware that 1 have offered nothing to this point that proves that another idea is present in the 
passage. But 1 have shown that the Messiah's `origin,' assuming for the moment that this is the meaning of 
the noun, can be and often is traced in Scripture back before the time of David. Consequently, there are no 
grounds for insisting that the verse's intention is simply the tracing of Messiah's origin back to David. In 
fact-and this feature should not be overlooked-David is not expressly mentioned by name anywhere in the 
passage." (Reymond, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament and Old Testament Witness," 
[1990], Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp130-131)

"The issue, of course, must be determined finally exegetically, and this is the second questionable feature 
about this proposal. The meaning of the clause, all admit, turns ultimately upon the meaning of both the 
noun mosa'otha(y)w, and the time phrases following it. The noun is a hapax, that is, it occurs only this 
one time in the Old Testament ... It is the, plural form of mosa', the masculine singular noun, and it is 
interesting that the feminine plural of this noun occurs only here in the Old Testament. The noun in the 
singular, derived as it is from yasa'  ('to go forth'), can denote, first, a concrete entity, such as an exit 
(Ezek 42:11), an export (of horses) or (by interpretation) an import (1 Kgs 10:28), or an utterance (Deut 8:3); 
second, a place of going forth, such as a spring of water (2 Kgs 2:21) or a point of departure ('stage'-NIV) 
(Num 33:2), including within this idea the meaning of `east,' as the place of the sun's `going forth' (Ps 75:6 
[MT, v 7]), and a `mine,' as the place from which silver is drawn (Job 28:1). And it can mean, third, simply the 
act itself of going forth (Hos 6:3). Reflection will show, I think, that a concrete entity of any kind does not 
fit the context of Micah 5:2. Nor does the idea of a place of departure (the closest idea to `origin') suit the 
time predicates that follow the plural noun, particularly when one factors in the plurality of the noun ('whose 
places of going forth ...are from of old'). This leaves as the most plausible meaning the act itself of going 
forth, which meaning also most admirably suits the meaning which the same root has in the immediately 
preceding line which we translated `will go forth.' " (Reymond, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New 
Testament and Old Testament Witness," [1990], Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, p.131)

"To feel the force of what I have just said, perhaps it will help to put the two lines together thus: From you 
[that is, from Bethlehem as his place of birth, thereby underscoring his humanity] for me will go forth 
[yese'] [the one] to be ruler in Israel, Whose [note that the subject is the ruler in Israel] goings forth 
[mosa'otha(y)w, from the same root as the verb in the preceding line] [have been] from of old, even from 
days of eternity [which underscores his deity]." (Reymond, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New 
Testament and Old Testament Witness," [1990], Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp.131-132. Emphasis original) 

"The plural form of the noun hardly allows the RSV's `origin' (the NIV's `origins,' though still a somewhat 
strange turn of phrase in the context does at least take cognizance of the plural form of the noun), whereas 
the adjacency of the noun to the same root in the preceding line where its meaning is unquestionably `will 
go forth,' powerfully argues for this same meaning for the noun in the third line. And it is not without 
significance that the LXX construed it this way, translating the noun mosa'otha(y)w ('goings forth') by ... 
(exodoi, `goings out'), the plural of (exodos, `going out')." (Reymond, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: 
The New Testament and Old Testament Witness," [1990], Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp.131-132) 

"As for the time phrases, it is true that miqqedem (`from of old') intends nothing more than `from former 
times' in isolated contexts, but miqqedem can also mean `eternity' as in Deuteronomy 33:27 where God is 
described as the `God of eternity' ('elohe qedem) And while mime `olam, `from days of old,' may refer to 
nothing more than to hoary antiquity as in Micah 7:14 where the words refer to the Mosaic (or Patriarchal) 
Age, `olam, occurs in Proverbs 8:22-23 with miqqedem, to denote the eternity preceding the beginning 
of the creation of the world! Occurring, then, as these time phrases do with the unusual noun meaning `[acts 
of] going forth,' it seems more plausible to think that it is this last sense that is intended. And again, for what 
it is worth, this is the way the LXX seems to have understood the phrases, for they are rendered in the 
Greek, ap' arches, `from the beginning', see 1 John 1:1) and ek hemeron aionos, `out of days of 
eternity')." (Reymond, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament and Old Testament Witness," 
[1990], Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, p.132) 

"There is no legitimate warrant, then, for interpreting the third line simply as a reference to Messiah's ancient 

Davidic pedigree. To the contrary, if we give the plural noun its full force, pointing as it does to prior 
repeated acts of going forth on the part of the ruler who was to be born in Bethlehem, we have every reason 
to include within the time frame allowed by the phrases themselves the idea even of eternity past, and to 
affirm that the third line refers to the `goings forth' of the Messiah (in the person of the pre-existent Son or 
Logos) in eternity past to create the world (see John 1:1-3; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2), to his numerous 
subsequent `goings forth' as the `Angel of the Lord' from Patriarchal to Davidic times, and to his constant 
`goings forth' providentially to sustain and to uphold all things by the word of his power (Col 1:17; Heb 
1:3)." (Reymond, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament and Old Testament Witness," [1990], 
Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp.132-133) 

"If it should be objected that this interpretation (which has an eighth-century B.C. prophet teaching the 
eternal pre-existence of the Messiah) grants too high and too advanced a Christology for the man and his 
time, l would simply point out, first, that this Christological perception goes not one iota beyond the 
conceptions which we have already seen were advanced by David and Isaiah. Keil, of this same opinion, 
rightly remarks: ...this thought [of the Messiah's pre-existence and divine nature] was not strange to the 
prophetic mind in Micah's time, but is expressed without ambiguity by Isaiah, when he gives the Messiah 
the name of `the Mighty God .' [Keil, C.F., "The Twelve Minor Prophets," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 
1949,1,481.]" (Reymond, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament and Old Testament Witness," 
[1990], Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, p.133) 

"I would also insist-if the Old Testament prophets were in fact inspired by the Spirit of God as they 
themselves affirm (see Deut 18:15-20 and the prophetic phrase, `Thus the Lord says') and as the New 
Testament affirms of them (2 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 1:10- 11; 2 Pet 1:20-21) - that it would have been no more difficult 
for an inspired prophet to speak of the Messiah's pre-existence and eternality than for him to predict by 
name the precise place of his birth seven hundred and fifty years prior to the event. [An unnamed prophet 
also spoke of Josiah by name three hundred years before his time (1 Kgs 13:2), and Isaiah spoke of Cyrus by 
name two hundred years before his time (Isa 44:28; 45:1)] If he could do the latter, what obstacle, in principle, 
stands in his way of doing the former? No suchobstacle exists. Therefore, for these reasons, I would urge 
that Micah intended to refer to the Messiah's preexistence prior to his birth in Bethlehem and thus by 
implication he taught the deity of the Messiah. And I may add, this is the historic interpretation of the 
Christian church and the position of most evangelicals today." (Reymond, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: 
The New Testament and Old Testament Witness," [1990], Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp.133-134)

"I will conclude our study of this messianic vignette by citing the opinions of two Old Testament 
theologians. E. J. Young affirms: `In vs. 2 the future birth of the messianic king is declared. His humanity is 
set forth, in that he is to come forth out of Bethlehem, and his true deity, in that the places of his going forth 
...[are] from of yore ...from days of eternity.' [Young, E.J., "An Introduction to the Old Testament," 
Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1949, p.26] And J. Barton Payne writes: `Micah's revelation ...describes the 
Bethlehem-born Messiah as One `whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting' (5:2), a quality which 
constitutes further witness to his eternal deity.' [Payne, J.B., "The Theology of the Older Testament,"  
Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1962, p.263]" (Reymond, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament 
and Old Testament Witness," [1990], Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, p.134)

* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists. However, lack of
an asterisk does not necessarily mean that an author is an evolutionist.


Copyright © 2010, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. These my quotes may be used
for non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other
medium except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back
to this page would be appreciated.
Created: 3 March, 2010. Updated: 10 April, 2010.