[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]
2/03/2010 "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," , Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, p.128) 2/03/2010 "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," , Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, p.128) 2/03/2010 "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," , Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp.128-129) 2/03/2010 "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," , Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, p.129) 2/03/2010 "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," , Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp.129-130) 2/03/2010 "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," , Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp130-131) 2/03/2010 "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," , Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, p.131) 2/03/2010 "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," , Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp.131-132. Emphasis original) 2/03/2010 "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," , Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp.131-132) 2/03/2010 "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," , Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, p.132) 2/03/2010 "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," , Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp.132-133) 2/03/2010 "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," , Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, p.133) 2/03/2010 "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," , Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp.133-134) 12/03/2010 "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," , 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.