|
At the time Micah was written the family and descendants of David
would not have been small and insignificant either in numbers or
status. So how could he write that they were the least?
Also he says "of the clans" , or princes, so he is speaking
of a person, or persons, not a place, from whom will come
a ruler.
This ruler, then, was of Judah, but not from David.
When we look at the genealogies in 1 Chron. 2 and 3 we see that
someone called Bethlehem was descended from Caleb, one of the sons
of Hezron, who was from Judah.
When we look at David's line we see he came from the line of Ram,
another son of Hezron. In fact there is no reference to a Bethlehem
in that line at all.
In 1 Chron. 2 v 50 it says the descendants of Caleb were the sons
of Hur firstborn of Ephrathah (C/f with v 19 where it says Caleb
married Ephrath), Shobal father of Kiriath Jearim (which was a
place - "the village of the woods" ), and Salma father
of Bethlehem (" the house of bread" ), and Hareph father
of Beth Gader (walled house).
V 54 the decendants of Salma: Bethlehem, the Netophathites, etc……..
What Micah seems to be saying is that he wants to make it plain
that this ruler (note he does not say a king) is to come from the
Bethlehem who was descended from Caleb's wife Ephrathah and not
from his other wives whose descendants included Hebron and Gibea.
It can be seen from these names that there were persons who came
to the land of Israel from Egypt and gave the places where they
settled their name as the father of the clan living there.
Earlier in the chapter we have the descendants of Ram who include
a Salma too, who was the father of Boaz, who lived in Bethlehem
at the time of Ruth, and who was the great grandfather of David..
This where the confusion has occurred between the ruler who had come
from the town of Bethlehem (David) and the one to come who
was to be of the line of the person Bethlehem.
If it seems strange to be called "house of bread" then
Caleb means a dog and Hur means a mountain.!
The father of David was Jesse and the common "root" between
the line of Jesse/David and Bethlehem was Hezron, who was father
of Ram and Caleb.
So David was a branch of the stem of Jesse from the root of Hezron,
and Bethlehem (and the ruler to come) was of the stem from Caleb
and from the same root Hezron..
Now look at Isaiah chapter 11.v 1 " A shoot will come from
the stump of Jesse; from his roots a branch will bear fruit." V
10 "In that day the root of Jesse will stand as a banner…."
In Is. 11 the Hebrew word for root used is sheresh meaning also
the deep
cause, binding, race of origin, or abode of origin.
So could refer to Bethlehem as the place or the person as the origin
of
Jesse.
It does give the idea of ancient beginnings as does Micah 5.
But notice that Micah goes on to speak of this ruler to come from
Bethlehem as saving them from the Assyrian. Who is he?
The north was not saved from the Assyrians: the area round Jerusalem
was, BUT by God's action, in the time of Hezekiah.
The word used here for stump really means a stem ("geza" ).
So it is not meaning the stump as in a cut off trunk.
This person in Is. 11 comes from the root of Jesse and so is not
of the Davidic line. He must come from Judah and probably from
Hezron and Caleb because of Micah's words.
In the context this person is not a king so much as a Messianic
figure (see also Is. ch. 4). He restores the kingdom and ushers
in the Messianic age. He brings back the exiles from both Babylon
and Assyria.
The context is the same in Micah.
This cannot be a reference to Zerubbabel who was governor in Jerusalem
at the return of the exiles from Babylon because he was of the
line of David, but was not a king. In fact there has never been
a king since the exile or even self- rule until 1948.
That the Jews saw this prophecy as very important in connection
with a restored kingdom is shown in that Matthew says it was used
by them when speaking to Herod in answer to his question as to
where the Messiah would be born.
Even though it is a quote from the Septuagint version and has
reversed much of the meaning, Bethlehem is what matters to them.
In this quote it says " But you Bethlehem, in the land
of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of
Judah, for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people
Israel" . The original Micah of the Mesoretic text says " But
you Bethlehem Ephratah, though you are small among the clans (or
rulers) of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will rule
over Israel, whose origins are from old, from ancient times."
Which ever is closest to the words of Micah it is clear he is
speaking of a person not a place. The Septuagint version points
to the line of David, which is the source expected by the Jews
of Herod's day to yield a saviour like David to rid Israel of her
enemies in the land. But the Mesoretic text, as discussed above
suggests someone from another branch of Judah altogether.
An examination of the use of such words as "branch" , "stem," " stump" and "root" by
the prophets yields interesting information.
Isaiah uses the metaphors of tree and their parts in ch. 4, 6,
10 and 11. If read in context it will be seen, as would be expected
of a prophet for his times, that he is talking of the horrors of
the exile, and how the return will happen, and the new world that
will bring and the happiness for the remnant who are called the
holy seed and are the stump that remains in the land (4 v 3, 6
v 13, 10 v 33, 11 v 1 and 10), because they remained faithful to
their God. The word for stump here is different again and comes
from a word meaning a monument (metzvet) and so gives the idea
of a group who witness to the true faith who are left.
He also uses this idea of a root in ch. 53 in that the suffering
servant grows up as a tender shoot like a root out of dry ground.
Christians apply this to Jesus and Jews to the nation in the sufferings
of exile.
The Septuagint version has a lot to answer for in that the idea
of the Messiah from David was reinforced by its translation, and
the application of all those prophecies to Jesus.
From the Mesoretic text it is plain that both Isaiah and Micah
speak of people not a place.
What about the other prophets of the exile?
Jeremiah in ch.23 v 5 and 6, and 33 v 15 speaks of a king to come
from David's line
who will save Judah and Israel will live in Safety in his rule.
He will be called " the Lord our Righteousness." (Again
in the context of the return of the exiles.)
But who was this king? No one with a name like Baal zedek, or
Adonizedek or Jehozedek was a ruler after that. No one of the line
of David has this name.
But if we look at Zechariah 3 v 8 and 6 v 12 we see that the high
priest was crowned as a king/priest on the return from exile and
his name was Joshua, son of Jehozedek.
"Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch
out from his place and build the temple of the Lord… and will
sit and rule on his throne."
Although in Zech. ch. 4 both Joshua and Zerubbabel are said to
be branches of the olive tree designated to serve the Lord it is
not Zerubbabel, who is descended from David, who is crowned and
called the Branch, but Joshua, whose name means "saviour" and
is son of one called Jehozedek which means "Jehovah (Yahweh)
is our Righteousness."
This Joshua was from Levi and Aaron, not Judah Hezron and Caleb.
It seems Jesus saw himself as Joshua, son of Jehozedek riding
into Jerusalem on his donkey and bringing in the age of peace and
freedom from her enemies.
But was he descended from David and or Caleb and or Jehozedek
of the line of the high priests also?
Matthew and Luke say he was from Zerubbabal, and from Judah through
Hezron and Ram, not Caleb.
Yet Elizabeth, who is said by Luke to be a relative of Mary's,
was of the line of Aaron. So it is possible that Jesus was from
David and Aaron?
Because of the confusion by then of the prophecies about the King/
Messiah caused by the Septuagint could this be why he was thought
to be the much desired man?
But the original plan was for Israel to be a theocracy with God
a s king and the priests ruling under His guidance. So, despite
all the longings of the prophets for a restored kingdom under a
Davidic King, was the Messiah to come from the priests?
But how can a Levite come from the clan of Bethlehem? The Levites
were attached to clans and towns as is seen in the book of Judges.
They had been allocated areas when Israel entered the land, as
seen in the book of Joshua.
Why has there never been another Davidic king as prophesied by
Jeremiah and Ezekiel (who were relying upon the apparent promises
to David that he would always have a man on the throne)?
Zechariah was right in that there were no more kings from David,
but there were high priests who ruled for many years until they
were cut off in AD 70 as Daniel prophesied in ch. 9.
According to the book of Ezra Zechariah was a contemporary of
Joshua the high priest.
The idea of a kingdom being restored after being removed is there
in Daniel ch. 4 ; where Nebuchadrezzar dreams about his mental
breakdown and inability to rule for seven years as being as a tree
cut down to the stump that will grow again. The word for stump
here is yet another: " aker" , and really means the root,
and so about as low as you can go!
The reason this happened was because he had refused to recognise
God a supreme. When he did he was restored. This is just like Israel
and her exiles.
Jesus used the example of a fig tree (the symbol) of Israel, dying
from the root up.
John the Baptist spoke of the axe being already laid at the root
of the trees and so would be used if Israel did not repent.
Israel, (as are other nations,) is often represented by a tree.
The people of the nation have roots in their ancestors, the stem
is the present generation with their children as the branches.
It is easy to see how the confusion has happened especially when
people long for salvation from their enemies and want their land
to be ruled by one of their own.
The songs of Mary and Zechariah in Luke reflect the powerful belief
that their prayers were about to be answered. Mary is pledged to
Joseph; a descendent of David - it does not say she is from David
also. She is told her son will given the throne of his father David
and will rule over Israel in an everlasting kingdom.
But Zechariah sees his son, John who was a Levite from the line
of the high priests, as bringing the people to the necessary repentance
before the messiah from the line of David is able to bring salvation
from the enemies.
Matthew has nothing of this but makes the point that Joseph is
of the house of David and that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea,
and this meant he would be a ruler because of the sign of the star.
Joseph is told by an angel that Jesus will save his people from
their sins, not their enemies.
The gospel of John avoids all this and just says he was word and
light, bread and water, a shepherd and a door, the true vine to
his people. In ch. 7 there is argument as to whether Jesus was
the messiah; which is not resolved.
Jesus is reported to have said that his kingdom is not of this
world - if so then he is not the messiah of the Jews not the Branch
prophesied.
Because Jesus died without fulfilling the prophecies his mission
was changed after to a spiritual kingdom where you are saved from
sin not earthly enemies.
He is not the branch from the root of Jesse and whether he was
born in either Bethlehem (Bethlehem haglillit in Galilee or Bethlehem
near Jerusalem) makes no difference, to whether he is messiah.
Jesus was never anointed, or crowned with a crown for a king or
high priest.
That is why the Jews still await their messiah and argue over
which line will be his ancestors.
Perhaps it was easier to say his father was God!
Israel never had self- rule again until 1948 and does not have
a King.
next section : Inspired sayings
|
