 Matthew's
Bethlehem Story
Matthew said that "the prophet" predicted the
birthplace of the savior would be the town of Bethlehem. Here are
Matthew's words:
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem
of Judaea....Herod the king gathered all the chief priests and scribes
of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be
born. 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 a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel."
(Matthew
2:1-6)
The
Prophet Micah
Verses written by Micah apparently caused
Matthew to believe that Jesus' birth was predicted to occur in the town
of Bethlehem. However, we will show evidence that Micah may not have
been referring to a town, but a person, the head of a clan from whom
would come a great leader who would save his people from the Assyrians.
Here are the Micah verses:
"Now gather thyself in troops, O
daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite
the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. 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....And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the
LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall
abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. And this
man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land....and
they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword..." (Micah
5:1-6)
Bethlehem
Was a Person
The evidence below suggests that
"Bethlehem" here actually referred to a person, not a
place, and his ancestor's name was Ephratah: "These
[are] the sons of Israel; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and
Zebulun, ......[snip many names]...These were the sons of Caleb the son
of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah; Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim,
Salma the father of Bethlehem,
Hareph the father of Bethgader." (1
Chronicles 2:1-51)
Thus, the "Bethelehem" spoken of in Micah 5:2 may have
been the "Bethlehem [of the house of] Ephratah" spoken of in
Chronicles above. Further evidence that Micah was referring to a
person, not a town, comes from the editors of the NIV, RSV, and NAB.
Here is how the NIV translates that Micah verse: "But
you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you
are small among the clans (or, rulers) of Judah,
out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel..." (Micah 5:2) This verse strongly suggests that Micah did not
mean that the savior would be born a town called Bethlehem, but that he
would come from the either the clan of Ephratah, or from the man called
Bethlehem Ephratah.
Micah refers to the "thousands of
Judah" (in the Kings James Version), which Matthew may have thought
meant "thousands of towns in Judah". Is it possible
there were thousands of towns in Judah in 800 BC? In order to justify
the use of the word "thousands" to describe anything, how many
would there have to be? Three thousand, or more? There are only about
50-100 towns or villages in that area today. Is it believable that there
were thirty times as many towns and villages in Judah 2800 years ago,
when the population of that region was vastly less than it is today? Or
is it more likely that Micah was referring to clans and not
towns?
Micah
Doesn't Refer to a Distant Future Savior
The evidence disputing Matthew's claim that Micah was referring
to the town of Bethlehem is vey weak. Micah is
talking about a person who will save them from the Assyrians.
Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, was destroyed and Assyrian power ceased
to exist 606 years before Jesus was born. Thus, if the savior prophesied
by Micah really did come, he would have to have done so six centuries
before the birth of Jesus. Also, the adversaries of the Hebrews at the
time of Jesus were not the Assyrians. It was the Romans, not the
Assyrians, who ruled the land of Judah during the lifetime of Jesus.
Even if Micah's prophecy had referred to a saviour freeing Israel
from the Romans, it could not have applied to Jesus, who never lifted a
finger against them.
Conclusions
It should be evident to all but the most devoted Christian
apologists that Micah was not prophesying that the messiah would be born
in a town called Bethlehem, and furthermore, the savior Micah spoke of
could not have been Jesus. Micah was referring to events which were to
occur six centuries before the birth of Jesus, involving a
savior-hero who would vanquish Assyrians--not the Romans against
whom Jesus' people struggled. Furthermore, the "Bethlehem"
spoken of in Micah seems not to be the town in which Jesus was to
be born, but the person, Bethlehem Ephratah.
[1] Other essays by the author deal with false messianic
prophecy-fulfillment: Potter's
Field Prophecy, Virgin-Birth
Prophecy, and Herod's
Slaughter.
Jesus's alleged birth in Bethlehem is dealt
with in Was Jesus
Born in Bethlehem?
[2] Apologists will be quick to complain
that Matthew the apostle was an eye-witness to many of the events in the
life of Jesus, but a substantial body of scholarly work strongly
indicates that the book of Matthew was not authored by that person.
Space does not permit debate on this point, but perhaps it will suffice
for some to recognize that almost all of the work of Mark, who did not
know Jesus, is included in the book of Matthew. It would make no sense
for Matthew--an eyewitness--if he had indeed been the author of
Matthew, to have based so much of his gospel--sometimes almost word for
word--on the writings of a non-eyewitness.
|
