MICAH 5:2 DOES IT PREDICT THE BIRTH OF JESUS IN BETHLEHEM?

 
The Old Testament in the Bible is said to predict things about Jesus before they happened. For Christians, the Bible is really just all about Jesus.
 
Micah 5:2. In Bethlehem of Judea, will come one who had his origin from of old. In The Case for Jesus the Messiah we learn that quedem or from old “literally means from ‘ancient time, aforetime’ (page 74)”. Or it can mean from eternity.

New Testament Interpretation. 
 
Predicts that Jesus will be born in Bethlehem. Matthew deliberately misquoted the verse in his gospel to make it a more convincing prediction about Jesus' birth at Bethlehem.
 
The Truth. 
 
If the verse is not what Matthew says it is, then he proves that his gospel is just another book and not the word of God.
 
Matthew took the verse out of context to fool people who he thought would not check his scripture references out. And his ploy was sadly successful.
 
The prophecy is written in the context of a siege -

Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek (v1). This is the line before the prophecy.
The prophecy says that when his mother gives birth to him the exiles of Israel will come back to it which did not happen when Jesus was born (v3). This is the line after.
Micah 5: 5,6. mentions that the man it is on about will use violence against the Assyrians. "And he shall be their peace. When the Assyrian comes into our land and treads in our palaces, then we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princes of men; they shall shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod at its entrances; and he shall deliver us from the Assyrian when he comes into our land  and treads within our border."
Matthew also used an unreliable "translation" of the Bible the Septuagint. But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, being small among the clans of Judah, out of you one will come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. Even worse, he altered the text to read that Bethlehem was not the least of the clans. “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.'" Matthew 2:1-6 (ESV) Christians say he was merely paraphrasing - that is a rationalisation. The man was changing the text and its meaning. It was a fraudulent rendering of Micah. Matthew says Micah said that the town was not the least and Micah said it was. There is a contradiction.
 
A real servant of God would actually use the correct version of scripture.
 
One might accept that Matthew made a mistake but in good faith if that was the only instance of a scripture misinterpretation. But Matthew also twisted a prophecy where God says he called his son out of Egypt as referring to Jesus being taken out of Israel temporarily to Egypt. The context is

The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols. Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk; I took them up by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of kindness, with the bands of love, and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws, and I bent down to them and fed them.  They shall not return to the land of Egypt, but Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me.  The sword shall rage against their cities, consume the bars of their gates, and devour them because of their own counsels.  My people are bent on turning away from me, and though they call out to the Most High, he shall not raise them up at all.
Hosea 11:2-7 (ESV).

The son is not Jesus but Israel. If the text is not a direct prophecy of Jesus but has another level where Israel and Jesus mirror one another then the context demands that we regard Jesus as an idolater.
 
All Christians can say to the Micah problem is-
 
Matthew paraphrased Micah. Not true. And even if possible, it was unlikely as there are other examples of abuse of Old Testament texts.
 
The prophecy in context does not fit Jesus exactly but it fits him enough. That is not good enough. The prophet was able to predict the future by the power of God who knows all or he wasn't.
 
Or even if the prophecy does not fit Jesus it doesn't matter. It means Jesus not on the literal level but on another level. You do not hear supporters of this view saying that psychics who prophesied death being cured in 2005 are to be taken on another level. The levels are sheer imagination. They prove a wish to believe even in spite of the truth. Using the double-meaning technique, one could prove just about anything - even that Madonna Louise Ciccone is the saviour.
 
If Christians study the issue and still can't see that the prophecy is not a prophecy about Jesus then they need psychiatric help.
 
The prophecy says only that the man will come from Bethlehem so he was not necessarily born there. The man will have existed before he was born perhaps as an angel or something.
 
The verse does not prove that the figure must be God as he came from eternity which only God can do. The Bible never mentions eternity - the concept comes from Greek Philosophy. The verse then if it refers to eternity means it in the poetic sense of long ago.
 
Everything proves that Micah 5:2 is useless as a prophecy about Jesus.