What is the Jewish understanding of Micah 5:1

Question

I listened to a debate between a Rabbi and Christian scholar. The Rabbi quoted the end of the verse (2 in the Christian's English Translation) pointing out that Christians often quote this verse to say Jesus was the messiah; but, they neglect the end of the verse.

It made me curious about the end of the verse and Hebrew understanding of it.

The internet is full of commentary on this from a Christian or Messianic perspective. Most Jewish commentary on this passage addresses the matter of whether Jesus was from Bethlehem; but, I have found little to nothing that addresses the meaning or understanding of the end of the verse from a Jewish perspective.

First, is Mechon-Mamre a recognized Jewish source and translation?

א וְאַתָּה בֵּית-לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה, צָעִיר לִהְיוֹת בְּאַלְפֵי יְהוּדָה--מִמְּךָ לִי יֵצֵא, לִהְיוֹת מוֹשֵׁל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל; וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם, מִימֵי עוֹלָם.

1 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.

Second, what is the Jewish understanding of what this verse says and means?

Answer 1

The expression in the end of the verse "Yemei olam" is INCORRECTLY translated in most non-Jewish versions as "days of eternity" in order to prove that Micah speaks about the divinity of the Messiah. That's not the case.

See for example the same use of the expression "Yemei olam" (in Malachi 3:4):

ד וְעָרְבָה, לַיהוָה, מִנְחַת יְהוּדָה, וִירוּשָׁלִָם--כִּימֵי עוֹלָם, וּכְשָׁנִים קַדְמֹנִיֹּת.

Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in ancient years.

Of course Jerusalem and Judah have not existed since the "days of eternity"!! Thus the translation must follow the logic.

David Berger in "Jews and Jewish Christianity" (Ktav, 1978) p. 22 says:

The point of the phrase is that this future ruler, who may indeed be the Messiah, will have come forth from Bethlehem because his royal origins are “of old, from days of yore,” i.e., from the old and venerable House of David, and David was born in Bethlehem. In other words, according to the most probable reading of this verse, it not only fails to say that the Messiah is everlasting, it doesn’t even say that he will be born in Bethlehem. The point is that Bethlehem will be his indirect point of origin because it was the birthplace of the father of his dynasty. Jews don’t have to insist on this last point; the Messiah may very well be born in Bethlehem. It’s just that the verse probably doesn’t say this.

For a detailed explanation on the Jewish understanding of this verse, see Uri Yosef's article on Micah. It certainly will help you.

Answer 2

here is the Pasuk and Rashi Micah 5:1

1 And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore.

  א וְאַתָּה בֵּית לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה צָעִיר לִהְיוֹת בְּאַלְפֵי

יְהוּדָה מִמְּךָ לִי יֵצֵא לִהְיוֹת מוֹשֵׁל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם:

And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah: whence David emanated, as it is stated (I Sam. 17:58): “The son of your bondsman, Jesse the Bethlehemite.” And Bethlehem is called Ephrath, as it is said (Gen. 48:7): “On the road to Ephrath, that is Bethlehem.”

you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah: You should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah because of the stigma of Ruth the Moabitess in you.

from you shall emerge for Me: the Messiah, son of David, and so Scripture says (Ps. 118:22): “The stone the builders had rejected became a cornerstone.”

and his origin is from of old: “Before the sun his name is Yinnon” (Ps. 72:17).

Micah 5:3

And [the Messiah] shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the L-rd, in the majesty of the Name of the L-rd, his G-d; and they shall dwell, for then shall he be great to the ends of the earth.

The opposite occurred in Jesus' lifetime: the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed. More than one million Jews died in the fighting, and the rest were exiled. Furthermore, Jesus was obviously not this conquering Messiah, for instead of defeating his many enemies, he was easily captured and executed.

Answer 3

What is the basis for absolutely identifying who comes from an age unknown and from the dawn of days? That is a valid translation. Judah and Samaria are not from such a time, nor am I sure why anyone is thinking it to be anyone or thing familiar in the land of Israel when this was prophesied. It is a very curious thing, without a doubt. Also, in the names of the CHILD to be given in Isaiah, one name is certainly FATHER OF ETERNITY. There it is not 'olam but 'ed. SOMEONE comes out of Beth-Lechem WHO is far older than that place.

Micah 5:2 paraphrase in Targum of Jonathan ben Uziel, we read:

“And you, O Bethlehem Ephrath, you who were too small to be numbered among the thousands of the House of Judah, from you shall come forth before Me the Messiah, to exercise dominion over Israel, he whose name was mentioned before, from the days of creation.”

It sounds like a rabbinical belief in a MESSIAH present at the beginning of time.