* Micah 5:2 - From Everlasting or From Days of Old?

But thou, Bethlehem [01035] Ephratah [0672], [though] thou be little [06810] among the thousands [0505] of Judah [03063], [yet] out of thee shall he come forth [03318] (8799) unto me [that is] to be ruler [04910] (8802) in Israel [03478]; whose goings forth [04163 - descent, ancestry] [have been] from of old [06924], from everlasting [03117] [05769].-- King James Verson w/Strong's #'s

This scripture is often presented as being proof that Jesus is Jehovah God Almighty, since, according to the way it reads in most translations, it appears that Jesus has existed "from everlasting", or "from eternity." However, we reproduce the scripture above with Strong's numbers (representing the Hebrew words involved) in order to demonstrate that the scripture is not saying that Jesus has had an eternal past, but rather that he existed from days of old.

Nevertheless, many translations do not present Micah 5:2 with the idea of an eternity past. For instance, the New International Version renders Micah 5:2 as:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

Notice Strong's #s 3117 & 5769. This combination is two Hebrew words, one referring to days or time [Yowm - Strong's # 3117, although in this verse it is a prepositional masculine plural form, mime] and the other referring to duration [olam - Strong's #5769, in the plural]. Thus, in Micah 5:2, the final phrase rendered as "from everlasting" in the King James Version above are from forms of these two words.

The usage and definition of these words are given at:
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/3117.html
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/5769.html

One can find an analysis and an interlinear of Micah 5:2 at:

https://biblehub.com/text/micah/5-2.htm -- Bible hub's analysis falls short in that it ignores "days", showing mî-mê as only meaning "from", although in "Morphology" column it does show that the word represents both a preposition and a noun.
https://bibleapps.com/int/micah/5-2.htm

There is a similar statement in Deuteronomy 32:7.

Deuteronomy 32:7
Remember [02142] (8798) the days [03117] of old [05769], consider [0995] (8798) the years [08141] of many [01755] generations [01755]: ask [07592] (8798) thy father [01], and he will shew [05046] (8686) thee; thy elders [02205], and they will tell [0559] (8799) thee. -- KJV w/ Strong's #'s

https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/32-7.htm 

https://bibleapps.com/int/deuteronomy/32-7.htm

Again notice Strong's #3117 and #5769. Certainly, Moses was not telling the Israelites to remember eternity, for they were not capable of such.

Some other scriptures that contain some combination of "yowm olam" [in plural forms] are Isaiah 63:9,11; Amos 9:11 and Malachi 3:4. It should be apparent that "days of eternity" is not meant in any of these scriptures. Examining the other place in Micah where this expression is used, we find:

Shepherd your people with your staff, The flock of your heritage, Who dwell by themselves in a forest, In the midst of fertile pasture land, let them feed; In Bashan and Gilead, as in the days [Strong's #3117] of old [Strong's #5769]. -- Micah 7:14

https://biblehub.com/text/micah/7-14.htm

https://bibleapps.com/int/micah/7-14.htm

It is apparent the expression here does not mean days of eternity, not unless one wants to believe that God's people, Israel, has existed from eternity past.

Some other scriptures are similar, although olam and yowm are separated:

Psalm 77:5. "Olam" is rendered "ancient times" here in the KJV

Isaiah 51:9 "Olam" is rendered "old" in the KJV.

Strong's #s 3117 & 5769 are again used to denote, not eternity, but the days of old.

So far we have found absolutely no other text that contains both "yowm" and "olam" with reference to the past that has any meaning of "without a beginning". Thus, the default would be that the phrase does not mean "eternity" or "everlasting" in Micah 5:2, not unless one has a good scriptural reason for making an exception. And, if there is no other verse containing this expression that would carry the thought of eternal past, then Micah 5:2 would appear to stand alone if one were to read eternal past into the expression used there. Nevertheless, the only reason we can think of for reading this as "days of eternity" is on the assumption that Jesus is God Almighty and thus was never created or brought forth. Yet, we have found no place in the scriptures that this expression is used of God, thus the argument that this expression should read "days of eternity" or "from eternity" in Micah 5:2, would be an exception. With this thought in mind, the argument that Micah 5:2 "proves" that Jesus had no beginning is circular. It would assume that Jesus is God, and then based on this assumption, further assume that this expression is speaking of "days of eternity", and thus the assumption is what is actually being offered as proof that Jesus existed for eternity past.

Although in some contexts the Hebrew *olam* evidently takes on the meaning of "eternity" or "everlasting", it does not always mean eternal. The meaning of "eternal" is not inherent in the word. The usage of the two words together in comparison to where the two words are used elsewhere in Bible gives us reason to believe that here it does not mean eternity.

Indeed, the word *olam*, when used of the past, very seldom actually means eternal. This can be seen by its usage in the following scriptures: Genesis 6:4; Deuteronomy 32:7; 1 Samuel 27:28; Ezra 4:15,19; Job 22:15; Proverbs 22:8; 23:10; Isaiah 51:9; 58:12; 61:4; 63:9,11; Jeremiah 6:16; 18:15; 28:8; Jonah 2:6; Micah 7:14; Malachi 3:4, as well as many others.

Only in reference to Jehovah's existence in the past, does it take on the meaning of eternal past. (Psalm 90:2) "Even then, it still expresses the idea of continued, measurable existence, rather than a state of being independent of time considerations." -- "Lexical Aids to the Old Testament", under #5769, Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible

Thus we find that many translations do not render Micah 5:2 with the thought that the Messiah is from eternity past:

But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. -- New Revised Standard Version.

But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. -- Revised Standard Version.

The Lord says, "Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are one of the smallest towns in Judah, but out of you I will bring a ruler for Israel, whose family line goes back to ancient times." --- Today's English Version.

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are too small to be among the army groups from Judah, from you will come one who will rule Israel for me. He comes from very old times, from days long ago." -- New Century Version.

You, Bethlehem Ephrathah, are too small to be included among Judah's cities. Yet, from you Israel's future ruler will come for me. His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago. -- God's Word Translation.

And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth -- to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth [are] of old, From the days of antiquity. -- Young's Literal Translation.

Thou, therefore, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall Mine come forth to be ruler in Israel, whose comings forth, have been from of old, from the days of age-past time. -- Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.

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. -- Jewish Publication Society.

Consequently, there is nothing in Micah 5:2 that gives evidence that Jesus has an eternal past; indeed, like many other verses in the Bible, the argument becomes circular, in effect saying: because we believe that Jesus is Jehovah, we believe the passage means that Jesus is from eternity past, and therefore this meaning we give the passage because we believe that Jesus is Jehovah proves that Jesus is Jehovah.

Nevertheless, reading onward to Micah 5:4, we find of Messiah: "Then shall he stand and tend his flock in the strength of Yahweh [Jehovah], In the excellency of the name of Yahweh [Jehovah] his God have they endured, For now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth;" -- Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.

Thus Jehovah is called unipersonally "his God". God Almighty does not have a God, thus there is no reason from these scriptures to think Jesus is Jehovah, who is spoken of as "his God".

Objection 1

One stated:

Despite the plethora of modern translations, whose manuscripts were not available to the people of God for centuries, and that do not faithfully preserve the Divine Name, Reslight's attempts to mute the witness of the eternity of the Son of God in this verse by appealing to their questionable authority as the right way to translate "yowm olam" are also found wanting. [He appeals to several modern translations that don't use the phrase "from everlasting"]

We are not sure what is meant by "whose manuscripts were not available to the people of God for centuries." As far as we know, all of the translations given use mostly the Masoretic text as a basis of their translation, the same text used by the King James Translators as almost all translations. Nor is it true that all of the translations given "do not faithfully preserve the Divine Name" (See Rotherham and Young), but this is irrelevant. Further, we do not "appeal" to these translations, but they do support the conclusion we have reached concerning the usage of the phrase involved.

We might add the following translations: New Living Translation; The Message translation; The Complete Jewish Bible; Holman Christian Standard Bible; New International Reader's Version; New International Version (UK); Amplified Bible. There are probably more.

Objection 2

The claim is made that there are about 38 times that it is used with the sense "ever, continually, always, and alway."

The writer is evidently speaking of the word "yowm" alone, not the combination of the two words as we have been discussing. This does not contradict what we are saying, nor is there anything in this that would give olam the meaning of eternity in Micah 5:2.

However, the Lexicon at Bible Study Tools gives the following counts for how the word is translated in the King James Version:

day 2008, time 64, chronicles + (01697) 37, daily 44, ever 18, year 14, continually 10, when 10, as 10, while 8, full 8 always 4, whole 4, alway 4, miscellaneous 44

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/yowm.html

The 18 places where yowm is translated in the KJV as "ever": Genesis 43:9*,32*; Deuteronomy 4:40*; 18:5*; 19:9*; Joshua 4:24*; 1 Samuel 2:32*,35*; 28:2*; 1 Kings 5:1*; 11:39*; 2 Chronicles 10:17*; 2 Chronicles 21:7**; Psalm 23:6*; 37:26*; Jeremiah 31:36*; 32:39*; 35:19*.

We have added asterisks to point out more as will be discussed below. In none of these instances is *yowm* by itself translated as "ever", but there are two words put together, and both words are translated by the one word "ever."

Those instances marked with a single asterisk, two words are translated as "ever." These two words are: kol ("all, as in the whole of what is being spoken of) yowm (day or days), literally, all the days, or as we would be more likely to say: "daily", or continuously. This same expression is so translated as "daily" in Psalm 42:10; 56:2; 72:15; Hosea 12:1. A careful study of these 17 instances of these two words show that they are never used with reference to eternity in the trinitarian sense, that is, "without beginning or end", but they are used only with a starting point although not always with an ending point.

In Psalm 23:6 [double asterick above] yowm is used with another Hebrew word *'orek*, which simply means a length of time.

Young translates it this way:

Only -- goodness and kindness pursue me, All the days of my life, And my dwelling [is] in the house of Jehovah, For a length of days!

While it is possible that this is indeed referring to an eternal future, it certainly does not support the trinitarian concept of eternity meaning without beginning or end, nor does it mean that Micah 5:2 would have to be referring to an eternal past.

We note the the KVJ translates Yowm as "continually" ten times: Genesis 6:5; 1 Samuel 18:29; 2 Samuel 19:13; 2 Chronicles 12:15; Psalm 42:3; 52:1; 140:2; Jeremiah 33:18.

Again, in all of these instances the word "continually" is translated from two words: kol yowm

Again, a carefully study of these texts do not indicate eternity as expressed in the trinitarian thought of without beginning or ending, but rather a continuous duration for a limited time.

Yowm is 4 times translated "always" (Deuteronomy 5:29; 6:24; 14:23; 2 Chronicles 18:7) and 4 times "alway" (Deuteronomy 11:1; 28:33; 1 Kings 11:36; 2 Kings 8:19). Again, in all of these instances it is two words (kol yowm), not one, that are translated as "always" or "alway". These texts do not necessarily use the word in the trinitarian sense of "without beginning or end", but with the thought of continuous duration for a limited time.

Thus a careful examination of the usage of the word *yowm* in these instances do not support the alleged idea that this word means eternity in Micah 5:2.

Objection 3:

It is claimed there is also "qedem," the term that one has claimed that we have used to try to focus on in siderailing the meaning of the verse. While it is acknowledged the qedem is used in a temporal sense, it is claimed that in Deuteronomy 33:27 it is definitely used once in Scripture with the idea of eternity. It is claimed we insist on not making a judgment on the basis of the meaning of the term "olam" alone, and that we require that one define the phrase by using "yowm olam,". But, we are asked, why limit it to that? Why not understand it as "mowtsaah yowm olam?" Further it is claimed that if we find evidence that "yowm olam" only occurs in temporal contexts, then how many of those "yowm olams" are referring to the "mowtsaah" or goings forth of a being who is said to be (lit.) "continually from the days of eternity?"

There is nothing in our presentation that focuses on this word, qedem. Qedem is Strong's #6924, and it is translated in the KJV of Micah 5:2 by the word "old."

Qedem does not mean eternal; the only place it is rendered "eternal" in the KJV is Deuteronomy 33:27, and even there it is rendered so only because it is speaking of God, not because of the word itself. This could have been also rendered just as well as "Ancient God" or God of old. Rotherham translates this verse: "Above, is the God of aforetime, And, beneath, are the Arms of the ages, - So he driveth before thee the foe, And doth say - Destroy!" The Douay-Rheims renders it: "His dwelling is above, and underneath are the everlasting arms: he shall cast out the enemy from before thee, and shall say: Be thou brought to nought."
---------
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/qedem.html

We are asked, why limit our examination to the two words as we did, and why not make it: "mowtsaah yowm olam?" 

The exact words used in Micah 5:2 as represented in Jay Green's Interlinear are in this order: 4162 6924 3117 5769. These words are represented by Strong as:

4162: muwtsag (mowtsaah) = rendered "whose goings forth" in the KJV 

6924: qedem = rendered "have been from of old" in the KJV
3117: yowm = with 5769 rendered "from everlasting" in the KJV
5769: olawm = with 3117 rendered "from everlasting" in the KJV

Thus to extend this beyond the two words considered, one would need to include: "muwtsag qedem yowm olawm"; however, this actually sidetracks attention from the phrase in question, which is only two words. Nevertheless, "mowtsaah" refers to origin, which itself indicates a beginning.
==========
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/mowtsaah.html

Of course, there is nothing in Micah 5:2 that literally speaks of one whose "mowtsaah" or goings forth are said to be (lit.) "continually from days of eternity." By using this expression we would assume that the writer is claiming that "qedem" means "continually", so as to make Micah 5:2 read: "whose goings forth are continually from days of eternity", or something of this nature. Of course, in reality there is nothing in the word "qedem" that has this meaning. This appears to be an attempt to sidetrack the issue, and turn one's attention away from the fact that we have shown that yowm olam does not mean from the days of eternity, as we have demonstrated.

Objection #4

One states that Micah 5:2 strongly suggests that the being spoken of here does not dwell solely in the realm of finiteness.

That the being spoken of does was not dwelling in the finite realm of the earth before being born on earth is not in question. Evidently, the thought is that Jesus was dwelling in a realm where time does not exist, In so, the reality is that the idea that he was dwelling in some realm where time does not exist has to be read into the text. To assume that this is what it means would further bring forth the question: Do the angels who always [in eternity?] behold the face of God in heaven dwell in this same realm, and are thus also eternal beings? (Matthew 18:10) There are some trinitarians who do believe that the angels exist in eternity where supposedly time does not exist, although they seem to be vague about how this is possible. In response to this quandry, one person even went so far as to say that all who will live eternally in the supposed realm where time does not exist actually become one with God in that they become God! So where does all this kind of reasoning lead to? Farther and farther away from the truth!

Objection #5

One claims: If you try to say that Strong’s number: 6924 מִקֶּ֖דֶם, miq·qe·ḏem means something different than “FROM EVERLASTING” about Jesus in Micah 5:2, you MUST say the same about God in Habakkuk 1:12 NWT Are you not FROM EVERLASTING [Strong’s number: 6924 מִקֶּ֖דֶם, miq·qe·ḏem], O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die. O Jehovah, you appointed them to execute judgment; My Rock, you established them for punishment.

This is related to word that is rendered "from of old" in the King James Version of Micah 5:2. Evidently, it is being claimed that this word has to mean "everlasting." If so, no, "everlasting" or "eternal" is not inherent in this word. Like Strong's #5769, it can take on the meaning of eternal, forever, etc., but these meanings are not inherent in the word. If one were to force the meaning "eternal", "everlasting", "forever" into this word every time it appears we would have some very weird results.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/qedem.html

https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/6924.html

For instance, in Nehemiah 12:46, we find Strong's #6924, where the King James Version renders it as "of old."

For in the days of David and Asaph of old [Strong's #6924] there were chief of the singers, and songs of praise and thanksgiving unto God.

Let us change this to "from everlasting":

For in the days of David and Asaph from everlasting there were chief of the singers, and songs of praise and thanksgiving unto God.

This would make it appear that David and Asaph had been in existence from all eternity past, but it is evident that this is not what is means, nor does it mean such in Micah 5:2, where it is used, not of Jehovah, as in Habakkuk 1:12, but the one whom Jehovah promised, as can be seen from Micah 5:4, where Jehovah is distinguished from being the one spoken of in Micah 5:2.

Objection #6

The thought has been presented to us that since in Micah 5:2 we find the Hebrew word transliterated as "‘ō-w-lām" (Strong's #5769) applied to the Messiah that it means in Micah 5:2 the same as it means in Psalm 90:2 where it speaks of Jehovah as being "from everlasting to everlasting". It is claimed that if this word does not mean "everlasting" in Micah 5:2 such would necessitate that it does not mean "everlasting" in Psalm 90:2. Actually, forms of the Hebrew word "‘ō-w-lām" can mean "everlasting", and yet often do not mean "everlasting", especially as related to the past. Indeed, as referring to the past, it is only when it is used of Jehovah that it means such. No, saying that forms of EL usually do not refer to eternity when speaking of the past does necessitate such a meaning in Psalm 90:2, nor does the usage in Psalm 90:2 to designate eternity past necessitate such a meaning as when such forms are used in scriptures like Genesis 6:4; Deuteronomy 32:7; Joshua 24:2; 1 Samuel 27:8; Psalm 25:6; 119:52; 143:3; Isaiah 46:9; 63:9,11; Jeremiah 18:15; Ezekiel 26:20; Amos 9:11; Micah 5:2; 7:14; Malachi 3:4.

In Psalm 90:2, however, we do not find the phrase used in Micah 5:2, that is, "mî-mê ‘ō·w·lām". "Mî-mê" is a plural form of the Greek word often transliterated as "yom" (day -- Strong's 5769). Thus in Micah 5:2 it means "days". We have found no place in the Bible where forms of these two words are used together to designate an eternal past. Indeed, it appears that the only scripture that translators would like this phrase to mean everlasting or eternal is in Micah 5:2. In Micah 7:14, for instance, forms of these two words appear, but we don't know of any translation that renders the phrase in Micah 7:14 as "from everlasting". Rather it is rendered as "days of old", "a long time ago", "ancient times", or something similar. Many translations do recognize this also in Micah 5:2, such as the Common English Bible, The Complete Jewish Bible, English Standard Version, Good News Translation, God's Word Translation, Jubilee Bible 2000, Lexham English Bible, The Message Bible, New American Standard Bible, New Century Version, New International Version, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard, Revised Standard Version, Young's Literal Translation.

Regarding the Hebrew word often transliterated as qedem (Strong's #6924). Like forms of ‘ō-w-lām, this word also can take on the meaning of eternal past when used of Jehovah. However, it is rarely rendered with some form of everlasting or eternity". It simply means "ancient time, aforetime". Its usage of Jehovah in Habakkuk 1:12 does not necessitate that it means everlasting in such scriptures as Psalms 74:2; 77:5,11; 78:2; 118:152; 119:152; 143:5; Isaiah 19:11; 37:26; Lamentations 1:7; 2:17; 5:21; Micah 5:2; 7:20.

There is definitely nothing in Micah 5:2 or any scripture in the Bible that presents Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as being three persons or that says that Jesus is a person of such a triune God. Any such reasoning for seeing such an idea in any scripture is circular reasoning.

Studies Related to Jesus' Prehuman Existence

****************