Micah 5:3 (Eng) 5:2 (Heb)

[Chris Watts]

לָכֵ֣ן יִתְּנֵ֔ם עַד־עֵ֥ת יוֹלֵדָ֖ה יָלָ֑דָה וְיֶ֣תֶר אֶחָ֔יו יְשׁוּב֖וּן עַל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל


לָכֵ֣ן I fail to understand any logic in this word being translated as 'Therefore' in practically all English scriptures. Is there any justification for translating this word as 'Nevertheless'? The context, without a doubt, appears to suit this continuing on from verse two.

Secondly, it does appear that biblical commentators have really over-simplified the first 6 verses of Micah. They are extremely complex and while without a doubt verse two is about the Messiah, the Assyrian is not representative of Rome I believe. Micah 5:2 (Heb) can not be before AD 70 as nearly every commentator implies. The simple reason is that God never abandoned Israel for one minute after the captivity had ended, I think on Ezra, Nehemiah; on the Maccabees against the Seleucids and the destruction of the Edomites in the south east of Judea. The only לָכֵ֣ן יִתְּנֵ֔ם"Giving up" I can see is the terrible destruction of Jerusalem from Ad 70 till its liberation from Gentile rule in december 1917. However I also believe that this phrase: יִתְּנֵ֔ם can not at all be meaning 'Abandon' as some bible translations have said, for in that case there are several hebrew words that could have been better employed if this was what God intended us to understand.

Any comments will be really welcome. Thank you.
Chris watts

[ducky]

Hi,

I think that maybe the word לכן comes here from the reason of an analogy to its common role and position in other places.
I mean, this word comes a lot before a prophecy, a promise, a swear. And next to its meaning as 'Therefore', it got, naturally, a role (or a sense) of emphasizing the words that are about to come (the prophecy itself) and acts commonly as an "opener" for prophecies.

And so, I think that here, even though the link to the previous words is loose... when the prophecy comes, it starts with the known "opener" לכן for the coming words of prophecy, and maybe gives also the known "scent" of a prophecy (and I guess it was natural as well).

You can ignore the "therefore", and I think that the words "and so" would be fine enough (but I don't an English speaker so maybe there are better options).

******
As for the יולדה ילדה
You can see it as referring to a specific person, such as Hizkiah for example, or maybe a prophecy for the future, for the future messiah.
But it is not the only option.

You can read it as a metaphor of labor before birth.
As saying to the people: I'll bring you pain, but the delivery will come. And to comfort them, he gives them the picture of the woman in her labor that even though she suffers, she realizes that the suffering will end with a delivery that will bring her joy.
And so, it is not about specifics, but only as saying: "hold tight, and don't lose hope for the delivery will come".
And in the previous chapter 4:10 he says חולי וגחי בת ציון כיולדה which maybe indicate the meaning of this verse (5:3/5:2).

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Ducky, regarding the first answer, thank you, it makes sense what you said, this word - 'Therefore' is its primary meaning, but 'nevertheless', 'yet', 'However' are the more appropriate translations for this.

As to your second answer, Micah 4:10, yes, there is a link here - you have actually tied up a loose end for me, I am only disappointed that I did not connect this myself having just gone through the hebrew of chapter 4 many times. For the babylon here I do not believe is the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar.

Chris watts

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Ducky, regarding the first answer, thank you, it makes sense what you said, this word - 'Therefore' is its primary meaning, but 'nevertheless', 'yet', 'However' are the more appropriate translations for this context, especially since it joins a prophecy of encouragement with a prophecy of pain.

As to your second answer, Micah 4:10, yes, there is a link here - you have actually tied up a loose end for me, I am only disappointed that I did not connect this myself having just gone through the hebrew of chapter 4 many times. For the babylon here I do not believe is the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar.

Chris watts

[ducky]

I don't know if these alternative words you give to this word are literally correct.
but anyway, you can "translate" it that way only according to the context as "replacing" words.

As for the mention of Babylon here, it does seem "strange" that it is mentioned as a relevant threat at that time.
Some say that this part is a late addition, that was added in the Babylonian time.
I read that some find these verses fits the time of Babylonian exile, referring to the exiled king (it seems fit to me as well, but it could be just a coincident).
So, some see this as an addition or an edit, weather it is the whole part, or just the three words (ובאת עד בבל) or maybe it was written ובאת עד אשור and it was changed to בבל.
I also read an opinion that the prophet referred to Assyria as Babylon (by name) - (And I need to check in the book itself for the explanation).
I also saw a reference to an opinion that Babylon was mentioned as a symbol to a far place (and also here I need to find the book that said it).

**
The only reasonable way to see it, as far as I know, is by understanding that already at that time there was diplomatic relationship between Judea and Babylon (which is seen later in Isa. and Kings) (against the will of Isa., by the way). So that is the only way that it somehow becomes relevant 9If we accept this, of course).
And also here we can say that this prophecy is by Micha, but maybe was edited not in the right place.
Maybe.

[kwrandolph]

Hallo Ducky, regarding the first answer, thank you, it makes sense what you said, this word - 'Therefore' is its primary meaning, but 'nevertheless', 'yet', 'However' are the more appropriate translations for this.

As to your second answer, Micah 4:10, yes, there is a link here - you have actually tied up a loose end for me, I am only disappointed that I did not connect this myself having just gone through the hebrew of chapter 4 many times. For the babylon here I do not believe is the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar.

Chris watts

Why not the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar? After all, Micah’s contemporary Isaiah prophesied that Babylon would come and take everything from the king’s household (chapter 39) but that a person named Cyrus would return the people to Jerusalem (44:24–45:6). Isaiah described the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Ducky, regarding the first answer, thank you, it makes sense what you said, this word - 'Therefore' is its primary meaning, but 'nevertheless', 'yet', 'However' are the more appropriate translations for this.

As to your second answer, Micah 4:10, yes, there is a link here - you have actually tied up a loose end for me, I am only disappointed that I did not connect this myself having just gone through the hebrew of chapter 4 many times. For the babylon here I do not believe is the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar.

Chris watts

Why not the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar? After all, Micah’s contemporary Isaiah prophesied that Babylon would come and take everything from the king’s household (chapter 39) but that a person named Cyrus would return the people to Jerusalem (44:24–45:6). Isaiah described the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar.

Karl W. Randolph.

Hallo Karl, how are things? I agree, of course when Micah wrote this he could not contradict his contemporary, Isaiah. The Assyrian, not the Babylonian, was the might and power and threat in his time. In fact he does not mention Assyria. Also, he would no doubt have believed and known that Babylon was the very first of the world empires and the one that signified rebellion. In essence Babylon posed no military threat in his days, except perhaps through imported foreign gods. It was the Assyrian who would come into the land, but he is silent on this, probably knowing what Isaiah wrote - maybe?? But I have another reason for Micah mentioning Babylon, snuggled as it is between historical events far beyond Micah's ability to conceptualise.

Karl, may I begin by quoting E.B Pusey, professor of Hebrew at christ church, England, who wrote in 1885: "From age to age the word of God holds its course, ever receiving new fulfillments, never dying, until the end shall come". Of course Micah saw the Literal babylon, and that is an obvious interpretation. So now with an abridged and probably somewhat insufficient explanation - look at 4:8, just after the promise of the first Kingdom (Davidic/messianic I have understood this to mean), it goes on to ask why is no King in you, and, be in pain and hardship until you have brought forth. This alone can not refer to the captives returning from Babylon, this pain and hardship, travailing as a woman, I believe, describes Israel after its eradication from the land by the Romans and its bringing forth - its sorrow of exile and being without that King and being persecuted. For Micah makes no mention of joy after the pains does he, so we can only conjecture what Israel brings forth? I believe it to be national recognition and repentance.

Then, verse 10, we have the mention of Babylon, an odd place to suddenly mention it considering Micah had 3 chapters of rebuking, yet never once did Micah mention by name any attacking nation as judgement - and verses 11-13 never happened after Cyrus (one really can not accept the Maccabees against the seleucids and then the Edomites as fulfilling these three verses). As far as I am concerned, Verse 11 to 13 started in 1948. And as far as I am concerned, some prophecies do indeed have dual fulfillments, there is the mind of the prophet of Israel that sees his culture and the proximity of his era and in his mind, and God forms the image from the prophets' understanding, but the words take on sometimes a plurality of meaning designed not just for the Prophets' generation. So I see verse 10 refers to the present world of Government and commerce, and the antagonism that Israel has endured since 1948 at the hand of this Babylonian rule that is now. Micah was not just speaking to his contemporaries. Jeremiah 50:18-23, I am not aware of any time after Cyrus that Israel possessed Gilead or Bashan, Obadiah also alludes to Gilead, now unless I am looking at faulty maps, I see no Israelite jurisdiction over these territories, especially since the era of Gentile rule, those times of the Gentiles that had now begun with Nebuchadnezzar.

chris watts