BETHLEHEM
(MIC 5:2)
This
verse likewise provides an example of a detail being included in a prophecy.
Here, unlike the last example, a specific identification of a location, rather
than a personal name, is central. This also differs from the last example in
that here the fulfillment takes place long after Micah’s prophecies were
compiled and therefore is beyond the scope of a later scribe filling in the
details. Here, other factors are at work.
The
question we must address concerns the significance of the detail. In the
previous example, the name Josiah was in many ways random and not necessary for
the contextual point to be understood. Presumably, it could have been any other
number of names. There is nothing specific about the name Josiah (as opposed to
a name such as Immanuel). But that is not true of Bethlehem. It could not just
as easily have been Shechem, Shiloh, or Beersheba. Bethlehem, though just a
small town, was at the time of Micah historically significant as the birthplace
of David. It was therefore associated with the origin of the Davidic dynasty,
from which the ideal king to whom Micah refers would come.
The
reference to Bethlehem then carries great significance. It is not just a random
factoid. In Micah’s time, with the Davidic dynasty having already been in power
for centuries, future kings would be expected to be born in Jerusalem. The
designation of Bethlehem as the birthplace carries important implications. This
future ideal king will indeed be of Davidic lineage, but he also represents a
new beginning, with implied discontinuity (by virtue of not being born in
Jerusalem). The line does not continue from Jerusalem but begins anew from
Bethlehem. Implicitly, this king is not only from the line of David; he is a
new David.
If
the point of the prophecy is this significance, rather than just a detail of
geography, Jesus could have been considered the fulfillment whether he was born
in Bethlehem or not since he was identified as a new David. That is, Bethlehem
could potentially have been figurative, similar to Babylon in the book of
Revelation. Nevertheless, people expected that the Messiah would be born in
Bethlehem (Mt 2:3-6), and, as it turns out, a lot of effort assured that Jesus
indeed was. My point is that the thrust of prophecy was not a random
geographical factoid but a concept about the nature of this king based on a
past detail of history: David was born in Bethlehem, which would therefore be
appropriate for the new David. Prophecy is not characterized by offering random
specific details. (John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Prophets: Old
Testament Prophecy and Apocalyptic Literature in Ancient Context [Downers
Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2024], 40-41)
