الرئيسية / Matthew / How can we explain Matthew’s apparent misquotation of Micah 5:2? MATTHEW 2:6

How can we explain Matthew’s apparent misquotation of Micah 5:2? MATTHEW 2:6

MATTHEW 2:6— can explain Matthew’s apparent misquotation of Micah 5:2?

PROBLEM: Matthew 2:6 quotes Micah 5:2. However, the Matthew uses are different than those used by Micah.

SOLUTION: Although Matthew seems to changed some of the from the passage in Micah, there no real deviation in the meaning of the text. Matthew, in some instances, seems to paraphrased.

First, Matthew inserts the phrase “land of Judah” the word “Ephrathah.” This does not really change the meaning of the verse. There no difference between the land of Judah and Ephrathah, except one more specific than the other. In fact, Ephrathah refers to Bethlehem in the Micah passage, and Bethlehem located in the land of Judah. However, this does not change the basic meaning of this verse. He speaking of the same area of land. Interestingly, when Herod asked the chief priests and the scribes where the child was to be born, they said, “in Bethlehem of Judea” (Matt. 2:5, nasb).

, Matthew describes the land of Judah as “not the least” but Micah states that “little.” Here, Matthew may be saying that the Messiah to come from this region, by no means least among the other areas of land in Judah. The phrase in Micah only says that Bethlehem too little or small, as compared to the other areas of land in Judah. The verse does not say the least among them, only very little. Matthew saying the same thing in different , namely, that Bethlehem little in size, but by no means the least in significance, the Messiah was born there.

Finally, Matthew uses the phrase “who will shepherd Israel” and Micah does not. Micah 5:2 recognizes that there will be a ruler in Israel, and Matthew recognizes this as well. However, the phrase that is not mentioned in Micah is actually taken from 2 Samuel 5:2. The combining of verses does not take away what is being said, but strengthens the point that the author is making. There are other instances where an author combines one Scripture another. example, Matthew 27:9–10 combines some of 11:12–13 Jeremiah 19:2, 11 and 32:6–9. , Mark 1:2–3 combines some of Isaiah 40:3 Malachi 3:1. Only the first passage is mentioned, is the main passage being cited.

In brief, Matthew is not misrepresenting any information in his quotation of Micah 5:2 and 2 Samuel 5:2. Matthew’s quote is still accurate even though he paraphrases part of and combines another portion of Scripture .

[1]

 

[1]Geisler, N. L., & , T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (327). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor .

إقرأ أيضاً: