Deu 4:2 “Do not add to the Word which I command you, and do not take away from it, so as to guard the commands of יהוה your Elohim which I am commanding you.
Deu 12:32 “All the words I am commanding you, guard to do it – do not add to it nor take away from it
Let us begin by looking at Matthew.
Mat 2:5 "In Bethlehem of Judea," they said, "for it is written this way by the prophet:
Mat 2:6 'And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are in no way least among the rulers of Judah,
for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.' "
This is supposed to be a quote from the Hebrew prophet Micah.
Mic 5:2 “But you, Bĕyth Leḥem Ephrathah, you who are little among the clans of Yehuḏah, out of you shall come forth to Me the One to become Ruler in Yisra’ĕl. And His comings forth1 are of old, from everlasting.” Footnote: 1Or His appearances.
We will look at this phrase by phrase.
1. 'And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are in no way least among the rulers of Judah
1. “But you, Bĕyth Leḥem Ephrathah, you who are little among the clans of Yehuḏah
2. for out of you will come a ruler
2. out of you shall come forth to Me the One to become Ruler in Yisra’ĕl.
Ok, so far so good, now look at the last section.
3. who will shepherd my people Israel.' "
3. And His comings forth are of old, from everlasting.”
Matt changes the last section to give it an appearance of talking about the Messiah. He totally changes what Micah is saying by taking out and adding something completely different.
Matt says "who will shepherd my people Israel." Micah says that "his comings forth are of old..."
Matthew is saying that Micah is talking about a messiah coming out of Bethlehem. Micah on the other hand was describing a city of old. Micah is writing about 300 years after King David
Who has the right to change the Word of Hashem to make it say something completely different than the original writer.
His origins "is from old, from the ancient days" is a modifier. It modifies Bethlehem of Judea.
Questions to ask concerning the text of Matthew.
1. All Jerusalem was troubled at the coming of the magi. What extra biblical sources are there that would document something of this magnitude?
2. What extra biblical sources document the killing of the babies?
3. Does the writer try making his text conform to the life of Moses for a special reason?
4. Why, if the scribes and priests knew where the messiah was to be born, did they not go and worship him as well?
5. Why does Matthew always say it is the gentiles who recognize the Jewish messiah over the Jewish people themselves who have been studying the Scriptures for centuries?
A. There are no outside sources that bring support to Matthew's claims. Not Jewish, Roman or other.
B. Archealogy History does not back up the account that Matthew gives. Quirinius, the governor of Syria in 6 CE did not rule at the same time as Herod the Great. Herod's rule ended when he died in 4 BCE. Archelaus, Herod's son then ruled. There is no Roman record of an Empire wide tax during the reign of Caesar Augustus. If there had been there would have been a mass migration taking place as people traveled back to their homelands and there is no evidence of the upheaval this would have caused in travel, economies and other areas when migrations take place.
Take time and consider the above and what it means. I will not do this for you.
We will be back to look at the next fulfillment prophecy next time. I will give you a clue. It is also in the second chapter of Matthew.
No comments:
Post a Comment