Micah 5:2 and Hebrews 2:11
Some modern versions undermine and attack the eternal deity of the only begotten Son of God. Can you prove from the King James Bible that the Lord Jesus Christ had a beginning or an origin? No. Can you prove from the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, or the Jehovah Witness versions that He had an origin? Yes.
Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH have been of old, FROM EVERLASTING."
John Gill comments on the traditional, Trinitarian exposition of this verse and the meaning of the phrase "whose goings forth have been...from everlasting."
John Gill - "whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting; which is said of him, not because his extraction was from David, who lived many ages before him; for admitting he was "in him, in his loins," as to his human nature, so long ago, yet his "goings forth" were not from thence: nor because he was prophesied of and promised very early, as he was from the beginning of the world; but neither a prophecy nor promise of him can be called his "going forth"; which was only foretold and spoken of, but not in actual being; nor because it was decreed from eternity that he should come forth from Bethlehem, or be born there in time; for this is saying no more than what might be said of everyone that was to be born in Bethlehem, and was born there: nor is this to be understood of his manifestations or appearances in a human form to the patriarchs, in the several ages of time; since to these, as to other of the above things, the phrase "from everlasting" cannot be ascribed."
"As commonly interpreted - his eternal generation and sonship, the only begotten of the Father, of the same nature with him, and a distinct person from him; the eternal Word that went forth from him, and was with him from eternity, and is truly God. The phrases are expressive of the eternity of his divine nature and person; so as the former part of the text sets forth his human birth, this his divine generation; So Eliezer produces this to prove the name of the Messiah before the world was, whose "goings forth were from everlasting, when as yet the world was not created."
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown likewise explain: "goings forth . . . from everlasting--The plain antithesis of this clause, to "come forth out of thee" (from Beth-lehem), shows that the eternal generation of the Son is meant. The terms convey the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable (compare Psalm 90:2, Proverbs 8:22) Messiah's generation as man coming forth unto God to do His will on earth is from Beth-lehem; but as Son of God, His goings forth are from everlasting."
John Wesley tersely remarks: "Going forth - Whose generation, as he is the Son of God, equal with his father, is eternal."
Matthew Henry says: " How the Messiah is here described. It is he that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Here we have, (1.) His existence from eternity, as God: his goings forth, or emanations, as the going forth of the beams from the sun, were, or have been, of old, from everlasting, which is so signal a description of Christ's eternal generation, or his going forth as the Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, that this prophecy must belong only to him, and could never be verified of any other. It certainly speaks of a going forth that was now past, and must here be taken in the strictest sense (the same with Ps. 90:2, From everlasting to everlasting thou are God), and can be applied to no other than to him who was able to say, Before Abraham was, I am, Jn. 8:58."
The King James Holy Bible - Micah 5:2 "But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH have been of old, FROM EVERLASTING."
This is the reading - "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" - found in the KJB, NKJV, Bishop's Bible, Coverdale's Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the Hebrew Names Version, Webster's, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.
Miles Coverdale version 1535 -"And thou Bethleem Ephrata, art litle amonge the thousandes off Iuda, Out off the shal come one vnto me, which shall be ye gouernoure i Israel: whose outgoinge hath bene from the begynnynge, and from euerlastinge."
NASB - "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."
The NASB at least agrees with the meaning found in the King James Bible in that it shows the two natures of the Son of God. He is both man and the eternal God. He was born in Bethlehem as a man, but His goings forth are from everlasting.
However, in the RSV, NRSV, and 2001 ESV we read: "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."
The NIV - "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."
AV - Psalm 93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.
NIV - Psalm 93:2 Your throne was established long ago; you are from all eternity.
The NIV says God is everlasting/eternal based upon the Hebrew word for everlasting.
But when the NIV and other MVs gets to Micah 5:2 where the reference is to Jesus Christ then suddenly the Hebrew word for everlasting changes to "ancient of days" or "from ancient times" – Now Jesus is not eternal anymore. Why is God eternal in Psalm 93:2 but Jesus is not eternal in Micah 5:2 according to several modern versions? It is the same Hebrew word.
The Holman Standard - "One shall come from you to be ruler over Israel for Me. His ORIGIN is from antiquity, from eternity."
The Jehovah Witness version, called the New World Translation, says, "whose ORIGIN is from early times, from the days of time indefinite."
Why do the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman, and the JW bibles say “origin”? Christ did not have an origin or a beginning, but He Himself is the beginning, the source of all that exists. Revelation 22:13 tells us, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” Compare these words spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ with those found in Isaiah 44:6, “Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”
The JW’s teach that Christ is not eternal God, but rather the first created being, and less by nature than God the Father. The true word of God says, "whose GOINGS FORTH have been from of old, FROM EVERLASTING." Remember, Christ said: "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world."
The KJB says his goings forth are from everlasting. Yet the NIV, RSV, ESV say his origin is from ancient times. Ancient times may be long, long ago, but it is not the same as everlasting.
The Hebrew word olam can be translated as “ancient” when applied to created things or people as it is in Psalm 22:28, “Remove not the ancient landmark”, or as in Isaiah 44:7, “since I appointed the ancient people”, or even "of old" when referring to things and events that began in time like Micah 7:14 "...let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in days OF OLD.", but when the word is applied to the nature of God, it is always translated as “everlasting” as in Psalm 90:2, “from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God.”
The NIV concordance shows that they have translated this word as “everlasting” 60 times, as eternal or eternity 8 times, as “forever” 202 times, but as “from ancient times” only twice - one of them here in Micah 5:2 where they apply it to our Lord and Redeemer!
As you can see from the King James Bible and those that agree with it, they clearly teach the two natures of the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ, who would come forth to be ruler in Israel. The first major version to alter the meaning and teach that the Son had an origin was the liberal RSV, which was put together by scholars who did not believe in the full deity of Christ. This version was generally rejected by Fundamentalist Christians as being " too liberal". Then later the NIV "softened up" the body of Christ with this heretical reading and now the ESV and Holman Standard continue this blasphemy.
I have heard some who try to defend the NIV, ESV reading of "origin" by telling us that His origin refers to His family lineage and they tell us His ancestry is from ancient times. There are two big problems with this explanation.
If the NIV, ESV, Holman versions wanted to communicate this idea, then just come out and say "whose FAMILY LINE is from ancient times". But they don't do this.
Secondly, if only the family line is from ancient times, then there is nothing special about the Son of God. Everybody's family line is from long ago and ancient times. We all come from Adam!!! It can be said of John, Peter, Paul, Joseph or anyone else that their family line is from long ago. So what is so special about this? It wouldn't prove His deity.
But if we say "His goings forth are from everlasting" then we have witness that He is the eternal Son of God, and the two natures of our Redeemer are clearly revealed. You cannot get this from the NIV, ESV, RSV, Holman and JW versions.
Does the Son of God have an "origin"? Another example found in the Revised Standard Version and the 2001 English Standard Version.
Hebrews 2:11-12 "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified ARE ALL OF ONE: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee."
John Gill - "all of one: they are both of one God and Father, Christ's God is their God, and his Father is their Father; they are of one body, Christ is the head, and they are members; they are of one covenant, Christ is the surety, Mediator, and messenger of it, and they share in all its blessings and promises; they are of one man, Adam, Christ is a Son of Adam, though not by ordinary generation, they descend from him in the common way; they are all of one nature, of one blood; Christ has took part of the same flesh and blood with them."
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - "of one--Father, God, as He is Father of His spiritual human sons, Christ the Head and elder Brother, and His believing people, the members of the body and family. "Of one" is not "of one father Adam," or "Abraham," as BENGEL and others suppose. For the Saviour's participation in the lowness of our humanity is not mentioned till Hebrews 2:12, and then as a consequence of what precedes. Christ's Sonship (by generation) in relation to God is reflected in the sonship (by adoption) of His brethren."
Matthew Henry - " Now Christ, who is the agent in this work of sanctification, and Christians, who are the recipient subjects, are all of one. How? They are all of one heavenly Father, and that is God. God is the Father of Christ by eternal generation and by miraculous conception, of Christians by adoption and regeneration."
Hebrews 2:11 "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified ARE ALL OF ONE; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren."
So read all Greek texts as well as the King James Bible, the NKJV, TMB, KJV 21, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Darby, Young's, Webster's, Tyndale and the Geneva Bible.
NASB - "For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all FROM ONE FATHER; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren," (Note: the word "Father" is not found in any text, but it does fit the context though it limits the scope of meaning.)
NIV - "Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are OF THE SAME FAMILY. So JESUS is not ashamed to call them brothers." (Note: Again, there are no words in any text for "the same family", nor for "Jesus", and the NIV severely limits the scope of meaning, but at least it doesn't teach what we find in the RSV, ESV.)
RSV, NRSV, ESV - "For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified HAVE ALL ONE ORIGIN. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren," Now, we are back again to the idea of Christ, the Son of God, having an origin - just like the RSV, and the 2001 ESV teach in Micah 5:2.
This is just one of several theological doctrines that have been twisted and changed in most modern versions. Contrary to what we are often told, the "message" is not always the same.
Will Kinney