But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the thousands of Judah, from you One will go forth to Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from old, from the days of eternity

The Issue: The definition of the Hebrew word olam

The Trinitarian Claim

Trinitarians sometimes use this passage to claim Jesus was not created but existed "in eternity" and "before" creation and has "always" existed as the Son of God. They usually advance this passage when they wish to debate faith groups, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, who claim the Son was the first created thing. While our purpose here is not to prove the Word was created, it needs to be honestly demonstrated that the Trinitarian claim on that matter is groundless.

Trinitarians also facilitate this claim by insisting the Hebrew word olam should be translated as "everlasting" or "eternity."

What the Evidence will Show

The facts will show that Trinitarian claims concerning this matter are incoherent and fallacious. The facts will also reveal their claim would otherwise result in God having a God. They will further show that they do not translate the Hebrew olam as "eternity" in several other places of Scripture as they insist upon doing here. The facts will also show that Trinitarian scholars have themselves declined to translate "days of olam as "days of eternity" illustrating the dubious character of Trinitarian claims concerning this passage.

Examination of the Evidence

The facts will reveal that this particular passage does not prove that Jesus was not created. The facts will show that it simply says the Messiah was "from eternity" and this does not prove itself Jesus was not created.

The facts will also uncover the true definition of the word olam to be a word that necessarily means something like "unforseeable future" and does not means "eternity" or "everlasting." The facts will demonstrate how Trinitarians themselves have been forced to translate the word in this manner.

Philosophically Inept Interpretation

The Trinitarian claim is philosophically problematic since creation was itself the beginning of time and to claim the Son existed "before" creation, or "always," existed is to use language that insinuates he existed in a time continuum prior to the existence of time. Trinitarians have not thought this one out very well. Even if the passage did say the Messiah's "goings forth" were from eternity, it still would not indicate that Jesus is an eternal being in the sense of existing "prior" to the beginning of creation. If we suppose, for the sake of argument, that Jesus was indeed the first thing created, it is still quite easy to observe from this passage that he was created from eternity as the starting point and origin of his existence. Creation had its beginning and origin in/at eternity because this is where God exists. Since then Jesus' created existence would be the first thing in the time and space of creation, then his origin would be "from eternity." Eternity would be ground zero of creation and the starting point and origin of the first thing created. In other words, if Jesus was the first created thing, the place from which he was created would necessarily be eternity.

Suspicious Translation Variations

Carefully consider the discrepancies in the following Trinitarian translations. Some say "eternity." Some say "everlasting." Some say "ancient times." These differences clearly demonstrate that their claims regarding the word olam which they translate as "eternal" are extremely questionable.

whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (KJV).

whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. (ASV).

His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity. (NASB).

his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. (Douay-Rheims).

Whose origin is from of old, from ancient times. (NAB).

whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. (NIV)

whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. (RSV).

The Context

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the thousands of Judah, from you One will go forth to Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from old, from the days of eternity. Therefore he will give them up until the time when she who is in labor has borne a child. Then the remainder of his brethren will return to the sons of Israel. And he will arise and Shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. (Micah 5:4).

When Herod asked the chief priests and scribes where the Messiah will be born they quoted this passage to him. The Messiah will come out of the little town of Bethlehem. He is one whose origins are from old, from ancient times. He will Shepherd his flock in the strength of YAHWEH. This is a reference to the power of the Spirit. Luke explicitly tells us God anointed Jesus with the Spirit to do miracles and God did his miracles through Jesus.

God the Son's God?

The very fact that the identity in view has a God is very telling. While they wish to claim the Son of God existed before Jesus was born in Bethelehem, the human being Jesus of Nazareth did not exist before he was born in Bethlehem. Trinitarians insist the person they call "God the Son" added this human nature to himself when he was conceived in Mary and born in Bethelehem. And they also insist it is the man Jesus who has a God, not God the Son. However, the person in this verse has a God. The Trininitarian cannot argue that God has a God without falling into absurdity. Yet that is what he is doing in this very verse. Since the verse is discussing an identity who existed long before the birth of Jesus in Bethelehem they must concede it is a reference to God the Son. Hence, they have inadvertently claimed the eternal God the Son has Yahweh as his God.

His "goings forth"

The Hebrew word here "motsa'ah" indicates the concept of "origin." The English term "goings forth" is a decent translation of the Hebrew intent. The intended idea here is to explain the Messiah's origins. Since the Messiah is the Word become flesh, it is quite easy to see the Word was with God in the beginning as John says.

Of "old"

The Hebrew "qedem" is the word we usually translate as "east." Since the sun dawns in the east and the day begins in the east it is a place where the day begins. This Hebrew word does not really mean "old" but conveys the idea of a "beginning" or a "front." In this passage, the intended idea is that the Messiah is from the beginning of all things, that is, the dawn of creation. The Word that was with God in the beginning became flesh, the person Jesus.

The "days of olam."

Trinitarians cannot make their claim without also defining the word olam as "eternity." Their error can be quickly seen by observing there are no "days" in eternity. God created the first day. Before the creation of the first day, there were not things called "days." The Bible tells us plainly that God created the ages. He created the first day.

The word "eternity" has been skewed in people's minds due to the word "everlasting," a word often accepted as a synonym to "eternity." However, the word "everlasting" indicates a never ending time continuum where the word "eternity" does not. Moreover, eternity is not a never-ending time continuum but a state of timelessness. God exists in eternity and created the ages. God did not exist in a state of time that He had not yet created. God existed "before" time began. He existed in a state of timelessness.

The key word in this passage is the Hebrew word "olam." The actual Hebrew here literally reads "days of olam." This phrase is also used elsewhere in the Scriptures and right here in this very book of Micah.

Remember the days of old, consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you, your elders, and they will tell you. (Deuteronomy 32:7).

Shepherd Your people with Your scepter, the flock of Your possession which dwells by itself in the woodland, in the midst of a fruitful field. Let them feed in Bashan and Gilead as in the days of old (Micah 7:14).

Obviously, the word term "days of olam" in does not mean "eternity" as "everlasting time," or "never ending time," or anything of the like, or we have the ridiculous problem of explaining just how the Jews were supposed to remember the "days of eternity," or how they were to feed the flock just as they had done in the "days of eternity."

The Definition of olam

The word olam simply does not mean "everlasting," or "eternity" defined as an infinite time continuum, or as a reality of timelessness, or whatever reality God exists in. This word simply means a very long period of time or an indefinite period of time. It does not mean infinity. It comes from a root word which means hidden or concealed. This is similar to the idea expressed by the English term "unforseeable future." It refers to an indefinite period of time. That olam does not refer to infinite time, or a state of timelessness, or some other kind of reality in which only God exists, can be seen from its use in the Scriptures.

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days... they were the mighty ones of old, men of renown. (Gen 6:4).

Joshua said to all the people, "Thus says YAHWEH, the God of Israel, `From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods. (Joshua 24:2).

Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites and the Girzites and the Amalekites; for they were the inhabitants of the land from ancient times. (1 Samuel 27:8).

And Achish trusted David, thinking, "He has made himself utterly abhorred by his people Israel; therefore he shall be my servant always." (1 Samuel 27:15).

Will you keep to the old way which wicked men have trod? (Job 22:15).

Remove not the ancient landmark which your fathers have set. (Proverbs 22:8; cf. 23:10).

And your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt; you shall raise up the foundations of many generations. (Isaiah 58:12; cf, 61:4).

In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled and grieved his holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, of Moses his servant. (Isaiah 63:9,11).

Behold, I am bringing upon you a nation from afar, O house of Israel, It is an old nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor can you understand what they say. (Jeremiah 5:15).

Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years. (Malachi 3:4).

It is rather obvious from the above passages, that olam does not mean eternity as in "infinite time" or reality "before" creation. It is quite clear that Trinitarian claims concerning this word are completely unfounded.

Summation of the Facts

• Even if Jesus was indeed the first thing created, his origin would have been "from eternity" since the first thing created would have necessarily had its starting point in eternity. Although that concept is not what we strive to claim here, it shows the Trinitarian claim to be baseless.



• Trinitarian scholars themselves have translated the words in this very verse to say, "ancient times" rather than "eternity" illustrating for us that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to insist it should be translted as "eternity."



• The context shows this one has Yahweh as his God. The Trinitarian is caught in his own contrivances here since God the Son did not have a God in "eternity".



• Scripture testimony clearly shows the term "days of olam does not mean "days of eternity" unless we are also prepared to confess men existed in eternity. Indeed, there were no "days" in eternity since "days" are something that belong to creation, not eternity.



• Numerous passages show that olam does not mean "eternity" but a long indefinite period of time.

Call for Discernment

Clearly, the Hebrew word olam cannot be translated as "eternity" in many passages of Scripture. Indeed, many Trinitarian scholars have themselves have opted not to do so. Yet, Trinitarian apologists want to insist it should be translated as such here. Why? To suit their doctrinal needs? What reason besides their own desires do they have to demand such a translation? Indeed, we are told God created the first day but the Trinitarian wants there to also be days in "eternity" that transpired "before" God created the first day. Their translation runs into one ridiculous absurdity after another.

The idea presented here is the same idea presented at Proverbs 8:23, "From ancient times I was established, from the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth" where Wisdom is portrayed with God at the dawn of creation. The Messiah is portrayed in the same way in this verse. The point here is not that the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 is Jesus but that the concept of Wisdom and of the Messiah being at the dawn of creation is the same in both verses. And here in the passage in question, the very most we can assume is that prophet Micah is indicating the Messiah had his origin at the dawn of creation. However, the passage does not say the Messiah existed before creation in a reality called "eternity" and there is absolutely nothing in this passage to indicate such an idea. Even if olam is translated as "eternity" the Trinitarian claim is baseless. And we can see here that their very own scholars have opted to translate the word olam here as "ancient times." Hence, the Trinitarian claim is completely groundless.