Israel, with its claim of being alone the people of the only true G.o.d, was a thorn in the eyes of the nations. These here [Pg 471] burn with eager desire to prove, actually and by deeds, that this presumptuous claim was unfounded, and, by the destruction of the city, to take from it its fancied holiness, and the glory of holiness. Destruction and profanation are, in their view, inseparably connected. The contrast to the verse under review is formed by vii. 10: "And mine enemy shall see it, and shame shall come upon her who said. Where is the Lord thy G.o.d?
Mine eyes shall behold her, now shall she be trodden down as the mire of the streets." The words, "Where is the Lord thy G.o.d?" entirely agree in substance with, "Let her be profaned!" But the desire of profaning Jerusalem must be conceived of as the human motive only. According to the view of Scripture generally, and of Micah particularly, all the distress of the people of G.o.d has its foundation in _sin_; and from the whole context, and especially from v. 2 (3), where this event also is comprehended within the time when G.o.d"s people are given up, it clearly appears that, notwithstanding the happy issue, we have here before us a heavy calamity. By a new phase of sin, a new phase of judgment is brought about; and by a new phase of worldliness, a new phase of aggression by the world"s power.--It is owing to a striving after variety, that the word "and" here stands before "now," while it is omitted in the third scene. It may stand, or it may be omitted, because the various catastrophes are independent of each other, and yet, at the same time, form a connected whole, as is evident from the words, "He will give them up," in v. 2 (3), by which they are connected together.
The heavy oppression of Judah appears here under the form of a siege of its centre, in accordance with the scope of prophecy, which, everywhere, seeks to impart vividness and animation to the scene, by uniting into one picture that which is separated by time and s.p.a.ce. The historical reference of the prophecy is thus very accurately stated by _Calvin_: "Although the Babylonish captivity has come to an end, and Israel has been restored from it, the promised kingdom shall not immediately come. Before that takes place, the neighbouring nations shall a.s.semble themselves against Jerusalem, with the desire of profaning it, and of enjoying a pleasant spectacle. This took place under Antiochus." That to which the prophet here simply alludes, but yet in such a way that the right reference cannot possibly be mistaken (since a great hostile aggression is here described, which should happen [Pg 472] after the people have returned from Babylon, and which is removed by the piety and courage of the people themselves; and since, after this second oppression, there follows a third, which is described in ver. 14, there certainly remains no other alternative: the times of the Maccabees are those which can alone be thought of), is further detailed by Zechariah in ix. 11 ff. At his time, the deliverance from the first calamity had already taken place; and he expressly states the names of the enemies; just as, in the prophecy under review, the authors of the first calamity are expressly named.
That which is especially characteristic, and which points to the time of the Maccabees, is, moreover, the special mention of many nations, which are united in their decided hatred against Jerusalem as a city, and against Judah as the people of the Lord, taken in connection with the character of the war as a _religious war_ in the strictest sense,--it being an attempt of heathenism to destroy the Congregation of the Lord as such. _These features are found in no other catastrophe during the time between Micah and Christ._ And that the aggression belongs to the period before the appearing of the Saviour, is evident from the whole context, as well as from v. 2 (3). In the time of the Maccabees, it was not with Syria alone that Judah had to do; but all the heathen nations without exception, with which Judah had any connection at that time, united themselves for a decisive stroke against the kingdom of G.o.d. Their purpose was to extirpate the whole race of Jacob, 1 Macc. v. 2. Striking remarks upon the real nature of the struggle at that period, as a struggle of faithful Judaism against Heathenism, the latter of which had gained a considerable party among the people themselves, are made by Stark, in "_Gaza und die Philistaische Kuste_," _Jena_, 52, S. 481 ff. Among other things, he says: "The national distinctions in the boundaries of Palestine had by no means ceased, but continued under the general cover of the Egyptian and Syrian administration in a varied, unyielding, and hostile manner.
There were the Idumeans in the whole of the south of Palestine to near Jerusalem; then, the Philistines, or when called by their cities, the Gazeans and Ashdodians; the Phnicians, the Samaritans or Chutteans, the mixed population of Galilee, the Arabs of Perea.... As soon as the Jewish people, who, up to that time, had been altogether insignificant in a political point of view, rose against [Pg 473] the Syrian empire, at first for their religious peculiarities, then, for their political independence, and, finally, even for the recovery of the _ideal_ possession of their country--an idea which had been kept alive by tradition,--it could not but be that those who were naturally the supports and centres of the Syrian operations, became the objects of the hostile Jewish operations; and that the whole national portion of the population, although not Greeks, were anew inflamed by their old hatred of, and opposition to, Judaism; so that they considered that h.e.l.lenic struggle as also a national one. This period thus produced at the same time a revival of the old national struggle of the inhabitants of Palestine, modified and increased by the struggle of h.e.l.lenism with the national reaction which served as a superstructure for it." The objection, raised even by _Caspari_, that a prophecy of the victorious struggles in the time of the Maccabees must be strange and surprising in a prophet of the a.s.syrian period, will not startle those who look at the a.n.a.logies--such as the prophecy in Is. vi. In the latter prophecy, first the Chaldean, and then the Roman catastrophes, are described in sharp outlines, but without any mention of the names of the instruments of punishment. It is only in reference to the executors of the first of these judgments that more distinct disclosures were given to the prophet himself at a subsequent period. The announcement in Zech. ix., where the Greeks are expressly mentioned, is, in reality, not less miraculous. According to all prophetical a.n.a.logies, it is _a priori_ probable that this detailed prophecy of the Maccabean period, and the similar one in Daniel, should have been preceded by some older prophecy which refers to the same facts, but only in general outlines, such as we have in the pa.s.sage under consideration. If any doubt should still remain, it would be removed by a glance at the conflicting interpretations. _Ewald_ and _Hitzig_ think of the a.s.syrian invasion, to which vers. 9, 10, are likewise referred by them, although such a reference is in opposition to the express words of these verses,--which, for a Naturalistic tendency, are rather inconvenient.
The contradiction in these two prophecies _Ewald_ endeavours to reconcile by the evidently erroneous supposition, that the carrying away in ver. 10 must be conceived of as only a partial one,--a supposition which is invalidated by a simple comparison of iii. 12.
According to _Hitzig_, the prophet has, in vers. 11-13, [Pg 474]overcome the despondency expressed in vers. 9, 10, and has raised himself to confidence in G.o.d. He thus makes the prophet distinctly contradict himself in one breath,--a supposition which does not even deserve a refutation. Even if we were entirely to separate this pa.s.sage from its connection, how ill does the activity here ascribed to Judah agree with the oppression by the a.s.syrians! This activity of Judah supposes that it has to do with many small nations. Against the great Asiatic empires, a direct and immediate interposition of the Lord is _everywhere_ referred to. The salvation, however, which is here announced to Judah, can be only an imperfect one, and cannot go beyond what they really received at the time of the Maccabees. This is sufficiently evident from the circ.u.mstance, that it belongs to a time in which Judah has no king of the Davidic house; for him they have already lost in ver. 9, and receive again only in v. 1 (2), in Christ; and it is certain that the Davidic house was the channel through which all the true and great mercies of the Lord were bestowed upon His people.
Ver. 12. "_And they know not the thoughts of the Lord, neither understand they His counsel; for He gathereth them as the sheaf for the threshing-floor._"
The particle "and" is here used, where we, for the sake of a closer connection, would employ "but." The thoughts of the Lord are these,--that the sufferings, after having served their purpose as regards Zion, shall pa.s.s over to the enemies, so that they shall themselves be destroyed by Zion, while they so confidently thought to inflict destruction upon Zion. The ?? introduces the reason of their not knowing the way of the Lord. If they knew it, they would not express such desire and hope; _for it is they themselves_ whom the Lord gives over to destruction.
Ver. 13. "_Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion, for I make thine horn iron, and thy claws bra.s.s; and thou crushest in pieces many people, and I consecrate their gain unto the Lord, and their strength to the Ruler of the whole earth._"
The figure is based upon the Eastern mode of threshing; compare _Paulsen vom Ackerbau der Morgenl._ -- 40-42; _Niebuhr_, _Reise_ i. S.
151; and likewise Is. xxi. 10, xli. 15; Hab. iii. 12. Strictly speaking, one characteristic only of the threshing oxen is here considered, viz., the crushing power of their hoofs. The prophet, however, extends the comparison to that also in which [Pg 475] the bullock is formidable, even when it is not engaged in the work of threshing, viz., to its horns. On this point 1 Kings xxii. 11 may be compared, where the pseudo-prophet Zedekiah makes to himself iron horns, and thus states the import of this symbolical action: "Thus saith the Lord, With these shalt thou push Aram until it is destroyed."
The first person in ?????? has perplexed several ancient translators (_Syr._, _Jerome_), as well as many modern interpreters, who, therefore, subst.i.tute the second person for it. But it is quite appropriate. As at the beginning, where the Lord gathers the sheaf on the threshing-floor, so at the close also, the prophet declares that the victory is the work of G.o.d. It is He Himself, the true G.o.d, the Lord of the whole earth, who reminds His rebellious subjects of their true relation to Him, by vindicating to Himself a part of the good things which He bestowed upon them; just as He once did in Egypt. This thought contains the reason why, instead of the p.r.o.noun of the first person, the noun is employed; so that it is equivalent to: To Me the only G.o.d, the Lord of the whole earth. But it is altogether distorted, if the first person here be changed into the second. With respect to the import of the word, we must by no means think only of the gifts of consecration which were brought to the temple. Such a view would be necessary, only if the goods of the Covenant-people, or the Covenant-people themselves, were introduced as that which is to be consecrated. In that case we could understand, by that which is consecrated, that only which is the exclusive property of the Lord, which has been dedicated to Him exclusively, and for ever withdrawn from the use of His subjects, and which, as far as they are concerned, is as good as annihilated; compare Lev. xxvii. 28: "Everything consecrated, which any one consecrates to the Lord, of man and of beast, and of the field of his possession, shall not be sold nor redeemed; every consecrated thing is most holy to the Lord." But here, where He who consecrates is the Lord, while the goods are those of the heathen, the latter only are to be considered as being excluded from the possession, and as those in reference to whom the goods are consecrated goods; while the people of G.o.d must, on the other hand, be considered as partaking in what He has acquired. The community of goods between these two is rendered prominent in other pa.s.sages also where the object required it. Thus, _e.g._, [Pg 476] Joel iv. (iii.) 5, where the Phnicians and Philistines are charged: "My silver and My gold ye have taken, and My precious things, the goodly ones, ye have carried into your palaces." That we cannot here think of the temple-treasure is evident, not only from a comparison of ver. 4, where the attempts of these nations to avenge themselves on Israel on account of former injuries, are expressly represented as attempts to take vengeance upon G.o.d, but also from history, which knows nothing of the plunder of the temple by Phnicians and Philistines. The mention of the _gain_ points to the _male parta_,--and this is the more strictly applicable, the nearer the relation is in which he who is robbed stands to the Lord of the earth. With the _gain_, the substance in general is lost.--The fundamental thought of the verse, which is here expressed only with an application to a special case, is that of the victory of the Congregation of the Lord over the world. This was perceived by _Calvin_, who strikingly demonstrates how this declaration is ever anew realized, and how its complete fulfilment is reserved only for the second coming of Christ. He has erred, however, in this, that looking only to the eternal import of the thought, he overlooked the circ.u.mstance that it is here expressed with reference to a definite event in which it was to be realized.
Ver. 14. "_Who thou gatherest thyself in troops, O daughter of troops.
They lay siege against us, they smite the judge of Israel with the rod upon the cheek._"
A new scene presents itself to the prophet. Zion, victorious on the preceding occasion, appears here as powerless, and locked up within her walls. She is captured; and ignominious abuse is cast upon the leaders of the deeply abased people.--We need not here dwell for any length of time upon the numerous expositions of ??????. There is only one, viz., "thou shalt press thyself together," which affords an appropriate contrast; while this contrast is lost when it is translated, as _Hofmann_ does, by: "thou shalt lacerate thyself" (compare what _Caspari_ has advanced against it). "Thou shalt press thyself together"
does not, moreover, destroy the import of Hithpael, and has especially the use of the Hithp. of ???, in Jer. v. 7, in its favour. The Hithpael in this signification is probably a Denominative of ????. The person addressed, the ???????, can be none other than the ??????? in ver. 13.
For it is she who is addressed by the prophet [Pg 477] in each of the new scenes announced by ???, and she is, generally, the only one to whom the discourse is, throughout the whole section, addressed. The intentional paronomasia occasioned by the designation "daughter of troops," _i.e._, who appeared in warlike array, evidently alludes to ???????, and refers to the description of Zion as a brave victorious hero, in the preceding verses. The _enemy_ is immediately afterwards spoken of in the third person. The words, "Siege (not by any means "a wall," as _De Wette_ maintains) they lay, or direct against us,"
clearly indicate that the pressing of themselves together, which forms a contrast with the former courageous excursions indicated by ????, is the consequence of fear, weakness, and hostile oppression. The words are therefore strikingly paraphrased by _Justi_, thus: "But now, why dost thou thus press thyself together, thou who wast accustomed to press others?" This, however, only must be kept in mind, that ???????
implies an allusion to the fact that the warlike disposition continues even in the present, notwithstanding the feebleness forced upon her,--a very characteristic feature. In saying, "They lay siege against _us_,"
instead of "against _thee_," the prophet is carried away by his emotions to show himself as one of the people whom he sees to be oppressed by so heavy sufferings. As indicated by the word "now" also, he is, in spirit, in the midst of them. The ignominious treatment of the judge of Israel supposes that the prophet sees, in his inward vision, the capture of the city as having already taken place; for it is impossible to conceive of the judge, the soul of the city, as being outside of it. This judge of Israel is an _ideal_ person, formed by the prophet in order that he might be able to contrast him with the Ruler of Israel in v. 1 (2), who represents all the theocratic authorities; compare, _e.g._. Is. iii. 12, where the corrupted leaders of the Theocracy present themselves to the prophet in the person of a large child. To speak, in such a case, of a collective noun, as is usually done, is out of place. But it may be observed that it is not a king who is here spoken of, but, very significantly, a judge of Israel only, probably with reference to the times before Saul, when Israel was governed by judges. The royal dominion which, according to the announcement in ver. 9, shall be destroyed by Babylon, shall be restored by the Messiah only (compare v. 1 [2], iv. 8), who is not ???
?????, but, like His great ancestor [Pg 478] David, ???? ??????; compare 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. There can be no doubt that, in this connection, the _Judge_ is spoken of as distinguished from, and contrasted with, the _King_. But even by itself, the mention of the _Judge_ cannot but be startling. It would have been against the object of the prophet to have mentioned any inferior persons, when there existed a superior one; and if the _King_ was thereby denoted, why should he have been designated thus?--It is on purpose that ?????, which is the _nomen dignitatis_ of the people, is here chosen. It more emphatically points out the unworthiness of the treatment, as well as the contrast between the reality and the idea in the destinies of the nation,--a contrast, it is true, which Israel has called forth by the preceding contrast between the reality and the idea with regard to his conduct. Since Israel has inwardly profaned himself by his own guilt, he is now, as a just punishment, profaned outwardly also.--With respect, now, to the historical reference of this disastrous announcement, its fulfilment cannot be sought for in any other event than the invasion by the Romans. Among the sufferings of the people, which are here described in general outlines, this is the only one recorded in history, with the exception of those already mentioned.
Isaiah, the contemporary of Micah, likewise announced, as early as in chap. vi., that upon those who should return from the captivity a second judgment would be inflicted, by which the national independence should be destroyed. This judgment is described with remarkable clearness and distinctness by the post-exilic prophets, inasmuch as, to them, it appeared already more in the foreground; compare the remarks on Zech. v. and xi.; Dan. ix. The only plausible argument against this reference is this,--that the capture of the city by the Romans was subsequent to the appearance of the Messiah, and that it is, after all, the latter which forms the subject of the announcement of salvation in v. 1 (2), which, again, refers to the sufferings described in the verse before us. This argument, however, is set aside by the following considerations. 1. The prophet, indeed, designates the misery which was inflicted by those enemies upon the Covenant-people only according to its acme, viz., the siege and capture of the city; but he, nevertheless, views it in, and understands it of, its whole extent, and from its first beginnings. These, then, in so far as the Romans are concerned, fall in the time before Christ, for the Jewish [Pg 479]
people were already subjected to the Roman dominion by Pompey. 2. This alone, however, is not sufficient. If, with _Vershuir_ (_de celebri oraculo Mic._ iv. 14, in the _Dissert. Philol. exeg._ Leuw. 1775), we confine ourselves to the capture by Pompey, we cannot, by any means, get rid of the feeling that that fulfilment does not exhaust the prophecy. But we are, on the other hand, quite ent.i.tled to add that highest point, viz., the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, along with all its still existing consequences, if only we consider, that the announcement of salvation in chap. v.--as is shown by its contents, and by its accordance with the a.n.a.logy of all the Messianic prophecies--is not limited to the short period of the first appearance of Christ. That comes into consideration rather as the grain of seed only from which the tree grew up, under which all the fowls of heaven were to dwell.
Hence it is, that the salvation, no less than the punishment, is a continuous one, until, at the end of the days, it appears in its glorious consummation. But if it be established that Christ is presented as the only Saviour from the calamity here described, then that calamity must still continue for those who reject Him, yea, it must still be increased. It is only by giving up their opposition that they can be delivered from the yoke which presses upon them. The election, on the other hand, is, from the very beginning, received into the communion of His kingdom, which extends over the whole world.
Here, however, that which has been already remarked in reference to vers. 11-13 finds its application. The siege and capture of Zion are pre-eminently the means of representing the idea of the heavy oppression and deep abas.e.m.e.nt of Israel, and of the cessation of its political independence, although it must not upon any account be overlooked, that the natural form of the representation is, at the same time, the natural form of the realization of the idea that Judah could not be destroyed without the siege and capture of Jerusalem, its centre.
Footnote 1: We must not by any means suppose, as has been done last of all by _Caspari_, that the mountains are here regarded as places of worship.
Footnote 2: Thus does _Calvin_, who says: "He speaks after the manner of the prophets, who under the term "law" used to comprehend the whole doctrine of G.o.d."
Footnote 3: _Caspari_, indeed, is of opinion, that the walking in the name of the Lord is not to be considered as a merit, on account of which the salvation is granted, but as a mercy which has been bestowed upon Israel, and which forms the ground of the salvation. But this feature is not at all intimated; and we are the less at liberty to introduce it, as the walking in the name of the G.o.ds is parallel to the walking in the name of the Lord.
Footnote 4: _Caspari_ very properly refers here to v. 3 (4), where the Messiah, in whom the former dominion is to come to the Tower of the flock, is represented as a shepherd.
Footnote 5: Micah"s references to the Pentateuch are made the subject of a most thorough disquisition by _Caspari_, S. 419 ff.
CHAP. V. 1.
"_And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, too little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto Me_ (one) [Pg 480] _to be Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth are the times of old, the days of eternity._"
The close connection of this verse with what immediately precedes (_Caspari_ is wrong in considering iv. 9-14 as an episode) is evident, not only from the ? copulative, and from the a.n.a.logy of the near relation of the announcement of salvation to the prophecy of disaster in the preceding verse (for if the connection with ver. 14 be overlooked, the announcement of disaster contained in it remains without a corresponding consolation,--and this would be against the a.n.a.logy of vers. 9, 10, 11-13); but more strikingly so from the contrast of the ?????? ???? with the ??? ?????. The _Judge_ of Israel in his deepest abas.e.m.e.nt, is here contrasted with the _Ruler_ of Israel in His highest divine glory. The connection is seen also in the indication of Bethlehem"s natural littleness, as contrasted with the greatness to be bestowed upon it by G.o.d. What could have induced the prophet thus strongly to point out this circ.u.mstance, had it not been that he considered Bethlehem as the type of the Jewish people in their misery, described in the preceding verse, and the miraculous elevation of the former, to be accomplished by divine omnipotence, as the pledge of a like result for the whole people? There is, moreover, a reference to the _beginning_ of the pretended episode. In iv. 9, it was said: "There is no king in thee;" here, it is announced that from Bethlehem there comes forth a glorious Ruler in Israel. But, on the other hand, there is also a close connection with ver. 8, as has been rightly perceived by Caspari. This connection and reference are sufficiently indicated by the like form. The address to Bethlehem here corresponds with the address to "the Tower of the flock" there,--the "Ruler," ????, here, with the "dominion," ?????, there. There, the dominion returns to the house of David; here, the august person is described by whom this return is effected, after the events, described iv. 9-14, have come upon the Covenant-people. That the Ruler here comes forth out of Bethlehem, corresponds with iv. 8 in so far as there the dominion _returns_ to the Tower of the flock, to the hill of the daughter of Zion, which implies the overthrow of the Davidic kingdom, and the return of the family of David to the condition in which it lived at Bethlehem before the time of David,--which must necessarily precede its final glory.--According to _Bachiene_ [Pg 481] ii. 2, S. 7 ff., Bethlehem and Ephratah are to be distinguished, so that the former designates the town alone, and the latter at the same time its whole environs,--so that Bethlehem Ephratah would be equivalent to Bethlehem situated in Ephratah. But even if we were to agree with this opinion, we must not, by any means, consider the two words as standing in the _stat. constr._, any more than the corresponding ??????? ????? in Judges xvii. 9, xix. 1, 2, 18. For as a _Nomen proprium_ is equivalent to a noun with the article, it can never stand in the _stat. constr._ with another noun. We should thus be obliged to a.s.sume that, by way of brevity, common in geographical designations, both appellations were placed unconnectedly beside each other, without any indication of their relation, just as in addressing a letter, we would simply write Berlin, Prussia. But if we compare Gen. x.x.xv. 19, where Ephratah is simply declared to be identical with Bethlehem (????? ??? ??? ???);--and if we consider that the prophet had already alluded to the contents of that chapter (compare remarks on iv. 8), and that he regards the events which formerly happened in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem as a type of those which were to take place in future;--that in ver. 2 (3) he brings the new birth which is there to happen in parallelism with one which had formerly occurred in its nearest neighbourhood, and that it is just in the account of the latter that the designation occurs,--we shall have the strongest reason for understanding here also the two names as a designation of the town, without deciding whether the above-mentioned difference, as regards other pa.s.sages, be well founded or not.
Interpreters commonly a.s.sert that the sole ground of the twofold designation of the place is the intention of distinguishing it from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun; compare Josh. xix. 15. But in that case, we should rather have expected the common Bethlehem Judah, instead of Bethlehem Ephratah. There can be no doubt, that the prophet, in choosing this designation, was guided by a regard to that pa.s.sage in Genesis. One might also suppose that the prophet wished to allude, at the same time, to the appellative significations of these nouns, viz., "house of bread," and "field of fruit," and to lay stress upon their typical import: the place, the blessing of which, as regards temporal things, is indicated by its name, shall, at some [Pg 482]
future time, be blessed and fruitful in a higher sense. It is just in Micah, who is fond of making significant allusions to names, that such a supposition is very natural, as is shown, not only by chap. i., but also by vii. 18, where he gives an interpretation of his own name. As, however, the two names elsewhere also occur thus connected, without any attention being given to their signification, the prophet would not have omitted giving a hint upon this point. It is not the way of Scripture to make any allusions which cannot be understood with certainty. We shall, therefore, be obliged to suppose that, after the common name, the prophet mentions, in addition, the ancient name rendered sacred by memory from the time of the Patriarch, and by the authority of the most ancient doc.u.ments of revelation (compare, besides Gen. x.x.xv. 19, Gen. xlviii. 7), in order thereby to impart greater solemnity to the discourse, and to intimate what great things he had to say of Bethlehem. In accordance with this designation by two names, is, then, the circ.u.mstance that the address is directed to Bethlehem.--The word ???? forms an apposition to Bethlehem: "little to be," instead of, "who art too little to be." If the sense were to be, "thou art little,"
the ??? would not have been omitted after ????. The circ.u.mstance that Bethlehem is addressed as a masculine (comp. ???? ,???, and ???) may be accounted for by the prophet"s viewing the town in the image of its _ideal_ representative; compare remarks on Zech. ix. 7. In such a case, the gender may be neglected; compare, _e.g._, Gen. iv. 7, where sin, ????, appears as a masculine noun, on account of the image of a ravenous beast. Such personifications occur very frequently. Thus, nothing is more common in the Mosaic law than that Israel is addressed as one man. This has been frequently misunderstood, and, in consequence, that which refers to the whole people has been applied to the single individual. Thus it is even in the Decalogue. In Is. v. 7, the people of Judah appear as the _man_ Judah.
The _littleness_ of Bethlehem is sufficiently evident from the circ.u.mstance of its being left out in the catalogue of the towns of the tribe of Judah, in Joshua (compare _Bachiene_, -- 192). This induced the LXX. to insert it in Josh. xv. 60 along with several other towns which had been omitted; and, in doing so, they were probably guided, not so much by a regard to its outward [Pg 483] importance, as by the interest which attached to it from the recollection of an event of former times (compare Gen. x.x.xv.), from its being the birth-place of David, and still more, from the prophecy under consideration, by which the eyes of the whole nation were directed to this place, outwardly so unimportant.
The a.s.sertion of _Jerome_, that the Jews omitted the name in the Hebrew text, in order that Christ might not appear as a descendant of the tribe of Judah, has received from _Reland_ (S. 643) a more thorough refutation than it deserved. _Keil_, in his commentary on Joshua, has lately renewed the attempt to prove, from internal reasons, the genuineness of the addition; but, from the whole condition of the Alex.
Version, it is very dangerous to trust to such arguments. The very reasons which _Keil_ brings forward in support of the addition, are just those which might have induced the LXX. to make it. The circ.u.mstance that they added to Bethlehem the name Ephratah, plainly indicates the reason which induced them to introduce Bethlehem specially. Bethlehem is likewise omitted in the catalogue of the towns of Judah, in Neh. xi. 25 ff., and can therefore have occupied among them a very low place only, although it is mentioned in Ezra ii. 21, Neh. vii. 26. In the New Testament, it is called a mere village (???, John vii. 42). _Josephus_, indeed, occasionally gives it the t.i.tle of a town (compare Luke ii. 4, 11); but, in other pa.s.sages, he designates it by ??????, _Ant._ v. 2, 8.--???? ????? means properly, "little in reference to being," instead of, "too little to be,"--the wider expression being used to indicate the relations of the town to the being, where we use the more limited expression.--Instead of the "thousands of Judah," ??? ????? ought to have been employed, as it appears, in order strictly to maintain the personification. The representative of Bethlehem is too small to be numbered among the heads of Judah. Several expositors (_J. D. Michaelis_, _Justi_) have thereby been induced to point ??????????? instead of ??????????. But this supposed emendation is set aside by the consideration that ??????? is only the special designation of the Edomitish princes, and occurs in a general sense, only by way of _Catachresis_, in Zechariah, who lived at a time when the Hebrew language was nearly extinct. The most simple explanation is, that the prophet views the thousands, or the families of Judah, no less than the town Bethlehem, as _ideal_ existences; in which [Pg 484] case, the personification is maintained throughout.
Moreover, there would not be any insurmountable difficulty in the way of supposing that the prophet had given up the personification; for these are frequently not strictly adhered to by the prophets, who constantly pa.s.s from the figure to the thing prefigured. This may be at once seen from the preceding verse, in the first clause of which, Zion appears personified as a woman, while immediately afterwards there follows, "against us."--???, "thousand," is frequently used for designating a family, because the number of its members usually consisted of about a thousand; compare Num. i. 16, where it is said of the twelve princes of the tribes: "Heads of the thousands of Israel are they;" Num. x. 4; Josh. xxii. 14, 21; Judg. vi. 15; 1 Sam. x. 19. On the division of Israel into thousands, hundreds, etc.--a division which existed before the time of Moses--compare what has been advanced in my Dissertations on the _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, ii. p. 341 sqq.
It is self-evident that the thought here is, that Bethlehem is too little to const.i.tute a thousand _by itself_. Communities, however, which were not sufficiently numerous to const.i.tute, by themselves, a generation or family, were reckoned with others, and formed with them an artificial generation, an artificial family; for the divisions of generations and families were, owing to the great significance which numbers had in ancient times, connected with numerical relations. An instance of this kind occurs in 1 Chron. xxiii. 11, 12, where it is said of four brothers that they had not sons enough, and were, for that reason, reckoned as one family only. Being merely _part_ of a generation, Bethlehem had no place among the generations. The sense is clearly this: Bethlehem occupies a very low rank among the towns of the Covenant-people,--can scarcely show herself in the company of her distinguished sisters, who proudly look down upon her.--It is altogether a matter of course that ?????, "to go out," may be used also of "being born," of "descent," inasmuch as this belongs to the general category of going out; compare, _e.g._, 2 Kings xx. 18. We must, however, confine ourselves to the general idea of "going forth,"
"proceeding," and not consider Bethlehem as the father of the Messiah.
In opposition to _Hofmann_, this is proved by _Caspari_, from Jer. x.x.x.
21: "And their governor shall proceed from the midst of them;" and from Zech. x. 4.[Pg 485]--????? is without a definite subject. It is best to supply "one," which is evidently implied in what follows. The construction, which might otherwise appear somewhat strange, has been occasioned by the desire of making perceptible, by the very words, and their position, the contrast between the divine greatness and the natural littleness of Bethlehem:--
Thou art little to be among the thousands of Judah;-- From thee shall come forth unto me, to be a Ruler in Israel.
From a place which is too little to form a single independent member of the body, the head proceeds. From this contrast appears also the reason why it is said, "Ruler in Israel," while we should have expected to hear of the Ruler of Israel ?at? ??????,--a circ.u.mstance on which _Paulus_ lays so much stress in opposing the Messianic interpretation.--Had the prophet adopted the latter expression, not only would this contrast have been less striking, but the other also, which is likewise intended, viz., the contrast with the Judge of Israel, in the preceding verse, who loses his dignity. The prophet was, in the first instance, concerned more about the _genus_ than the _individual_,--more about the idea of dominion in general, than about the mode and kind of it. The individual is, afterwards, however, partly in this verse itself, partly in the following verse, so distinctly characterized, that he cannot be by any means mistaken. Nothing more, it is true, is implied in these words, than that, at some future time, there would come forth from Bethlehem a Ruler over all Israel; and if these words stood isolated, and if it could be proved that, after the time of Micah, there came forth from Bethlehem a Ruler over all Israel, besides the Messiah--a thing which, however, cannot be proved--then, indeed, it might be questionable which of the two to choose. _Caspari"s_ exposition, "Will _he_ come forth," has this against it, that, in the preceding verses, the Messiah was not yet spoken of, and, hence, that He cannot simply be supposed as known; and least of all--if the acquaintance with Him were to be supposed from other pa.s.sages--could He have been introduced with a simple unaccented _he_: the ??? could not have been omitted in this case. The case in iv.
8 is but little a.n.a.logous, for the subject in ???? is there an indefinite one.--?? is, by several interpreters, referred to the prophet. Thus _Rosenmuller_, [Pg 486] following _Michaelis_, says, "_To me_, _i.e._, for my good, the prophet says, in the name of his whole people." But the reference to G.o.d is required by the contrast between human littleness and divine greatness. _Calvin_ remarks on it: "By this word, G.o.d declares that His decree to give up the people was not such, that Tie should not be willing to restore them after some time. He therefore calls the faithful back to Himself, and reminds them of His counsel, just as if He said, "I have indeed rejected you for a time, but not so as that I am not filled with compa.s.sion for you."" The import of the ??, viz., that G.o.d could exalt that which was low, the believer saw, in a type, in David; and there is no doubt that the prophet was anxious indirectly to refer them to this type, and thereby to strengthen their faith in the promise, which appeared almost incredible. He (David) had been a native of the humble, little Bethlehem, the youngest among his brothers, without power, without renown. In order that the ?? might become the more evident, the Lord, at his election, gave such a direction to the circ.u.mstances, that this, his natural lowliness, might be most strikingly exhibited. It was G.o.d who raised him from being a shepherd of lambs, to be a shepherd of nations.
In contrast with the Messiah"s human and lowly origin. His divine and lofty dignity is prominently brought out in the last words of the verse,--a contrast similar to that in the case of Bethlehem, to which the prophet thereby refers. Here also, the prophet has so clearly expressed the contrast by the words themselves, that, upon the _homines bonae voluntatis_ among the interpreters of all ages, it has most forcibly impressed itself. Thus, _e.g._, _Chrysostom_, _demonstratio adv. Judaeos et Gentiles, quod Christus sit Deus_, opp. T. V., p. 739: "He exhibits both G.o.dhead and manhood. For in the words, "His goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity," His existence from all eternity is revealed; while in the words, "Shall come forth the ruler who feeds My people Israel," His origin according to the flesh is revealed." A more minute inquiry into the meaning of these words must begin with the investigation of ???????. The greater number of interpreters agree in this, that ?????, the feminine form of the more common ???? here denotes the action of the going forth. But this is opposed by the following considerations. 1. The use of the plural.
Those especially [Pg 487] who here think of the eternal going forth of the Son from the Father, cannot by any means Justify it. Several among them consider it as _plur. majest._ Thus, _e.g._, do _Tarnovius_ and _Frischmuth_, in the _Dissert. de Nativitate Messiae_, in the remarks on this pa.s.sage, Jena 1661. But although such a plural exists, indeed, in Hebrew, and many traces of it are to be found (compare my _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, i. p. 267 ff.), it could appear here, of course, in the suffix only, not in the noun.
Others suppose that the plural stands here simply for the singular.
Now, there are, it is true, three cases in which such does apparently take place:--the first, when a definite individual out of the mult.i.tude is meant,--when accordingly, not the _number_, but the general idea only is concerned;--the second, when a noun in the plural gradually loses its plural signification, because the etymology and original signification have become indistinct;--the third, when the plural stands for the abstract. Not one of these cases, however, is applicable here. Those interpreters have most plausibly removed the difficulty who understand ??????? to be really a repeated act of going forth, and refer it to the Old Testament doctrine of the Angel of the Lord. Thus _Jerome_: "Because He had always spoken to them through the prophets, and became in their hands the Word of G.o.d." _Tremellius_ and _Junius_: "The goings forth, _i.e._, the declarations and demonstrations of, as it were, a rising sun; He from the very beginning revealed and manifested Himself to all created things, by the light of His word, and the excellency of His works; just as the rising sun manifests himself from the moment of his rising, by the light and its effects."
_Cocceius_: "I cannot, however, be persuaded to believe that the plural ??????? is here used without emphasis. For the Son has not gone forth from the Father, like a man from a man, who begins to exist only when he is brought forth from a man, and when he goes forth, ceases to be brought forth and to go out. In all the days of eternity, the Son proceeds from the Father, and is the eternal ?pa??asa t?? d????
a?t??." But this circ.u.mstance is, in general, against this explanation, that the contrast with the going forth from Bethlehem, which is completed in one act, does not admit of the mention of a manifold going forth, and that, in this contrast, the arising, the origin of the existence of the Messiah, can alone be thought of; while, more specially, _Jerome_, [Pg 488] _Tremellius_, and _Junius_, who, with _Piscator_ also, limit the going forth to the relation to created things only, are contradicted by ???? ????, by which the going forth is placed beyond the beginning of creation; and _Cocceius_, by the fact that the ???? ???? in the Old Testament, differently from the ????? in the New Testament, appears always as going forth from G.o.d, in relation to the world only. But although the "time of old and the days of eternity" should be considered as the place of the going forth, yet the plural cannot be explained, as is done by _Caspari_, from the circ.u.mstance that "a person is always descended from several;" for the transferring of such a _usus loquendi_ to a relation, to which in itself it is not applicable, could be admitted only when it could be demonstrated to be altogether common and firmly established. But the plural might indeed, although only with some difficulty, be vindicated and accounted for from the circ.u.mstance, that two points of going forth are mentioned, which, as it were, suppose a twofold act. 2. But even if the singular were used, the explanation of the act of going forth would not be admissible. It is contrary to the idea of nouns with ?, that they could be used as _nomina actionis_. It is only with writers living at a time when the language was dying out, that a few instances of this erroneous use can be found. ? denotes the place where, the instrument wherewith, the time wherein, and perhaps the way and manner whereby, something is done, or is. _Further_--It may signify also the thing itself which is done, or is; but, in no writer of the living and flourishing language, does it ever denote the action itself. _Caspari_, indeed, attempts to prove that "there occurs in the older books a number, by no means inconsiderable, of nouns with ?, which undeniably denote an action;" but what he has advanced on this point requires still to be minutely sifted, and to be more closely examined; compare, _e.g._, on Num. x. 2, my pamphlet on "_The Day of the Lord_," S. 32.
But we are quite satisfied with what is granted by _Caspari_ himself (compare _Ewald"s Lehrbuch d. Hebr. Spr._ -- 160), that it is against the nature and common use of this form to denote the action. Even by this concession, a presumption is raised against the correctness of an interpretation which would ascribe to ????, here, and in other pa.s.sages, the signification of going forth, viewed as an action. The pa.s.sages quoted by _Winer_ in favour of the signification, _egressus_, [Pg 489] are the following: 1. Hos. vi. 3, where it is said of the Lord ???? ???? ?????, "firm like the morning-dawn is His going forth." But ???? is there, not the action, but the place and the time of the going forth, as is evident from the word "firm" also. 2. Ezek. xii. 4: "And thou shalt go forth at even in their sight, ?????? ????." Several interpreters agree that ???? here signifies the kind and mode of the going forth. _Vatablus_ says, "It denotes the deportment of him who goes forth, and means, Thou shalt go forth in sorrow, and indignant."
But it is better, with _Havernick_, to refer it to the time: "According to the goings forth of prisoners, at the time when emigrants of this kind prefer to go forth from their places." 3. Num. x.x.xiii. 2: "And Moses wrote down ?? ???????, "the places of their goings out."" 4. Ps.
xix. 7, it is said of the sun: ???? ????? ?????, "from the end of the heaven is his going forth," which is tantamount to--The end of the heaven is the place from which he goes forth. 5. 1 Kings x. 28: ?????
?????? ??? ????? ??????, which _De Wette_ translates, "And the export of the horses which Solomon had, (was) from Egypt." But a more accurate translation is, "And the place of coming forth of the horses which Solomon had was Egypt," or, more literally still, "from Egypt,"--a concise mode of expression for, "The place from which the horses of Solomon came forth was Egypt,"--just as in the preceding example. In proof of the signification, "action of going out," _Ch. B. Michaelis_ refers, moreover, to 2 Sam. iii. 25, where _De Wette_ translates, "Thou knowest Abner, the son of Ner; he came to deceive thee, and to see thy going out and thy coming in, and all that thou doest." But a more accurate translation would be, "The place from which thou goest out, and to which thou art going;" compare Ezek. xliii. 11. In all other pa.s.sages--and these are rather numerous--the signification "place of going out," or "that which goes out," is quite obvious. Even _Caspari_ grants that the signification "place of going out" has, _a priori_, the greatest probability in its favour.--To this it may be added, that the signification "place of going out" is recommended here, even by the contrast with what precedes, inasmuch as there Bethlehem, is mentioned as the place from which the Euler in Israel is to come forth. With this place of going out, another and a higher one is contrasted. This contrast also shows us how the ?? [Pg 490] in ???? and ???? ???? must be understood, viz., in the same manner as ?? in ???; for the evident reference of ??????? to ??? ?? shows that it must correspond with it.
Hence the literal translation would be, "And His places of going out are from the times of old, from the days of eternity," which is equivalent to--The places from which He goes forth are the times of old, the days of eternity,--just as in the two pa.s.sages, Ps. xix. 7; 1 Kings x. 28. The ?? might very well have been omitted; but its insertion here has arisen chiefly from a desire to make the reference to the corresponding clause outwardly also more perceptible. This reference shows also, that the explanation of ?? by _prae_, which was proposed by _Poc.o.c.ke_ and others, is inadmissible, besides involving an absurdity, inasmuch as nothing can be _before_ eternity; while, on the other hand, this reference alone affords a satisfactory explanation of the plural. According to it, the words, "From the time of old, from the days of eternity," contain a gradation. _First_, the existence of the Messiah before His birth in time, in Bethlehem, is pointed out in general; and _then_, in contrast with all time, it is vindicated to eternity. This could not fail to afford a great consolation to Israel.
He who hereafter, in a visible manifestation, was to deliver them from their misery, was already in existence,--during it, before it, and through all eternity.
HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION.
1. AMONG THE JEWS.
This History, as to its essential features, might, _a priori_, be sketched with tolerable certainty. From the nature of the case, we could scarcely expect that the Jews should have adopted views altogether erroneous as to the subject of the prophecy in question; for the Messiah appears in it, not in His humiliation, but in His glory--rich in gifts and blessings, and Pelagian self-delusion will, _a priori_, return an affirmative answer to the question as to whether one is called to partake in them. But, on the other hand, the prophecy contains a twofold ground of offence which had to be removed, and explained away at any [Pg 491] expense. One of these, the eternity of the Messiah--which was in contradiction to the popular notions, and conceivable only from a knowledge of His G.o.dhead--could not but exist at all times; while the second of these--the birth at Bethlehem--made its appearance, and exercised its influence, only after the birth of Christ. That this should be set aside, was demanded by two causes.
_First_, there was the desire of depriving the Christians of the proof, which they derived from the birth at Bethlehem, for the proposition that He who had appeared was also He who was promised. And, _secondly_, there was the difficulty of any longer deriving from Bethlehem the descent of Christ, after, by an ordinance of Hadrian (compare _Reland_, S. 647), all the Jews had been expelled from Bethlehem and its neighbourhood. This difficulty was strongly urged against them by Christian controversialists; compare _Tertullian cont. Jud._ c. xiii., "How then can the Ruler be descended from Judah, and how can He come forth from Bethlehem, as, in the present day, there is not one of Israel left there, of whose family Christ may be born?" The actual history furnishes facts and details which only confirm and enlarge what, in its essential features, we have sketched _a priori_.
1. The reference to the Messiah was, at all times, not the private opinion of a few scholars, but was publicly received, and acknowledged with perfect unanimity. As respects the time of Christ, this is obvious from Matt. ii. 5. According to that pa.s.sage, the whole Sanhedrim, when officially interrogated as to the birth-place of the Messiah, supposed this explanation to be the only correct one. But if this proof required a corroboration, it might be derived from John vii. 41, 42. In that pa.s.sage, several who erroneously supposed Christ to be a native of Galilee, objected to His being the Messiah on the ground that Scripture says: ?t? ?? t?? sp??at?? ?a?d ?a? ?p? ????e? t?? ????, ?p?? ??
?a?d, ? ???st?? ???eta?. But even after Christ had appeared, the interest in depriving the Christians at once of the arguments which, in their controversies, they derived from this pa.s.sage, was not sufficiently strong to blind the Jews to the evident indications contained in this pa.s.sage, or to induce them to deprive themselves of the sweet hope which it afforded. This, it is true, would be the case nevertheless, if we were to rely upon, and believe in the a.s.sertion of _Chrysostom_ (_Hom._ 7, [Pg 492] in Matt. c. 2, in _Nov. Test._, t. i.
p. 80, ed. Frcf.): "Some of them, in their impudence, a.s.sert that this prophecy has a reference to Zerubbabel;" of _Theodoret_ (on this pa.s.sage): "The Jews have tried to refer this to Zerubbabel, which evidently fights against the truth;" of _Theophylact_ (on Matt. ii.); and of _Euthymius Zigabenus_ (in iv. _Evang._ t. 1, p. 61, ed. Mat.).
But the supposition is here forced upon us--a supposition which, in another case also (compare remarks on Zech. ix. 9, 10), we must acknowledge to be well-founded--that the Fathers, having in their controversies with the Jews sometimes met a reference to Zerubbabel, forced it upon the Jews, even when the latter themselves refused it.
And there can be the less difficulty in admitting this supposition, as the apparently fourfold testimony may be easily reduced to a single one, viz., to that of _Chrysostom_. If these statements had any truth in them, some traces, at least, of this interpretation must be found among the Jews themselves. This, however, is not the case. All the Jewish interpreters adhere to the Messianic interpretation, and in this they are headed by the Chaldee, who paraphrases the words ??? ?? ??? in this way: ??? ???? ??? ?????, _i.e._, From thee Messiah shall go out before me.
2. A twofold method has been tried to remove the first ground of objection mentioned above. In ancient times, they gave their full sense to the words, "Of (or from) the days of eternity," but subst.i.tuted the name of the Messiah for His person. This we meet with as early as in the Chaldee, who says: ????? ???? ??????? ????? ????, _i.e._, "Whose name is said (or called) from the days of old, from the days of eternity." Thus also the _Pirke R. Elieser_, ch. iii., where, with a reference to the pa.s.sage before us, the name of the Messiah is mentioned among the seven things created before the world existed, viz., along with the Law, h.e.l.l, Paradise, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, Repentance; compare _Schottgen_ ii. S. 213. According to _Eisenmenger_ i. S. 317, the same, with some change, is found in the Talmud, _Tract. Pesachim_, fol. 54, col. i., and _Nedarim_ f. 39, c. 2.
We cannot, in that explanation by the Chaldee, understand "name" in its emphatic signification, in which it often occurs in Scripture, viz., as an expression and image of the substance,--a signification in which the "name" of the Messiah would be equivalent to "the glory of the Messiah," or to "the Messiah [Pg 493] in His glory." This is evident from the ????, _i.e._, "said" or "spoken," of the Chaldee, which does not allow of our thinking of the creation of a substance; and not less from the consideration, that if this signification of "name" were a.s.sumed, the aim and object which he had in view in subst.i.tuting "name"
for "person" at all, would have been missed. The name of the Messiah expresses His nature, the idea of His existence. The creation or p.r.o.nouncing of this name marks, accordingly, the rise of this idea in G.o.d,--His forming the decree of redemption by the Messiah. By this explanation--which we again meet with, afterwards, in _Calvin_, and which we shall then consider more minutely--a mere existence in thought, was subst.i.tuted for the real existence of the Messiah,--His predestination, for His pre-existence.--But in aftertimes they came still further down. To supply "the name," was too arbitrary to admit of their resting satisfied with such an explanation. Almost unanimously they now came to the supposition, that the words of the pa.s.sage under consideration merely marked the descent of the Messiah from the ancient, royal house of David. Thus _Abenezra_: "All this is said of David; the words also, "His goings out are of old," refer to David."