_Aberbanel_ (_Praec. Sal._ p. 62): "The goings out of the family from which that Ruler is to be descended are of old, and of the days of eternity, _i.e._, of the seed of David, and the rod of Jesse, which is of Bethlehem-Judah." On the similar expositions of _Kimchi_ and others, compare _Frischmuth l.c._, and _Wichmannshausen_, _Dissert. on the pa.s.s._, Wittenb. 1722, S. 6 ff. We could not urge against this exposition that ?????? is erroneously understood either as "going out,"
or, as "family;" and that, in the latter signification, the _usus loquendi_, as well as the evident reference to ???, are disregarded.
For that might be given up, and yet the explanation would stand as to its substance. Even then, it might be translated: "His goings out (in the signification of "places of going out") are the days of old, the days of eternity," _i.e._, the very ancient times; so that there would be ascribed to the time something which belongs to that which exists in it, viz., to the family of David. But the following reason is decisive against it. Every one will admit that the eternal origin of the Messiah forms a far more suitable contrast with His temporal origin from Bethlehem, than His descent from the ancient family of [Pg 494] David.
The latter would come into consideration here, only on account of its antiquity; a reference to its dignity is not made by even a single word, nor is the family itself mentioned at all in the text; but the attribute of antiquity, and that alone, is nevertheless taken from it, and ascribed to the Messiah. But now, we cannot at all see what pre-eminence in this respect the family of David enjoyed above other families, and how, therefore, it could have been an honour for the Messiah to be descended from it. How strange would, according to this explanation, be the words, "of the days of eternity," which, as a climax, are added to, "of days of old!" What reason could there have existed for the prophet to exalt, by a hyperbolical expression, a limited time to eternity? As regards His human origin, the Messiah had not the slightest advantage over other mortals, as far as the age of the family was concerned. What, then, was the use of such a hyperbole in a matter which, in this connection, was of no consequence, and which could not in any way serve for His exaltation? It is just this, however, which after all is required by the contrast. What kind of consolation would thereby have been afforded to the people? Certainly no one doubted that the Messiah would have parents, and ancestors reaching back to a h.o.a.r antiquity. But was there anything gained by this, since He had it only in common with the lowest and feeblest among the people? How does this shallow, unmeaning, and yet so much pretending contrast in reference to the Messiah, suit the other contrast in reference to Bethlehem, which is so brilliant and exalted?
And now what reason is there for preferring that explanation which is so unnatural, to the other, which is so natural, so obvious, which presents a contrast so beautiful, and opens up to the Covenant-people a source of consolation so rich? Is it this, perhaps, that the eternity of the Messiah is not mentioned anywhere else in the Old Testament? But the eternity of the Messiah is only a single feature of His divine nature, and just that feature which, according to the context, came here into special consideration. _Caspari_ very correctly remarks: "The prophet pointed out just the feature of the pre-existence, and of the eternal existence of the Messiah, and these only, because the announcement of His origin from the little Bethlehem led just to this, and to this alone." The intimation of the divine nature of the Messiah is, [Pg 495] however, as old as the Messianic prediction in general; compare, concerning this, my remarks on Gen. xlix. 10. In a more definite shape, and in a more distinct form, it appears as early as in the Messianic Psalms. But it is found, in sharply defined outlines, in Isaiah, and specially in ix. 5, where, just as in the pa.s.sage before us, the divine glory of the Messiah is contrasted with the lower aspect of His existence; and the closer the points of contact are between Isaiah and Micah, the less can we refuse to acknowledge such here. This circ.u.mstance also must prevent us from doing so, that immediately afterwards, in ver. 3 (4), the divine dignity and nature of the Messiah meet us anew. This pa.s.sage requires, as its foundation, the one upon which we are now commenting. Moreover, the eternity which, in contrast with His birth in time, is here ascribed to the Messiah, corresponds with the eternity of His existence and dominion after His birth, which is repeatedly ascribed to the Messiah, and, most prominently, in Is.
ix. 5, where He receives the name "Father of eternity," _i.e._, He who will be Father in all eternity.--Some one, perhaps, would infer from the subjoined words, "of the days," that ???? is here to be understood in a limited sense. But who does not know that, when eternity is predicated in contrast with a limited duration of time, just to make the contrast the more striking, those measures of time, which are properly applicable to the latter only, are transferred to the former?
For in order to be able to compare things, a certain resemblance between them must necessarily be first established. Thus in Dan. vii.
9, G.o.d is called "the Ancient of Days;" thus it is said of Him in Ps.
cii. 28, "Thy years have no end;" and the New Testament frequently speaks in the same way of eternal times. We are, in our thoughts, generally so much bound to time, that we can conceive of eternity only as "time without time." It cannot by any means be satisfactorily or incontrovertibly proved from vii. 14, 20, that ??? and ??? ???? here designate merely the ancient time. All which that pa.s.sage proves is, that such a sense is possible--and this, no one probably has ever doubted--but not that it is applicable in this connection. If the connection be considered, Prov. viii. 22, 23, will then be acknowledged to be parallel,--a pa.s.sage in which the eternal existence of Wisdom is spoken of in a similar manner.
3. That, in the prophecy under consideration, Bethlehem is [Pg 496]
marked out as the birth-place of the Messiah, was held as an undoubted truth by the ancient Jews. This appears from the confident reply of the Sanhedrim to the question of Herod as to the birth-place of Christ. And it is not less evident from John vii. 42. The circ.u.mstance that, after the tumult raised by Barcochba, not only Jerusalem, but Bethlehem also, was, by the Emperor Adrian, interdicted to the Jews as a residence, renders it probable that this interpretation was not given up immediately after the death of Christ. But even after this edict of Adrian, and after the difficulty had appeared in all its force, they did not, for a considerable time, venture to a.s.sert that the prophecy knew nothing of Bethlehem as the birth-place of the Messiah. It is with the later Rabbinical interpreters only, who were better skilled in the art of distorting, that this a.s.sertion is found. The ancient Jews endeavoured to evade the difficulty by the fable, dressed up in various ways, that the Messiah was indeed born at Bethlehem, on the day of the destruction of the temple, but that, on account of the sins of the people. He was afterwards carried away by a storm, and had, since that time, remained, unknown and concealed, in various places. Thus speak the Talmud, the very ancient commentary on Lamentations, _Echa Rabbati_, and the very old commentary on Genesis, _Bres.h.i.th Rabba_ (compare the pa.s.sages in _Raim. Martini_, S. 348-50; _Carpzovius_ and _Frischmuth_, l.c.). Indeed, we can trace this fiction still farther back. Closely connected with it is the explanation of ??? ??????? by "darkness of the daughter of Zion" (??? being confounded with ???), _i.e._, hidden on account of Zion. This explanation is found as early as in Jonathan. The concealment of the Messiah is only an isolated feature of this fiction. The fiction itself, indeed, has its roots, not only in the pa.s.sage under review, but also in the endeavour to remove the contradiction between the destruction of the temple, and the firm expectation of the Messiah"s appearing during the time of its existence,--an expectation founded on pa.s.sages of the Old Testament.
This concealment of the Messiah is mentioned as early as in the _Dialogus c.u.m Tryphone_ (No. 8 _Bened. Ven._; compare also p. 114): "Christ, even if he be born, and exist anywhere, is unknown, and neither manifests himself in any way, nor has he any power until Elijah come, etc." In order to be convinced that, at the time when this book was composed, [Pg 497] and hence in the second century, the fiction was already fully developed, we need only compare the account in _Bres.h.i.th Rabba_. After Elijah, at the time of the birth of the Messiah, had visited his mother in Bethlehem Judah, and consoled her who was afflicted on account of the destruction of the temple, which was contemporaneous with her delivery, he withdraws. "After five years had elapsed, he said, I will go and see the Saviour of Israel, whether he be nursed up in the manner of kings or of ministering angels. He went and found the woman standing at the door of her house, and said to her: My daughter, in what state is that boy? And she answered him: Rabbi, did I not tell thee that it is a bad thing to nurse him, because, on the day on which he was born, the temple was destroyed? But this is not all; for _he has feet and walks not, he has eyes and sees not, he has ears and hears not, he has a mouth and does not speak at all, and there he lies like a stone._"
The Rabbinical interpreters felt, however, that this fiction, being dest.i.tute of all warrant, was of no use to them in their controversies with Christians; and it was to these that their view was chiefly directed. Hence they sought to remove the difficulty by means of the interpretation; and as all had the same interest, the result was that the distorted explanation became as generally prevalent, as the correct one had formerly been. _Kimchi_, _Abenezra_, _Abendana_, _Abarbanel_, and, in general, all the later Rabbins (compare the pa.s.sages in _Wichmannsh._ l. c. S. 9), maintain that Bethlehem is mentioned here as the birth-place of the Messiah indirectly only,--in so far only as the Messiah was to be descended from David the Bethlehemite. There cannot well be a prepossession in favour of this exposition. The circ.u.mstance that, formerly, no one ever thought that it was even possible to explain the pa.s.sage under review in any other way than that, in it, Bethlehem is spoken of as the birth-place of the Messiah, and that this exposition was discovered and introduced, only at a time when the other could no longer be received, raises, _a priori_, strong suspicions against it. And this suspicion is fully confirmed by a closer examination. _Caeteris paribus_, that explanation which here finds Bethlehem mentioned as the birth-place of the Messiah, would deserve the preference, even for this reason, that the pa.s.sage, as thus understood, fills up a blank [Pg 498] in the Messianic prophecy,--and that from the whole a.n.a.logy, we are led to expect that no such blank would be left. Should the family from which Christ was to descend, the time at which He was to appear, the part of the country which was pre-eminently to enjoy His blessings, and so many other things concerning Him, have been so minutely foretold, and not the place where He was to be born? Even the question of Herod, p?? ? ???st?? ?e???ta?; shows how much reason we have, _a priori_, to expect such a prediction.
He supposes that, as a matter of course, the birth-place of the Messiah must have been determined in the Old Testament; he only inquires about the place where. But the matter is not so, that there could be any choice at all betwixt the two explanations. If we suppose that it is only the descent of the Messiah from the family of David which is here announced, the contrast between the natural littleness of Bethlehem, and its divine greatness, would be very far from being appropriate.
After the family of David had, for centuries, resided and ruled at Jerusalem, the natural littleness of Bethlehem came very little into further consideration. It was not this which could render improbable the appearance of the Messiah. It was only the downfall of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the King"s Castle, which were in opposition to the belief in the Messiah"s appearance. And, in like manner, the glory, resulting from His appearance, was not imparted to Bethlehem, but to Zion. Hence it is that, in iv. 8, where the prophet wishes to declare the descent of the Messiah from the family of David, he contrasts the glorification of Zion, and especially of the King"s Castle, with its previous degradation.--_Further_--There is not a single instance to be found of a place, in which the ancestors of some one resided centuries ago, being spoken of as the place of his descent. Is there a single pa.s.sage in which Bethlehem is mentioned as the native place of any of the kings from the Davidic dynasty who were born at Jerusalem, or as the native place of Zerubbabel who was born at Babylon? For further details concerning this argument, _Huetius_, _dem. Evang._ p 579 _ed.
Amstel._ 1680, maybe compared.--_Further_--The relation of the pa.s.sage under review to the parallel pa.s.sage Is. viii. 23 (ix. 1) must not be overlooked. As in the latter text, the _province_ is marked out which, by the appearance of the Messiah, is to be raised from the deepest degradation [Pg 499] to the highest glory, so, in the pa.s.sage under consideration, the _place_ is designated.--_Finally_--If any doubt yet remained, it must surely be removed by the fulfilment,--by the fact that Christ was actually born at Bethlehem; and this so much the more, that this fact cannot be looked upon as an accidental circ.u.mstance, for Bethlehem was not the residence of His parents.
But the Jews endeavoured, in another way, to wrest from Christian controversialists the advantage afforded by this pa.s.sage. They denied altogether that Christ was born at Bethlehem. Thus _Abr. Peritsol_ (compare _Eisenmenger_, l. c. S. 259): "Since they called Him Jesus the Nazarene, and not Jesus the Bethlehemite, it is to be inferred that He was born at Nazareth, as it is written in the _Targum_ of Jerusalem."
Upon this point, however, there existed no unanimity among them. _David Gans_, in the Book _Zemach David_, mentions, without any remark, Bethlehem as the birth-place of the Messiah (S. 105 of _Vorst"s_ translation).
2. AMONG THE CHRISTIANS.
The conviction that Christ is the subject of the prophecy under consideration was so much the prevailing one in the Christian Church, that the mention of any of its defenders is altogether superfluous. It were more interesting to learn who were the opponents of it. The a.s.sertion of _Huetius_, l. c., that _Chrysostom_, _Theophylact_, and _Euthymius Zigabenus_ attempted an explanation by which it was referred to Zerubbabel, rests on a misapprehension resulting from want of memory. _Huetius_ himself ascribes to them that very view which they most decidedly oppose as the one alleged to be held by the Jews.
But this interpretation was actually advanced by _Theodorus_ of _Mopsueste_, whose exegetical tendencies it admirably suited. Along with several other interpretations, it was condemned by the Council at Rome, under Pope Vigilius; compare _H. Prado_ on Ezek. _prooem. Sect._ 3, and _Hippol. a Lapide in prophet. min. prooem._, and in the remarks on this pa.s.sage. The immediate successor of _Theodorus_ was _Grotius_.
His book _de veritate relig. Christ._--where in i. 5, -- 17 (p. 266, ed.
Oxon. 1820), he proves [Pg 500] against the Jews the Messianic dignity of Christ, from the circ.u.mstance that He was, in accordance with the pa.s.sage, born at Bethlehem--might, indeed, ent.i.tle us to infer that he was not confirmed in this opinion. But perhaps he only imagined that, in a popular work, he needed not to be so careful, and that, even according to his own views, he had retained a certain right to this use of the pa.s.sage, inasmuch as he considered Zerubbabel as a type of Christ, and the birth of the latter at Bethlehem as an outward representation of His descent from the Davidic family. It was at the commencement of the Rationalistic period, when an easier mode of evading the reference to Christ had not as yet been discovered, that the reference to Zerubbabel was seized upon. It is found in _Dathe_ and _Kuehnol_ (_Mess. Weissagungen_, S. 88). The latter, however, changed his opinion (compare Commentary on Matt. ii.), after such a mode had been discovered, by referring the prophecy to the _ideal_ Christ. From that time onwards, the reference to the _ideal_ Christ is found in almost all the Rationalistic interpreters. The distinctness with which the marks here given, viz., the birth in time at Bethlehem, and the eternity of the origin, lead to the _historical_ Christ; and the difficulty of explaining these when the prophecy is referred to the _ideal_ Messiah, are rendered sufficiently evident by the efforts which all these interpreters, without exception, have made to explain these marks away. Who does not discover, in these very efforts, a confession of their force, on the supposition that they can be, as they have already been, demonstrated to have an actual existence? G.o.d Himself has borne witness by facts against this explanation; for He ordered the circ.u.mstance in such a manner that, by the birth of Christ at Bethlehem, the prophecy was fulfilled. But how can a fulfilment be spoken of by those who do not believe in prophecy, but see in it human conjectures only, since the very idea of prophecy necessarily implies divine inspiration? How should G.o.d have impressed His own seal upon mere human conjectures, as He would have done by effecting an apparent fulfilment? He would Himself have surely become the author of error by so doing. _Finally_,--We shall afterwards see that, in the New Testament, this pa.s.sage has been explained in the strictest sense, of the historical Christ; and the attempts of the Rationalistic interpreters to divest that [Pg 501] quotation of its import, will furnish us with a proof, that it is not truth for which they are concerned, but the removal only, at any rate and cost, of a fact which is irreconcilable with their system. All that has been advanced by them (_e.g._, by _Justi_ and _Ammon_) against the reference to the historical Christ, rests on their misapprehension of Christ"s Regal office. The Regal office of Christ is by no means a poetical image, but the most _real_ among all kingly offices; yea. His kingdom is that from which all others derive their existence and reality. It rests, _further_, on their ignorance as regards the final history of the Messianic kingdom. Of the whole history of Christ, they know a single fragment only, viz.. His first appearance in His humiliation; and even this they know, and can know, only very imperfectly. His invisible dominion existing even now, they do not recognise, because it is beheld with the eye of faith only; and His future visible manifestation of it they do not believe, because they have not experienced in their own hearts the invisible power of Christ, which is a pledge and earnest of this visible success. It rests, _finally_, on their ignorance of the prophetic vision, which necessarily requires that the kingdom of G.o.d under the Old Testament should serve as a substratum for the description of the kingdom of Christ. It can be demonstrated, from the intimations contained in this pa.s.sage, in which the Messiah appears in His glory, how little it is contradictory to others, in which He is represented in His lowest humiliation. Through humiliation to glory,--this is the proposition which lies at the foundation of the announcements of the prophet concerning the destinies of the Covenant-people, and which he distinctly expresses in regard to Bethlehem. That this proposition is applicable to the Head not less than to the members,--to Him who was born, not less than to the place where He was born, appears from the circ.u.mstance that He was to be born at the time of the deepest degradation of the Davidic dynasty, iv. 8, and not at Jerusalem, where His Royal ancestors resided, but at Bethlehem.
2. As regards the last words of this verse, the same twofold false interpretation which we noticed among Jewish interpreters, is found among Christian expositors also. One of these, which, besides in other Jewish interpreters, occurs in _Jarchi_ ("_and His goings out_, etc.; just as in Ps. lxxii. 17, it was said that His name [Pg 502] should continue as long as the sun;--thus _Jonathan_ also translated it"), changes the eternal origin of Christ into an eternal predestination.
This view was held by _Calvin_: "These words," he says, "signify that the rising of the Prince who was to rule the nations would not be something sudden, but long ago decreed by G.o.d. I know that some pertinaciously insist that the prophet speaks here of Christ"s eternal essence, and as far as I am concerned, I _willingly_ acknowledge that Christ"s eternal G.o.dhead is here proved to us; but as we shall never succeed in convincing the Jews of this, I prefer to hold that the words of the prophet signify that Christ would not thus suddenly proceed from Bethlehem, as if G.o.d had formerly decreed nothing concerning Him." He speaks indeed of his "_willingly_ acknowledging;" but that he was not very much in earnest in his willingness, appears from what follows: "Others advance a new and ingenious view," etc. It is only from the relation of _Calvin_ to the earlier interpreters, that we can account for his advancing an exposition so very arbitrary. These had, _ad majorem Dei gloriam_, advanced a mult.i.tude of forced expositions.
Calvin, who very properly hated such interpretations ("I do not like such distorted explanations," he says, in his commentary on Joel ii.), always regarded them with suspicion; and whensoever there was the appearance of any motive which may possibly have guided them in adopting a certain explanation, he himself, rather than concur with them, falls upon the most unnatural explanations in return. The best refutation of his exposition is to be found in _Poc.o.c.ke_. It is absurd to suppose that the actual going forth of Christ from Bethlehem is here contrasted with one which is merely imaginary,--the action, with a mere decree. It is without any a.n.a.logy that some one should be designated as actually existing, or going forth, who exists merely in the divine foreknowledge, or the divine predestination.--The other view, which regards the last words of this verse as referring to the Messiah"s descent from the ancient family of David, is found among all interpreters who, from some cause, were prevented from adopting the sound one. It is thus with the Socinians (compare, _e.g._, _Volkel de vera religione_, l. 5, c. 2), some of whom, in order the more surely to set aside a pa.s.sage so damaging to their system, supposed that, according to its proper sense, it did not refer to Christ at all; _e.g._, _Jo. Crellius_, who, in his exposition of Matt. ii., a.s.serts that it refers indefinitely to [Pg 503] some one of the family of David who, after the Babylonish captivity, was to rule the nation. It is thus with _Grotius_ also, who says: "He (Zerubbabel) has his origin from the days of old, from ancient times, _i.e._, he has descended from a house, ill.u.s.trious from ancient times, and governing for five hundred years."
Thus it is with all the Rationalistic interpreters. Among recent faithful Christian expositors, _Jahn_ also (_Vatic. Mess._ 2, p. 147) has been led away to the adoption of this opinion. But that he felt strongly, at least, one of the difficulties which stood in its way, viz., that if the reference to the family of David be a.s.sumed, it is the mere age of the family, apart from every preference on the ground of its dignity, which is mentioned to magnify the Messiah--appears from the strange exegetical process which he employs for the purpose of removing it. He supplies at the end, _celebris est_:--"His origin or His family (thus he erroneously explains ???????) is _celebrated_ from ancient times." One may see in this case how much, in particulars, an individual still remains dependent upon a community, even although, upon the whole, he may have freed himself from such dependence. For it is certainly from this dependence alone that the fact can be accounted for, that this commentator rejected an exposition which must have been to him the most agreeable, which has everything in its favour, and nothing against it,--and chose another instead, the nakedness of which he was obliged to cover as well as he could, while, in so doing, he was violating his _exegetical convictions_. _Ewald_ also permits himself to introduce into the pa.s.sage what is necessary for the sense which he has made up his mind to adopt. In place of the simple antiquity, he puts: "Descended from the ancient, venerable royal family of David." The view taken by _Hofmann_ is peculiar: "He comes from the family of David, just as it had happened long ago, when that family still belonged to the community of Bethlehem,--from the community of Bethlehem does He come." _Weiss. u. Erf._ 1, S. 251. In order to get at this rather superfluous repet.i.tion, he has subst.i.tuted the manner in which the family of David formerly existed, for "the days of old, and eternity."
The "origins" (this is the sense which he gives to ???????) cannot be attributed to that portion only of David"s family which dwelt at Bethlehem; for He was descended from them indirectly only, through the royal family of David.
[Pg 504]
3. The Jewish a.s.sertion, that in the prophecy there is no allusion to the birth at Bethlehem of Him who was to come, could not fail to be repeated by _Grotius_ and his supporters, inasmuch as Zerubbabel was not born at Bethlehem. "Zerubbabel," he says, "is rightly said to have been born at Bethlehem, because he was of the family of David which had its origin there." This is, in like manner, repeated by the Rationalistic interpreters, in order to avoid the too close coincidence of the prophecy with the actual history of Christ, _e.g._, by _Paulus_ and _Strauss_ (both, in their "Life of Jesus"), and by _Hitzig_. It is remarkable, however, that, in order the more securely to attain this object, some have gone so far even as to follow the example of several Jews, and of the infamous _Bodinus_ (_de abditis rerum sublimium arcanis_, l. 5, compare the refutation by _Huetius_, l.c. p. 701), and to characterize the evangelical account concerning the birth of Christ at Bethlehem as unworthy of credit. Such has been the case with _Ammon_ especially.
THE QUOTATION IN MATT. II. 6.
Several interpreters, _Paulus_ especially, have a.s.serted that the interpretation of Micah which is here given, was that of the Sanhedrim only, and not of the Evangelist, who merely recorded what happened and was said. But this a.s.sertion is at once refuted when we consider the object which Matthew has in view in his entire representation of the early life of Jesus. His object in recording the early life of Jesus is not like that of Luke, viz., to communicate historical information to his readers. The historical event which he could suppose to be already known to _his_ readers, comes into his view only in so far as it served for the confirmation of Old Testament prophecies. Hence it is that he touches upon any historical circ.u.mstance, just when the mention of it can serve for the attainment of this purpose. Thus, the design of the genealogy is to prove that, in accordance with the prophecies of the Old Testament, Christ was descended from Abraham, through David. Thus all which he mentions in chap. i. 18-21, serves only to prepare the way for the quotation of the prophecy of Isaiah, that the Messiah was to be born of a [Pg 505] virgin, which is subjoined in ver. 22, with the words: t??t? d? ???? ?????e? ??a p??????. Even the ???? proves that all which precedes is mentioned solely with a view to the prophecy. The pa?e???e?a of _Olshausen_ which refers the ???? to the whole, in contrast with the particular, can be accounted for only from the embarra.s.sment into which this commentator could not here avoid falling by his interpretation of the prophecy of Isaiah, according to which a semblance of agreement is, with the utmost difficulty, made out betwixt it, and the event in which Matthew finds its fulfilment. Moreover, all the single features of the account have too distinct a reference to the prophecy which is to be afterwards quoted. It is from a regard to it, that he is most anxious to point out that Christ was conceived by a pure and immaculate virgin, that, in ver. 25, he expressly adds that before the birth of Jesus, Mary had had no connubial intercourse with Joseph, because Immanuel was not only to be conceived, but born of a virgin. The words, ?a??se?? t? ???a a?t?? ??s???, correspond exactly with ?a? ?a??s??s? t? ???a a?t?? ?a?????. The Evangelist explains the latter name by e?? ??? ? Te??, which, again, cannot be without an object, for the name of Jesus (_Gottheil_, _G.o.d-Salvation_) has, with him, the same signification. We pa.s.s over, in the meantime, the section ii. 1-12. In ver. 13 there follows the account of the flight into Egypt with a reference to Hos. xi. 1. This pa.s.sage refers, in the first instance, to Israel; but Israel does not here come into view according to its carnal condition, but only according to its divine destination and election,--as is evidently shown by the designation "Son of G.o.d."
Israel was called to preserve the truth of G.o.d in the midst of error, to proclaim among the Gentiles the mighty acts of G.o.d, and to be His messenger and amba.s.sador. In this respect Israel was a type of the Messiah, and the latter, as it were, a concentrated and exalted Israel.
It is from this relation alone that many pa.s.sages in the second part of Isaiah can be explained; and in Is. xlix. 3, the Messiah is expressly called Israel. If, then, there existed between Israel and the Messiah such a relation of type and Ant.i.type;--if this relation was not accidental, but designed by G.o.d, it will, _a priori_, appear to us most probable that the abode of the children of Israel in Egypt, and the residence of Christ in the same country, have a relation to each other.
This supposition rests upon the perception of the [Pg 506] remarkable coincidence which, by divine Providence, generally exists betwixt the destinies of typical persons, and those of the Ant.i.type, so that the former may be considered as an actual prophecy of the latter. But this coincidence must here not be sought in the stay in the same country only; this circ.u.mstance served only to direct attention to the deeper unity, to represent it outwardly. It was not from their own choice, but from a series of the most remarkable dispensations of Providence, and on the express command of G.o.d, that Israel went to Egypt. They thereby escaped from the destruction which threatened them in the land for which they were really destined. They were there prepared for their destiny; and when that preparation was finished, they were, agreeably to the promise of G.o.d, which was given to them even before they went down into Egypt, introduced into that land in which their destiny was to be realized. The same providence of G.o.d which there chose the means for the preservation of His kingdom, which was at that time bound up with the existence of the typical Israel, chose the same means now also when their hopes concentrated themselves in the person of their future Head. It was necessary that Egypt should afford Him a safe abode until the danger was over.--There then follows, in vers. 16-19, the account of the murder of the children of Bethlehem, with a sole reference to Jer. x.x.xi. 15, and just on account of it. Here, too, we must not think of a simple simile only. In Jeremiah, the mother of Israel laments over the destruction of her children. The Lord appears and comforts her. Her grief is, at some future time, to be changed into joy. She is to see the salvation which the Lord will still bestow upon her sons. That which, therefore, const.i.tutes the essence of that pa.s.sage is the contrast of the merited punishment which Israel drew down upon themselves by their sins, with the unmerited salvation which the mercy of the Lord will bestow upon them. Now, quite the same contrast is perceptible in the event under consideration. In the same manner as the tyranny of the Chaldeans, so that of Herod also was a deserved punishment for the sins of the Covenant-people. Herod, by birth a foreigner, was, like Nebuchadnezzar, a rod of correction in the hand of the Lord. The cruel deed which, with divine permission, he committed at the very place in which the Saviour was born, was designed actually and visibly to remind the Covenant-people [Pg 507] of what they had deserved by their sins,--was intended also to be a matter-of-fact prophecy of the impending more comprehensive judgment, and thus to make it manifest that so much the more plainly, the sending of the Messiah was purely a work of divine mercy, destined for those only who would recognise it as such. From this it appears that the Old Testament event, to which the prophet, in the first instance, refers, viz., the carrying away into captivity, and the deliverance from it, were prophecies by deeds of those New Testament relations (in which, however, the typical relation of the murder of the children at Bethlehem, as we have stated it, must not be overlooked);--that both were subject to the same laws, that both were a necessary result of the working of the same divine mercy, and that hence, a declaration which, in the first instance, referred to the first event, might at the same time be considered as a prophecy of the second.--Vers. 19 and 20 have for their foundation Exod. iv. 19, where the Lord, after having ordered Moses to return to Egypt, subjoins the words: te????as? ??? p??te? ??
??t???t?? s?? t?? ?????. That which the Lord there speaks to Moses, and that which, here. He speaks to Joseph, proceed from the same cause.
Like all servants of G.o.d under the Old Testament, Moses is a type of Christ. There is the same overruling by divine Providence, the same direction of all events for the good of the kingdom of G.o.d. Moses is first withdrawn from threatening danger by flight into distant regions.
As soon as it is time that he should enter upon his vocation, the door for the return to the scene of his activity is opened to him. Just so is it with regard to Christ.--Vers. 21-23 have for their sole foundation the prophetic declaration: ?t? ?a???a??? ?????seta?
(compare, on these words, the remarks on Is. xi.). The particular circ.u.mstances which are mentioned, viz., that Joseph had the intention of settling in Judea, but received from G.o.d the command to go into Galilee, are designed only to make it more perceptible that the fulfilment of this prophecy was willed by G.o.d.
From this summary it sufficiently appears that the object of Matthew in chap. i. and ii. was by no means of an historical, but rather of a doctrinal nature; and since this is the case, all the objections fall to the ground, which _Sieffert_, solely by disregarding this object of the writer, has lately drawn from these [Pg 508] chapters against the genuineness of Matthew"s Gospel. And if we apply this to the question before us, it follows that the section ii. 1-12 must likewise have an Old Testament foundation. That this foundation can, in the first instance, be sought for only in the prophecy of Micah, becomes evident from the circ.u.mstance, that Bethlehem is, in ver. 1, mentioned as Christ"s birth-place. If we now take into consideration the fact that the Evangelist does not mention at all that the parents of Jesus formerly resided at Nazareth, just because it had no reference to any prophecy of the Old Testament (it is merely by designating, in the account of the birth of Jesus, Bethlehem as the place of His parents, that he intimates that that which had been previously reported had happened in a different place),--and that, on the other hand, he mentions the residence of the Holy Family at Nazareth, after their return from Egypt, evidently for the sole purpose of bringing it into connection with a prophecy,--it becomes quite evident that it is not from any historical interest that this circ.u.mstance, which was known to all his readers, is mentioned. To this it may be further added, that the account given in vers. 1-6, especially the communication of the answer of the Sanhedrim to the question of Herod, would, according to the proved object and aim of Matthew, stand altogether without a purpose, unless he had considered the answer of the Doctors as being in harmony with the truth, and hence as superseding his usual formula, ??a p??????. In order to show how much Matthew was guided by a regard to the Old Testament, and how frequently, at the same time, he contented himself with a mere allusion, supposing his readers to be acquainted with the Old Testament--as is quite evident from vers. 20 and 23--we must further consider the second Old Testament reference which he has in view in vers. 1-12. The pa.s.sages to which he refers are Ps. lxxii.
10: "The kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts;" and Is. lx. 6: "All they from Sheba shall come, they shall bring gold and incense, and they shall show forth the praises of the Lord." The representation, in these and other similar pa.s.sages, is, in the first instance, a figurative one. Gifts are in the East a sign of allegiance. The fundamental thought is this: "The most distant, the wealthiest, and the most powerful nations of the earth shall do homage to the Messiah, and consecrate to Him themselves and all that they have." But that which is [Pg 509] prophesied by a figurative representation in these Old Testament pa.s.sages began to be fulfilled by the symbolical action of the Magi, by which the image was represented externally; for the gold, incense, and myrrh which they consecrated to the new-born King of the Jews symbolized the homage which they offered to Him; and these gifts are certainly expressly mentioned by Matthew for this reason, that they occur in the Old Testament pa.s.sages. As this event formed, in one respect, the beginning of the fulfilment, so, in another, it formed a new prophecy by deeds,--the type of a new, greater, and more proper fulfilment. The Apostles considered these Magi as the types and representatives of the whole ma.s.s of heathen nations who were, at a subsequent period, to do homage to the Messiah. They were the amba.s.sadors, as it were, of the heathen world, to greet the new-born King, just as the shepherds, whom G.o.d Himself had chosen, were the deputies of the Jews. In my work on Balaam, pp. 480-482, I have proved that, even with these references, the contents of the pa.s.sage are not yet exhausted,--that there still remains a prominent point, viz., the star which the Magi saw, and that this refers to Balaam"s prophecy of the star proceeding from Jacob.
But if it be established that the view of the prophecy under consideration, which the Evangelist reports as that of the Sanhedrim, must, at the same time, be considered as his own, we must also suppose that the quotation, even in its particulars, is approved by him, and that the view which was first advanced by _Jerome_ ("I believe that he wished to exhibit the negligence of the scribes and priests, and wrote it down as it had been spoken by them"), and recently by _Paulus_, cannot be made use of in order to justify the deviations,--if any should indeed be found. In order to ascertain this, we must examine more closely the quotation in its relation to the original text of the pa.s.sage, Matt. ii. 6: ?a? s? ????e?, ?? ???da ??da?? ??a??st? e? ??
t??? ??e?s?? ???da? ?? s?? ??? ??e?e?seta? ????e???, ?st?? p??a?e?
t?? ?a?? ??, t?? ?s?a??. The first thing which demands our attention is ?? ???da for the Ephratah of the original. The reason of this deviation is to be sought for in the circ.u.mstance, that the place appears as Bethlehem Judah in 1 Sam. xvii. 12, where it is mentioned with a reference to David. The deviation at the beginning has, accordingly, the same purpose [Pg 510] as that at the close. As regards the grammatical exposition of ?? ???da, it stands for: Bethlehem situated in the land of Judah,--a short mode of expression which is common in geographical and other similar designations, just as in the Old Testament also we find ??????? ?????, for: Bethlehem situated in the land of Judah. The a.s.sertion of many interpreters, that ?? has here the signification "town," is as objectionable as the attempt to change the text, made by _Fritzsche_, who advances nothing on the whole verse that can stand examination. The Evangelist here as little follows the LXX. as he does the Hebrew text. The former has here: ?a? s?
?e??e?, ????? ?f?a?? (thus without an article. _Cod. Vatic._).
_Fritzsche_ thinks that ????? had been brought into the text from the margin. But the translator evidently considered "Ephratah" to be the proper name of Caleb"s wife (1 Chron. ii. 19, 50, iv. 4), from whom others also, _e.g._, _Adrichomius_ (compare _Bachiene_ ii. 2, -- 190), derived the name of the place, and did nothing else than express more definitely, by the subjoined ?????, the relation of dependence which, as he supposed, was indicated by the Genitive. The apparent contradiction, that the prophet calls Bethlehem small, whereas the Evangelist speaks of it as by no means small, has already been so satisfactorily explained by ancient and modern interpreters (compare, _e.g._, _Euthymius Zigabenus_ _l. c._ p. 59: "Although in appearance thou art small, yet, truly, thou art by no means the least among the princ.i.p.alities of the tribe of Judah;" _Michaelis_: "Micah, looking to the outward condition, calls it small; Matthew, looking to the birth of the Messiah, calls it by no means small, inasmuch as, by that birth, that town was in a wonderful manner adorned and exalted"), that we need not dwell upon it. We only remark, that the supposition of _Paulus_, that the members of the Sanhedrim understood the verse interrogatively--"Art thou, perhaps, too small," etc.--receives no confirmation from the pa.s.sage in _Pirke Eliezer_, c. 3, which he quotes in favour of it, but which he saw only in the Latin translation of _Wetzstein_; for, in the original text, the verse is quoted in literal agreement with the Hebrew original; compare _Eisenmenger_, i. p. 316. A comparison with the Chaldee, who with similar liberty paraphrases, "Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, shalt soon be numbered," clearly shows that the deviation has arisen rather from an endeavour to express the sense more [Pg 511] clearly and definitely. On such deviations, _Calvin_ strikingly remarks: "Let the reader always attend to the purpose for which the Evangelists quote Scripture pa.s.sages, that they may not scrupulously insist upon single words, but be satisfied with this,--that the Scriptures are never distorted by them to a different sense."--Micah introduces Bethlehem in the person of its representative; but this figure Matthew has dropped at the beginning.
Instead of the Masculine ???? he puts the Feminine ??a??st?; and, on the other hand, he renders ????? by ?? t??? ??e?s?, which, in a way not to be mistaken, suggests this representation. _Fritzsche_ announces himself as the man who would heal this _fdum solcismum_ which had not hitherto been remarked by any one. He proposes to read: ?a? s? ?e??e?
t?? ???da?a? ??da?? ??a??st? e? ?? t??? ??e?s?? ???da,--"and thou Bethlehem, by no means the smallest part of the land of Judah, art,"
etc. But altogether apart from the arbitrary change of ?? ???da,--which certainly no one could ever have been tempted to put for the more simple t?? ???da?a?,--the personification could even then not have been maintained, and the _fdus solcismus_ would still remain. Even although the ??a??st? be understood in accordance with the "_elegantissimus Graecorum usus_," Bethlehem must, after all, be treated as a thing--as a town. Nor is the case much improved by the a.s.sistance which _Fritzsche_ immediately afterwards endeavours to give to the text: ?a? s? ?e??e?, ?? ???da, ??da?? ??a??st? e? ?? ta?? ??e?s??
???da, "among the princ.i.p.al towns of the families in Judea." Is there an instance in which a? ??e??e? means the "princ.i.p.al towns?" Moreover, the relation of ??e?s?? to the subsequent ????e???, which requires the Masculine, has been overlooked.--Micah personifies Bethlehem from the outset. Matthew first introduces Bethlehem as a town, but afterwards pa.s.ses to the personification by speaking of the ??e??e?; instead of the tribes. For this he had a special reason in the regard to the subsequent ????e???. Bethlehem, although outwardly small, is, notwithstanding, when regarded from a higher point of view, even in the present by no means small among the _leaders_ of Judah, for, from it, in the future, the great _leader_ of Judah shall proceed. This relation, which is so evident, must the rather be a.s.sumed, that in Micah also a contrast occurs which, as to the sense, is altogether similar. It serves, at the [Pg 512] same time, for a proof against the a.s.sumption that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in the Aramean language,--a view which is, generally, opposed also by the free handling of the Old Testament text in the whole quotation. The inconsistency in the use of the personification is, further, the more easy of explanation, since it is altogether of an _ideal_ character, and, substantially, person and town are not distinguished.--The last words in Micah, "And His goings forth," etc., have been omitted by Matthew, because they were not needed for his purpose, which was to show that, according to the prophecies of the Old Testament, the Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem. On the other hand, the ?????? of Micah is paraphrased by: ?st?? p??a?e? t?? ?a?? ??, t?? ?s?a??. These words refer to 2 Sam. v. 2: "And the Lord says to thee, _Thou shalt feed My people Israel_, and thou shalt be a prince over Israel." They point out the typical relation between the first David who was born at Bethlehem, and the second David, the Messiah.
With respect to the relation betwixt prophecy and its fulfilment, we must here still make a general remark. It is everywhere evident (compare the remarks on Zech. ix. 9), that the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Old Testament forms a secondary purpose of the events of the New Testament, but that in none of the latter this fulfilment is the sole object. Every one, on the contrary, has its significance apart from the prophecy; and it is by this significance that prophecy and history are equally governed. This general remark is here also confirmed. The birth of Christ at Bethlehem testified, in one respect, for the divine origin of the prophecy of the Old Testament, and, in another, that Jesus is the Christ. But its main object, altogether independent of this, was to represent, outwardly also, the descent of Christ from David. This was recognised by the Jews even, at the time of Christ, as appears from the addition ?p?? ?? ?a?d, John vii. 42. Of the two seats of the Davidic family, viz., Bethlehem and Jerusalem, the former is chosen, partly, because, from its external littleness, it was, generally, very suitable for prefiguring the lowliness of the Messiah at the outset--a circ.u.mstance which is expressly pointed out by the prophet himself--and partly, because it was peculiar to the family of David during its obscurity; whilst Jerusalem, on the contrary, belonged to their regal condition,--and the Messiah [Pg 513] was to be born in the fallen tabernacle of David, to be a rod from the cut off stem of Jesse, Is. xi. 1. That this reference also was in the view of the prophet, seems to be evident from a comparison of iii. 12, and iv.
8, 9, 14. At all events he considered the family of David as having altogether sunk at the time of the Messiah"s appearing. The very threatenings in chap. i.-iii. imply the destruction of the Davidic kingdom. This meets us, very distinctly, in chap. iv.
Ver. 2. "_Therefore will He give them up until the time that she who is hearing hath brought forth; and then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the sons of Israel._"
The description of what the Messiah is to bestow upon the Covenant-people begins in this verse, and is carried on through the whole chapter. By ??? the close connection of v. 1 with vi. 9-14 is indicated. _Michaelis_ remarks: "Because this is the counsel of G.o.d, first to afflict Zion, on account of her sins, and, afterwards only, to restore her through the Messiah to be born at Bethlehem." In chap. iv.
9-14, it is implied that the giving up will not terminate _before_ His birth; in v. 1, that it will come to an end _with_ His birth. The whole time described in iv. 9-14 is a time of affliction, of giving up Israel to the world"s power in a threefold form of its manifestation. In iv.
14, however, the affliction has reached its highest point, and the lucid interval, mentioned in vers. 12, 13, has fully expired. It is only when we look back to v. 1 alone, that the "therefore" with which our verse opens is not explained, inasmuch as there it is said only, that with the Messiah deliverance and salvation would come, but not that the affliction would continue until He should come.--??? is similarly used in 2 Chron. x.x.x. 7: "And be not ye like your fathers, and like your brethren who trespa.s.sed against the Lord G.o.d of your fathers; therefore He gave them up to desolation (????? ????), as you see." With respect to the words, "Until the time that she who is bearing hath brought forth," there is an essential difference of opinion as to the explanation of the main point. One cla.s.s of interpreters--comprehending _Eusebius_ and _Cyril_, and by far the greatest number of the ancient Christian expositors; and among the more recent, _Rosenmuller_, _Ewald_, _Hitzig_, _Maurer_, and _Caspari_--understand [Pg 514] by "her who is bearing," the mother of the Messiah. Another cla.s.s understands thereby the Congregation of Israel. The latter, however, differ from each other as to the signification and import of the figure of the birth. Some--_Abendana_, _Calvin_, and _Justi_--suppose the _tertium comparationis_ to be the joy following upon the pain. Others--_Theodoret_, _Tarnovius_ ("until Israel, like a fruitful mother, has brought forth a numerous progeny"), _Vitringa_ (in his _Commentary on Revel._ S. 534)--suppose it to be the great increase. Let us first decide between these two modifications of that view which refers the words to the Congregation of Israel. The former--the joy following after the pain--appears to be inadmissible for this single reason, that among the very numerous pa.s.sages of the Old Testament where the image of a birth is employed, there does not occur even one, in which the joy following after the pain is made prominent, as is the case in the well-known pa.s.sage in the New Testament. On the contrary, in all the pa.s.sages which come into consideration on this point, it is rather the pain accompanying the birth which is considered. Thus Mic. iv. 10; Is. xxvi. 17; Jer. iv. 31: "For I hear a voice as of a woman in travail, anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first-born child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, she groaneth, spreadeth her hands: Woe to me, for my soul is wearied, through them that kill;" x.x.x. 6, xlix. 24; Hos. xiii. 13.
To consider the pain alone, however, as the _tertium comparationis_, is inadmissible, because, in that case, we would obtain the absurd meaning: the suffering shall continue until the suffering cometh. It is likewise impossible to understand the bringing forth as the highest degree of affliction,--so that the sense would be: the Lord will give them up until the distress reaches its highest point,--because this meaning could apply only in the event of the lower degrees, the pains before the birth, being also mentioned. They who hold and defend the second modification of this view, can indeed refer to, and quote, a large number of parallel pa.s.sages--almost all of them from the second part of Isaiah--where this image occurs with a similar signification.
Thus, _e.g._. Is. liv. 1: "Shout for joy, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into shouting and exult, thou that didst not travail; for more numerous are the sons of the desolate than the sons of the married wife, saith the Lord;" xlix. 21, 22, lxvi. 7-9. But we must nevertheless prefer [Pg 515] to this explanation, that which refers the words to the mother of the Messiah, for the following reasons. 1. If the words were to be referred to the Congregation of Israel, we should expect the Article before ?????. For the Congregation of Israel is substantially mentioned in what immediately precedes; she is only a personification of those who are to be given up. 2. It is true that, frequently, the personification is not consistently carried out; but the circ.u.mstance that here, in the same sentence, the children of Israel are spoken of in the plural ("He will give _them_ up"), and that no trace of a personification is found in what follows, but that, on the contrary, the children of Israel are mentioned expressly, makes the pretended personification appear in rather an abrupt manner, so that such an a.s.sumption would be admissible in a case of necessity only. 3. If referred to the Congregation of Israel, the relation of the Messiah to that great event, and epoch, is not intimated by a single word. Of Him ver. 1 speaks, and of Him vers. 3-5. How then can it be that in ver. 2 there should all at once be a transition to the general Messianic representation? 4. The suffix in ????, which refers to the Messiah, requires that He should be indirectly mentioned in what precedes; and such is the case, only when the ????? is she who is to bring forth the Ruler announced in ver. 1. 5. It appears from the reference to Gen. x.x.xv., which we have already pointed out and proved, that the prophet has in view one who is to bring forth in Bethlehem.
Bethlehem, which had in ancient times already become remarkable by a birth, is in future to be enn.o.bled by another birth, infinitely more important. 6. The comparison of Is. vii. 14, where likewise the mother of the Messiah is mentioned; compare the remarks on that pa.s.sage. 7, and lastly--The evident reference of "Until the time that she who is bearing hath brought forth" to "From thee shall come forth," suggests the mother of the Messiah. That she is designated as "she who brings forth," may be explained from the circ.u.mstance that she comes into view here in a relation which is altogether one-sided, viz., only as regards the one event of the birth of the Messiah.--Among the blessings which the Messiah is to confer upon the Congregation of the Lord, there is first of all viewed the fundamental blessing, the condition of all others, viz., the change which He is to effect in the disposition of the Covenant-people. [Pg 516] It is this which, above and before everything else, needs to be changed, if Israel is not any more to be given up; for Israel which is so only by name and in appearance, is the legitimate prey of the world.--By the Brethren of the Messiah, the members of the Old Covenant-people, His brethren according to the flesh, can alone be understood. There is no Old Testament a.n.a.logy for referring the expression to the Gentiles. We are led to the reference to Israel by the connection with the first member of the verse. The brethren are such as have become the Messiah"s brethren by the circ.u.mstance that He has been born of the Bethlehemitish woman "who is to bring forth" (_Caspari_). We are led to it, _further_, by v. 1, according to which, the Messiah is to be Ruler in Israel; and, _still further_, by the fundamental pa.s.sage in Ps. xxii. 23: "I will declare Thy name unto my brethren," where, according to the address in ver. 24, the brethren are all the descendants of Israel, among whom a great awakening is to be produced.--The construction of ??? with ?? may be explained by the remark of _Ewald_: "?? stands in its primary local signification with verbs also, when the thing moves to another thing, and remains upon it." Of a material return the verb ??? with ?? is thus used in Prov. xxvi. 11, Eccles. i. 6;--of a spiritual return, 2 Chron.
x.x.x. 9: ?????? ?? ???? "when ye return to the Lord," properly, "upon the Lord;" and Mal. iii. 24 (iv. 6): "And he makes return the hearts of the fathers to the sons, ?? ????,"--which latter pa.s.sage has a striking resemblance to the one under review. In the latter signification ???
must be taken here also.--By the "sons of Israel," here, as ordinarily, the whole of the Covenant-people are signified, and that by its highest and holiest name. From this holy communion, the wicked--the souls which, according to the expression of the Lord, are cut off from their people--are separated and dissevered; compare my commentary on Ps.
lxxiii. 1. The whole description of the prevailing corruption, and especially vii. 1, 2, show us to what an extent this separation existed at the time of the prophet. But, by the Saviour, this separation is to be abolished, and the lost and wandering are to be brought back to the communion of the church,--a work which, according to Rom. xi., will be perfected in the future only.[1]
[Pg 517]
Ver. 3. "_And He stands and feeds in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord His G.o.d; and they dwell, for now shall He be great unto the ends of the earth._"
In this verse we are told what the Saviour shall do for awakened and, thus, inwardly united Israel. "He stands," has here not the signification of "He abides," but belongs merely to the graphic description of the habit of the shepherd; compare Is. lxi. 5: "And strangers stand and feed your flocks." The shepherd stands, leaning upon his staff, and overlooks the flock. The connection of "He feeds"
with "in the strength of the Lord," we cannot better express than _Calvin_ has done in the words: "The word "to feed" expresses what Christ will be towards His people, _i.e._, towards the flock committed to Him. He does not exercise dominion in the Church like a formidable tyrant who keeps down his subjects through terror, but He is a Shepherd, and treats His sheep with all the gentleness which they can desire. But, inasmuch as we are surrounded on all sides by enemies, the prophet adds: "He shall feed in the strength," etc.; _i.e._, as much power as there is in G.o.d, so much protection there will be in Christ, when it is necessary to defend and protect His Church against enemies.
We may learn, then, from this, that we may expect as much of salvation from Christ as there is strength in G.o.d." The great King is so closely united to G.o.d, that the whole fulness of divine power and majesty belongs to Him. Such attributes are never given to any earthly king.
Such a king has, indeed, strength in the Lord, Is. xlv. 24; "The Lord giveth strength to His king, and exalteth the horn of His anointed," 1 Sam. ii. 10; but the whole strength and majesty of G.o.d are not his possession. The pa.s.sage [Pg 518] in Is. ix. 5 (6) is parallel,--where the Messiah is called ?? ????, G.o.d-hero.--The "name of G.o.d" points to the rich fulness in deeds, by which He has manifested the glory of His nature. The Messiah will be the brightness and image of this His glory,--a glory which is manifested by acts, and not a glory which is inactive and concealed. "They dwell" forms a contrast to the disquietude and scattering, and we are, therefore, not at liberty to supply "safely" before it. The last words are deprived of their meaning and significance by explanations such as that of _Dathe_: "His name shall attain to great renown and celebrity." The ground of the present rest and safety of the Congregation of the Lord rather is this,--that her Head has now extended His dominion beyond the narrow limits of Palestine, over the whole earth; compare iv. 3.--2 Sam. vii. 9 cannot here be compared, as there the _name_ of the Lord is not spoken of as it is here. That the "being great" here implies real dominion (_Maurer_: _auctoritate et potentia valebit_), which alone can afford a pledge for the dwelling in safety, is shown also by the fundamental pa.s.sages Ps. ii. 8, lxxii. 8; compare Zech. ix. 10. In Luke i. 32 the pa.s.sage before us is referred to. The "now" does not by any means form a contrast with a former condition of the Messiah, but with the former condition of the Congregation when she did not enjoy so powerful a Ruler.
Ver. 4. "_And this_ (man) _is peace. When a.s.shur comes into our land, and when he treads in our palaces, we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight princes of men._ Ver. 5. _And they feed the land of a.s.shur with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in its gates; and He protects from a.s.shur when he comes into our land, and when he treads within our borders._"
"And this man (He whose glory has just been described) is peace,"--He bestows that which we have so much needed, and longed for with so much anxiety in these troublous times before His appearing. In a similar manner, and with reference to the pa.s.sage before us, it is said in Ephes. ii. 14: a?t?? ?st?? ? e????? ???, compare also Judges vi.
24: "And Gideon built an altar there unto the Lord, and called it Jehovah-Peace, ???? ????." Abandoning this explanation, which is so natural, _Jonathan_, _Grotius_, _Rosenmuller_, and _Winer_ explain: "And _there_ will be peace to us,"--an interpretation, however, which is inadmissible even on philological grounds, ?? is nowhere used, either [Pg 519] as Adverb, loci = "here," or as Adverb, temp. = "then."
As regards the latter, such pa.s.sages as Gen. x.x.xi. 41--"These are to me twenty years," instead of, "twenty years have now elapsed"--are, of course, not at all to the purpose. But of such a kind are almost all the examples quoted by _Nolde_. In Esther ii. 13 ??? is used. The verb ???? in ver. 5 is likewise in favour of understanding ?? personally; compare also Zech. ix. 10: "And He shall speak peace unto the nations."--There can scarcely be any doubt that the words allude to the name of Solomon, and that the Messiah is represented in them as the Ant.i.type of Solomon. Upon this point there is the less room for doubt, because even Solomon himself called the Messiah by his name in the Song of Solomon; and in Is. ix. 5 (6) also, He is, with an evident allusion to the name of Solomon, called the Prince of Peace.--All which follows after these words, to the end of ver. 5, is only a particularizing expansion of the words: "And this (man) is peace." Interpreters have almost all agreed, that a.s.shur, the most dangerous enemy of the Covenant-people at the time of the prophet, stands here as a type of the enemies of the Covenant-people. Even _L. Baur_ has translated: "And though another a.s.shur," etc., with a reference to the pa.s.sage in _Virgil_ to which allusion had already been made by _Castalio_: "_Alter erit tum Tiphys et altera quae vehat Argo delectos heroas._" That the prophet, however, was fully conscious of his here using a.s.shur typically, appears from iv. 9, 10. For, according to these verses, the first of the three catastrophes which preceded the birth of the Messiah, proceeds from a new phase of the world"s power, viz., from the Babylonian empire, the rising of which implies the overthrow of the a.s.syrian. But the figurative element in the representation goes still farther. From ver. 9 ff.--according to which the Lord makes His people outwardly defenceless, before they become, in Christ, the conquerors of the world--it is obvious that the spiritual struggle against the world"s power is here represented under the image of the outward struggle, carried on with the sword. One might be tempted to confine the thought of the pa.s.sage to this: "The Messiah affords to His people the same protection and security as would a large number of brave princes with their hosts," inasmuch as the bestowal of these was, under the Old Testament, the ordinary means by which the Lord delivered His people. If, however, the spiritual character [Pg 520] of the struggle only be maintained, there is no sufficient reason for considering the seven and more shepherds and the princes as mere imagery, because, in the kingdom of Christ also, the cause of the kingdom of G.o.d is carried on by human instruments, whom He furnishes with His own strength.
The words, "This (man) is peace," and "He protects," in ver. 5, show indeed with sufficient distinctness, that, in the main, Christ is the only Saviour,--the shepherds, His instruments only,--and their world-conquering power, a derived one only. The