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 מוצאתיו 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 ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ." But this circumstance 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, Tremellius, and Junius, who, with Piscator also, limit the going forth to the relation to created things only, are contradicted by מימי עולם, by which the going forth is placed beyond the beginning of creation; and Cocceius, by the fact that the מלאך יהוה in the Old Testament, differently from the Λόγος in the New Testament, appears always as going forth from God, 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 circumstance 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 circumstance, 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 מ, 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. מ 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 מ, 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 מוצא, here, and in other passages, the signification of going forth, viewed as an action. The passages quoted by Winer in favour of the signification, egressus, are the following: 1. Hos. vi. 3, where it is said of the Lord כשחר נכון מוצאו, "firm like the morning-dawn is His going forth." But מוצא 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, כמוצאי גולה." Several interpreters agree that מוצא 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 Hävernick, 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. xxxiii. 2: "And Moses wrote down את מוצאיהם, 'the places of their goings out.'" 4. Ps. xix. 7, it is said of the sun: מקצה השמים מוצאו, "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: ומוצא הסוסים אשר לשלמה ממצרים, 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 passages—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 מן in מקדם and מימי עולם must be understood, viz., in the same manner as מן in ממך; for the evident reference of מוצאתיו to יצא לי 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 passages, Ps. xix. 7; 1 Kings x. 28. The מן 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 מן by præ, which was proposed by Pococke 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 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 Godhead—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 passage, 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 passage, several who erroneously supposed Christ to be a native of Galilee, objected to His being the Messiah on the ground that Scripture says: ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ καὶ ἀπὸ Βηθλεὲμ τῆς κώμης, ὅπον ἦν Δαβίδ, ὁ Χριστὸς ἔρχεται. 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 passage, was not sufficiently strong to blind the Jews to the evident indications contained in this passage, 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 assertion of Chrysostom (Hom. 7, in Matt. c. 2, in Nov. Test., t. i. p. 80, ed. Frcf.): "Some of them, in their impudence, assert that this prophecy has a reference to Zerubbabel;" of Theodoret (on this passage): "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 ממך לי יצא in this way: מנך קדמי יפק משיחא, 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 substituted the name of the Messiah for His person. This we meet with as early as in the Chaldee, who says: דשמיה אמיר מלקדמין מיומי עלמא, 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 passage before us, the name of the Messiah is mentioned among the seven things created before the world existed, viz., along with the Law, Hell, Paradise, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, Repentance; compare Schöttgen 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 in His glory." This is evident from the אמיר, 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 assumed, the aim and object which he had in view in substituting "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 pronouncing of this name marks, accordingly, the rise of this idea in God,—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 substituted 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 passage 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." 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 pass., Wittenb. 1722, S. 6 ff. We could not urge against this exposition that מוצאות 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 יצא, 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 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 hoar 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, 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 passage 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 circumstance 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 passage 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 עילם 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, God 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 קדם and ימי עילם here designate merely the ancient time. All which that passage 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 passage in which the eternal existence of Wisdom is spoken of in a similar manner.
3. That, in the prophecy under consideration, Bethlehem is 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 circumstance 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 assert 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 assertion 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, Breshith Rabba (compare the passages 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 עפל בת־ציון by "darkness of the daughter of Zion" (עפל being confounded with אפל), 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 passage 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 passages of the Old Testament. This concealment of the Messiah is mentioned as early as in the Dialogus cum 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, and hence in the second century, the fiction was already fully developed, we need only compare the account in Breshith 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 destitute 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 passages 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 circumstance that, formerly, no one ever thought that it was even possible to explain the passage 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. Cæteris 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 passage, as thus understood, fills up a blank in the Messianic prophecy,—and that from the whole analogy, 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, ποῦ ὁ Χριστὸς γεννᾶται; 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 passage 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 passage under review to the parallel passage 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 to the highest glory, so, in the passage 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 circumstance, 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 passage. 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).