[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 assertion 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 passage. 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 against the Jews the Messianic dignity of Christ, from the circumstance that He was, in accordance with the passage, born at Bethlehem—might, indeed, entitle 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 passage, 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 Kuehnöl (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? God Himself has borne witness by facts against this explanation; for He ordered the circumstance 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 God 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 passage has been explained in the strictest sense, of the historical Christ; and the attempts of the Rationalistic interpreters to divest that 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 God 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 passage, 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 circumstance 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 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 God. 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 Godhead 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 God 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 multitude 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 Pococke. 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 analogy 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 passage 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., asserts that it refers indefinitely to 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, illustrious 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 assumed, 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 מוצאתיו) 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 passage 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 repetition, he has substituted 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 מוצאתיו) 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.

3. The Jewish assertion, 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 asserted 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 assertion 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 circumstance, 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 virgin, which is subjoined in ver. 22, with the words: τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ. Even the ὅλον proves that all which precedes is mentioned solely with a view to the prophecy. The παρερμηνεία of Olshausen which refers the ὅλον to the whole, in contrast with the particular, can be accounted for only from the embarrassment 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, καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, correspond exactly with καὶ καλέσουσι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ. The Evangelist explains the latter name by μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός, which, again, cannot be without an object, for the name of Jesus (Gottheil, God-Salvation) has, with him, the same signification. We pass 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 passage 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 God." Israel was called to preserve the truth of God in the midst of error, to proclaim among the Gentiles the mighty acts of God, and to be His messenger and ambassador. 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 passages 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 Antitype;—if this relation was not accidental, but designed by God, 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 remarkable coincidence which, by divine Providence, generally exists betwixt the destinies of typical persons, and those of the Antitype, 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 circumstance 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 God, 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 God, 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 God 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. xxxi. 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, constitutes the essence of that passage 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 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: τεθνήκασι γὰρ πάντες οἱ ζητοῦντές σου τὴν ψυχήν. 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 God 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 God. 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: ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται (compare, on these words, the remarks on Is. xi.). The particular circumstances which are mentioned, viz., that Joseph had the intention of settling in Judea, but received from God the command to go into Galilee, are designed only to make it more perceptible that the fulfilment of this prophecy was willed by God.

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 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 circumstance, 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 circumstance, 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, ἵνα πληρωθῇ. 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 passages 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 passages, 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 prophesied by a figurative representation in these Old Testament passages 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 passages. 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 mass of heathen nations who were, at a subsequent period, to do homage to the Messiah. They were the ambassadors, as it were, of the heathen world, to greet the new-born King, just as the shepherds, whom God 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 passage 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 passage, Matt. ii. 6: Καὶ σὺ Βηθλεέμ, γῆ Ἰούδα οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰουδα· ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου, τὸν Ἰσραήλ. The first thing which demands our attention is γῆ Ἰούδα for the Ephratah of the original. The reason of this deviation is to be sought for in the circumstance, 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 as that at the close. As regards the grammatical exposition of γῆ Ἰούδα, 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 בית־לחם יהודה, for: Bethlehem situated in the land of Judah. The assertion of many interpreters, that γῆ 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: καὶ σὺ Βεθλεέμ, οἶκος Ἐφραθά (thus without an article. Cod. Vatic.). Fritzsche thinks that οἶκος 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 οἶκος, 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 principalities 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 passage 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 clearly and definitely. On such deviations, Calvin strikingly remarks: "Let the reader always attend to the purpose for which the Evangelists quote Scripture passages, 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 צעיר he puts the Feminine ἐλαχίστη; and, on the other hand, he renders באלפי by ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσι, which, in a way not to be mistaken, suggests this representation. Fritzsche announces himself as the man who would heal this fœdum solœcismum which had not hitherto been remarked by any one. He proposes to read: Καὶ σὺ Βεθλεὲμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα,—and thou Bethlehem, by no means the smallest part of the land of Judah, art," etc. But altogether apart from the arbitrary change of γῆ Ἰούδα,—which certainly no one could ever have been tempted to put for the more simple τῆς Ἰουδαίας,—the personification could even then not have been maintained, and the fœdus solœcismus would still remain. Even although the ἐλαχίστη be understood in accordance with the "elegantissimus Græcorum usus," Bethlehem must, after all, be treated as a thing—as a town. Nor is the case much improved by the assistance which Fritzsche immediately afterwards endeavours to give to the text: καὶ σὺ Βεθλεὲμ, γῆ Ἰουδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν ταῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα, "among the principal towns of the families in Judea." Is there an instance in which αἱ ἡγεμόνες means the "principal towns?" Moreover, the relation of ἡγεμόσιν to the subsequent ἡγούμενος, which requires the Masculine, has been overlooked.—Micah personifies Bethlehem from the outset. Matthew first introduces Bethlehem as a town, but afterwards passes to the personification by speaking of the ἡγεμόνες; instead of the tribes. For this he had a special reason in the regard to the subsequent ἡγούμενος. 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 assumed, that in Micah also a contrast occurs which, as to the sense, is altogether similar. It serves, at the same time, for a proof against the assumption 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 בישראל of Micah is paraphrased by: ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου, τὸν Ἰσραήλ. 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 ὅπου ἦν Δαβίδ, 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 circumstance 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 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.