Volume I Part 27 (2/2)
The _littleness_ of Bethlehem is sufficiently evident from the circ.u.mstance of its being left out in the catalogue of the towns of the tribe of Judah, in Joshua (compare _Bachiene_, -- 192). This induced the LXX. to insert it in Josh. xv. 60 along with several other towns which had been omitted; and, in doing so, they were probably guided, not so much by a regard to its outward [Pg 483] importance, as by the interest which attached to it from the recollection of an event of former times (compare Gen. x.x.xv.), from its being the birth-place of David, and still more, from the prophecy under consideration, by which the eyes of the whole nation were directed to this place, outwardly so unimportant.
The a.s.sertion of _Jerome_, that the Jews omitted the name in the Hebrew text, in order that Christ might not appear as a descendant of the tribe of Judah, has received from _Reland_ (S. 643) a more thorough refutation than it deserved. _Keil_, in his commentary on Joshua, has lately renewed the attempt to prove, from internal reasons, the genuineness of the addition; but, from the whole condition of the Alex.
Version, it is very dangerous to trust to such arguments. The very reasons which _Keil_ brings forward in support of the addition, are just those which might have induced the LXX. to make it. The circ.u.mstance that they added to Bethlehem the name Ephratah, plainly indicates the reason which induced them to introduce Bethlehem specially. Bethlehem is likewise omitted in the catalogue of the towns of Judah, in Neh. xi. 25 ff., and can therefore have occupied among them a very low place only, although it is mentioned in Ezra ii. 21, Neh. vii. 26. In the New Testament, it is called a mere village (???, John vii. 42). _Josephus_, indeed, occasionally gives it the t.i.tle of a town (compare Luke ii. 4, 11); but, in other pa.s.sages, he designates it by ??????, _Ant._ v. 2, 8.--???? ????? means properly, ”little in reference to being,” instead of, ”too little to be,”--the wider expression being used to indicate the relations of the town to the being, where we use the more limited expression.--Instead of the ”thousands of Judah,” ??? ????? ought to have been employed, as it appears, in order strictly to maintain the personification. The representative of Bethlehem is too small to be numbered among the heads of Judah. Several expositors (_J. D. Michaelis_, _Justi_) have thereby been induced to point ??????????? instead of ??????????. But this supposed emendation is set aside by the consideration that ??????? is only the special designation of the Edomitish princes, and occurs in a general sense, only by way of _Catachresis_, in Zechariah, who lived at a time when the Hebrew language was nearly extinct. The most simple explanation is, that the prophet views the thousands, or the families of Judah, no less than the town Bethlehem, as _ideal_ existences; in which [Pg 484] case, the personification is maintained throughout.
Moreover, there would not be any insurmountable difficulty in the way of supposing that the prophet had given up the personification; for these are frequently not strictly adhered to by the prophets, who constantly pa.s.s from the figure to the thing prefigured. This may be at once seen from the preceding verse, in the first clause of which, Zion appears personified as a woman, while immediately afterwards there follows, ”against us.”--???, ”thousand,” is frequently used for designating a family, because the number of its members usually consisted of about a thousand; compare Num. i. 16, where it is said of the twelve princes of the tribes: ”Heads of the thousands of Israel are they;” Num. x. 4; Josh. xxii. 14, 21; Judg. vi. 15; 1 Sam. x. 19. On the division of Israel into thousands, hundreds, etc.--a division which existed before the time of Moses--compare what has been advanced in my Dissertations on the _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, ii. p. 341 sqq.
It is self-evident that the thought here is, that Bethlehem is too little to const.i.tute a thousand _by itself_. Communities, however, which were not sufficiently numerous to const.i.tute, by themselves, a generation or family, were reckoned with others, and formed with them an artificial generation, an artificial family; for the divisions of generations and families were, owing to the great significance which numbers had in ancient times, connected with numerical relations. An instance of this kind occurs in 1 Chron. xxiii. 11, 12, where it is said of four brothers that they had not sons enough, and were, for that reason, reckoned as one family only. Being merely _part_ of a generation, Bethlehem had no place among the generations. The sense is clearly this: Bethlehem occupies a very low rank among the towns of the Covenant-people,--can scarcely show herself in the company of her distinguished sisters, who proudly look down upon her.--It is altogether a matter of course that ?????, ”to go out,” may be used also of ”being born,” of ”descent,” inasmuch as this belongs to the general category of going out; compare, _e.g._, 2 Kings xx. 18. We must, however, confine ourselves to the general idea of ”going forth,”
”proceeding,” and not consider Bethlehem as the father of the Messiah.
In opposition to _Hofmann_, this is proved by _Caspari_, from Jer. x.x.x.
21: ”And their governor shall proceed from the midst of them;” and from Zech. x. 4.[Pg 485]--????? is without a definite subject. It is best to supply ”one,” which is evidently implied in what follows. The construction, which might otherwise appear somewhat strange, has been occasioned by the desire of making perceptible, by the very words, and their position, the contrast between the divine greatness and the natural littleness of Bethlehem:--
Thou art little to be among the thousands of Judah;-- From thee shall come forth unto me, to be a Ruler in Israel.
From a place which is too little to form a single independent member of the body, the head proceeds. From this contrast appears also the reason why it is said, ”Ruler in Israel,” while we should have expected to hear of the Ruler of Israel ?at? ??????,--a circ.u.mstance on which _Paulus_ lays so much stress in opposing the Messianic interpretation.--Had the prophet adopted the latter expression, not only would this contrast have been less striking, but the other also, which is likewise intended, viz., the contrast with the Judge of Israel, in the preceding verse, who loses his dignity. The prophet was, in the first instance, concerned more about the _genus_ than the _individual_,--more about the idea of dominion in general, than about the mode and kind of it. The individual is, afterwards, however, partly in this verse itself, partly in the following verse, so distinctly characterized, that he cannot be by any means mistaken. Nothing more, it is true, is implied in these words, than that, at some future time, there would come forth from Bethlehem a Ruler over all Israel; and if these words stood isolated, and if it could be proved that, after the time of Micah, there came forth from Bethlehem a Ruler over all Israel, besides the Messiah--a thing which, however, cannot be proved--then, indeed, it might be questionable which of the two to choose. _Caspari's_ exposition, ”Will _he_ come forth,” has this against it, that, in the preceding verses, the Messiah was not yet spoken of, and, hence, that He cannot simply be supposed as known; and least of all--if the acquaintance with Him were to be supposed from other pa.s.sages--could He have been introduced with a simple unaccented _he_: the ??? could not have been omitted in this case. The case in iv.
8 is but little a.n.a.logous, for the subject in ???? is there an indefinite one.--?? is, by several interpreters, referred to the prophet. Thus _Rosenmuller_, [Pg 486] following _Michaelis_, says, ”_To me_, _i.e._, for my good, the prophet says, in the name of his whole people.” But the reference to G.o.d is required by the contrast between human littleness and divine greatness. _Calvin_ remarks on it: ”By this word, G.o.d declares that His decree to give up the people was not such, that Tie should not be willing to restore them after some time. He therefore calls the faithful back to Himself, and reminds them of His counsel, just as if He said, 'I have indeed rejected you for a time, but not so as that I am not filled with compa.s.sion for you.'” The import of the ??, viz., that G.o.d could exalt that which was low, the believer saw, in a type, in David; and there is no doubt that the prophet was anxious indirectly to refer them to this type, and thereby to strengthen their faith in the promise, which appeared almost incredible. He (David) had been a native of the humble, little Bethlehem, the youngest among his brothers, without power, without renown. In order that the ?? might become the more evident, the Lord, at his election, gave such a direction to the circ.u.mstances, that this, his natural lowliness, might be most strikingly exhibited. It was G.o.d who raised him from being a shepherd of lambs, to be a shepherd of nations.
In contrast with the Messiah's human and lowly origin. His divine and lofty dignity is prominently brought out in the last words of the verse,--a contrast similar to that in the case of Bethlehem, to which the prophet thereby refers. Here also, the prophet has so clearly expressed the contrast by the words themselves, that, upon the _homines bonae voluntatis_ among the interpreters of all ages, it has most forcibly impressed itself. Thus, _e.g._, _Chrysostom_, _demonstratio adv. Judaeos et Gentiles, quod Christus sit Deus_, opp. T. V., p. 739: ”He exhibits both G.o.dhead and manhood. For in the words, 'His goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity,' His existence from all eternity is revealed; while in the words, 'Shall come forth the ruler who feeds My people Israel,' His origin according to the flesh is revealed.” A more minute inquiry into the meaning of these words must begin with the investigation of ???????. The greater number of interpreters agree in this, that ?????, the feminine form of the more common ???? here denotes the action of the going forth. But this is opposed by the following considerations. 1. The use of the plural.
Those especially [Pg 487] who here think of the eternal going forth of the Son from the Father, cannot by any means Justify it. Several among them consider it as _plur. majest._ Thus, _e.g._, do _Tarnovius_ and _Frischmuth_, in the _Dissert. de Nativitate Messiae_, in the remarks on this pa.s.sage, Jena 1661. But although such a plural exists, indeed, in Hebrew, and many traces of it are to be found (compare my _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, i. p. 267 ff.), it could appear here, of course, in the suffix only, not in the noun.
Others suppose that the plural stands here simply for the singular.
Now, there are, it is true, three cases in which such does apparently take place:--the first, when a definite individual out of the mult.i.tude is meant,--when accordingly, not the _number_, but the general idea only is concerned;--the second, when a noun in the plural gradually loses its plural signification, because the etymology and original signification have become indistinct;--the third, when the plural stands for the abstract. Not one of these cases, however, is applicable here. Those interpreters have most plausibly removed the difficulty who understand ??????? to be really a repeated act of going forth, and refer it to the Old Testament doctrine of the Angel of the Lord. Thus _Jerome_: ”Because He had always spoken to them through the prophets, and became in their hands the Word of G.o.d.” _Tremellius_ and _Junius_: ”The goings forth, _i.e._, the declarations and demonstrations of, as it were, a rising sun; He from the very beginning revealed and manifested Himself to all created things, by the light of His word, and the excellency of His works; just as the rising sun manifests himself from the moment of his rising, by the light and its effects.”
_Cocceius_: ”I cannot, however, be persuaded to believe that the plural ??????? is here used without emphasis. For the Son has not gone forth from the Father, like a man from a man, who begins to exist only when he is brought forth from a man, and when he goes forth, ceases to be brought forth and to go out. In all the days of eternity, the Son proceeds from the Father, and is the eternal ?pa??asa t?? d????
a?t??.” But this circ.u.mstance is, in general, against this explanation, that the contrast with the going forth from Bethlehem, which is completed in one act, does not admit of the mention of a manifold going forth, and that, in this contrast, the arising, the origin of the existence of the Messiah, can alone be thought of; while, more specially, _Jerome_, [Pg 488] _Tremellius_, and _Junius_, who, with _Piscator_ also, limit the going forth to the relation to created things only, are contradicted by ???? ????, by which the going forth is placed beyond the beginning of creation; and _Cocceius_, by the fact that the ???? ???? in the Old Testament, differently from the ????? in the New Testament, appears always as going forth from G.o.d, in relation to the world only. But although the ”time of old and the days of eternity” should be considered as the place of the going forth, yet the plural cannot be explained, as is done by _Caspari_, from the circ.u.mstance that ”a person is always descended from several;” for the transferring of such a _usus loquendi_ to a relation, to which in itself it is not applicable, could be admitted only when it could be demonstrated to be altogether common and firmly established. But the plural might indeed, although only with some difficulty, be vindicated and accounted for from the circ.u.mstance, that two points of going forth are mentioned, which, as it were, suppose a twofold act. 2. But even if the singular were used, the explanation of the act of going forth would not be admissible. It is contrary to the idea of nouns with ?, that they could be used as _nomina actionis_. It is only with writers living at a time when the language was dying out, that a few instances of this erroneous use can be found. ? denotes the place where, the instrument wherewith, the time wherein, and perhaps the way and manner whereby, something is done, or is. _Further_--It may signify also the thing itself which is done, or is; but, in no writer of the living and flouris.h.i.+ng language, does it ever denote the action itself. _Caspari_, indeed, attempts to prove that ”there occurs in the older books a number, by no means inconsiderable, of nouns with ?, which undeniably denote an action;” but what he has advanced on this point requires still to be minutely sifted, and to be more closely examined; compare, _e.g._, on Num. x. 2, my pamphlet on ”_The Day of the Lord_,” S. 32.
But we are quite satisfied with what is granted by _Caspari_ himself (compare _Ewald's Lehrbuch d. Hebr. Spr._ -- 160), that it is against the nature and common use of this form to denote the action. Even by this concession, a presumption is raised against the correctness of an interpretation which would ascribe to ????, here, and in other pa.s.sages, the signification of going forth, viewed as an action. The pa.s.sages quoted by _Winer_ in favour of the signification, _egressus_, [Pg 489] are the following: 1. Hos. vi. 3, where it is said of the Lord ???? ???? ?????, ”firm like the morning-dawn is His going forth.” But ???? is there, not the action, but the place and the time of the going forth, as is evident from the word ”firm” also. 2. Ezek. xii. 4: ”And thou shalt go forth at even in their sight, ?????? ????.” Several interpreters agree that ???? here signifies the kind and mode of the going forth. _Vatablus_ says, ”It denotes the deportment of him who goes forth, and means, Thou shalt go forth in sorrow, and indignant.”
But it is better, with _Havernick_, to refer it to the time: ”According to the goings forth of prisoners, at the time when emigrants of this kind prefer to go forth from their places.” 3. Num. x.x.xiii. 2: ”And Moses wrote down ?? ???????, 'the places of their goings out.'” 4. Ps.
xix. 7, it is said of the sun: ???? ????? ?????, ”from the end of the heaven is his going forth,” which is tantamount to--The end of the heaven is the place from which he goes forth. 5. 1 Kings x. 28: ?????
?????? ??? ????? ??????, which _De Wette_ translates, ”And the export of the horses which Solomon had, (was) from Egypt.” But a more accurate translation is, ”And the place of coming forth of the horses which Solomon had was Egypt,” or, more literally still, ”from Egypt,”--a concise mode of expression for, ”The place from which the horses of Solomon came forth was Egypt,”--just as in the preceding example. In proof of the signification, ”action of going out,” _Ch. B. Michaelis_ refers, moreover, to 2 Sam. iii. 25, where _De Wette_ translates, ”Thou knowest Abner, the son of Ner; he came to deceive thee, and to see thy going out and thy coming in, and all that thou doest.” But a more accurate translation would be, ”The place from which thou goest out, and to which thou art going;” compare Ezek. xliii. 11. In all other pa.s.sages--and these are rather numerous--the signification ”place of going out,” or ”that which goes out,” is quite obvious. Even _Caspari_ grants that the signification ”place of going out” has, _a priori_, the greatest probability in its favour.--To this it may be added, that the signification ”place of going out” is recommended here, even by the contrast with what precedes, inasmuch as there Bethlehem, is mentioned as the place from which the Euler in Israel is to come forth. With this place of going out, another and a higher one is contrasted. This contrast also shows us how the ?? [Pg 490] in ???? and ???? ???? must be understood, viz., in the same manner as ?? in ???; for the evident reference of ??????? to ??? ?? shows that it must correspond with it.
Hence the literal translation would be, ”And His places of going out are from the times of old, from the days of eternity,” which is equivalent to--The places from which He goes forth are the times of old, the days of eternity,--just as in the two pa.s.sages, Ps. xix. 7; 1 Kings x. 28. The ?? might very well have been omitted; but its insertion here has arisen chiefly from a desire to make the reference to the corresponding clause outwardly also more perceptible. This reference shows also, that the explanation of ?? by _prae_, which was proposed by _Poc.o.c.ke_ and others, is inadmissible, besides involving an absurdity, inasmuch as nothing can be _before_ eternity; while, on the other hand, this reference alone affords a satisfactory explanation of the plural. According to it, the words, ”From the time of old, from the days of eternity,” contain a gradation. _First_, the existence of the Messiah before His birth in time, in Bethlehem, is pointed out in general; and _then_, in contrast with all time, it is vindicated to eternity. This could not fail to afford a great consolation to Israel.
He who hereafter, in a visible manifestation, was to deliver them from their misery, was already in existence,--during it, before it, and through all eternity.
HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION.
1. AMONG THE JEWS.
This History, as to its essential features, might, _a priori_, be sketched with tolerable certainty. From the nature of the case, we could scarcely expect that the Jews should have adopted views altogether erroneous as to the subject of the prophecy in question; for the Messiah appears in it, not in His humiliation, but in His glory--rich in gifts and blessings, and Pelagian self-delusion will, _a priori_, return an affirmative answer to the question as to whether one is called to partake in them. But, on the other hand, the prophecy contains a twofold ground of offence which had to be removed, and explained away at any [Pg 491] expense. One of these, the eternity of the Messiah--which was in contradiction to the popular notions, and conceivable only from a knowledge of His G.o.dhead--could not but exist at all times; while the second of these--the birth at Bethlehem--made its appearance, and exercised its influence, only after the birth of Christ. That this should be set aside, was demanded by two causes.
_First_, there was the desire of depriving the Christians of the proof, which they derived from the birth at Bethlehem, for the proposition that He who had appeared was also He who was promised. And, _secondly_, there was the difficulty of any longer deriving from Bethlehem the descent of Christ, after, by an ordinance of Hadrian (compare _Reland_, S. 647), all the Jews had been expelled from Bethlehem and its neighbourhood. This difficulty was strongly urged against them by Christian controversialists; compare _Tertullian cont. Jud._ c. xiii., ”How then can the Ruler be descended from Judah, and how can He come forth from Bethlehem, as, in the present day, there is not one of Israel left there, of whose family Christ may be born?” The actual history furnishes facts and details which only confirm and enlarge what, in its essential features, we have sketched _a priori_.
1. The reference to the Messiah was, at all times, not the private opinion of a few scholars, but was publicly received, and acknowledged with perfect unanimity. As respects the time of Christ, this is obvious from Matt. ii. 5. According to that pa.s.sage, the whole Sanhedrim, when officially interrogated as to the birth-place of the Messiah, supposed this explanation to be the only correct one. But if this proof required a corroboration, it might be derived from John vii. 41, 42. In that pa.s.sage, several who erroneously supposed Christ to be a native of Galilee, objected to His being the Messiah on the ground that Scripture says: ?t? ?? t?? sp??at?? ?a?d ?a? ?p? ????e? t?? ????, ?p?? ??
?a?d, ? ???st?? ???eta?. But even after Christ had appeared, the interest in depriving the Christians at once of the arguments which, in their controversies, they derived from this pa.s.sage, was not sufficiently strong to blind the Jews to the evident indications contained in this pa.s.sage, or to induce them to deprive themselves of the sweet hope which it afforded. This, it is true, would be the case nevertheless, if we were to rely upon, and believe in the a.s.sertion of _Chrysostom_ (_Hom._ 7, [Pg 492] in Matt. c. 2, in _Nov. Test._, t. i.
p. 80, ed. Frcf.): ”Some of them, in their impudence, a.s.sert that this prophecy has a reference to Zerubbabel;” of _Theodoret_ (on this pa.s.sage): ”The Jews have tried to refer this to Zerubbabel, which evidently fights against the truth;” of _Theophylact_ (on Matt. ii.); and of _Euthymius Zigabenus_ (in iv. _Evang._ t. 1, p. 61, ed. Mat.).
But the supposition is here forced upon us--a supposition which, in another case also (compare remarks on Zech. ix. 9, 10), we must acknowledge to be well-founded--that the Fathers, having in their controversies with the Jews sometimes met a reference to Zerubbabel, forced it upon the Jews, even when the latter themselves refused it.
And there can be the less difficulty in admitting this supposition, as the apparently fourfold testimony may be easily reduced to a single one, viz., to that of _Chrysostom_. If these statements had any truth in them, some traces, at least, of this interpretation must be found among the Jews themselves. This, however, is not the case. All the Jewish interpreters adhere to the Messianic interpretation, and in this they are headed by the Chaldee, who paraphrases the words ??? ?? ??? in this way: ??? ???? ??? ?????, _i.e._, From thee Messiah shall go out before me.
2. A twofold method has been tried to remove the first ground of objection mentioned above. In ancient times, they gave their full sense to the words, ”Of (or from) the days of eternity,” but subst.i.tuted the name of the Messiah for His person. This we meet with as early as in the Chaldee, who says: ????? ???? ??????? ????? ????, _i.e._, ”Whose name is said (or called) from the days of old, from the days of eternity.” Thus also the _Pirke R. Elieser_, ch. iii., where, with a reference to the pa.s.sage before us, the name of the Messiah is mentioned among the seven things created before the world existed, viz., along with the Law, h.e.l.l, Paradise, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, Repentance; compare _Schottgen_ ii. S. 213. According to _Eisenmenger_ i. S. 317, the same, with some change, is found in the Talmud, _Tract. Pesachim_, fol. 54, col. i., and _Nedarim_ f. 39, c. 2.
We cannot, in that explanation by the Chaldee, understand ”name” in its emphatic signification, in which it often occurs in Scripture, viz., as an expression and image of the substance,--a signification in which the ”name” of the Messiah would be equivalent to ”the glory of the Messiah,” or to ”the Messiah [Pg 493] in His glory.” This is evident from the ????, _i.e._, ”said” or ”spoken,” of the Chaldee, which does not allow of our thinking of the creation of a substance; and not less from the consideration, that if this signification of ”name” were a.s.sumed, the aim and object which he had in view in subst.i.tuting ”name”
for ”person” at all, would have been missed. The name of the Messiah expresses His nature, the idea of His existence. The creation or p.r.o.nouncing of this name marks, accordingly, the rise of this idea in G.o.d,--His forming the decree of redemption by the Messiah. By this explanation--which we again meet with, afterwards, in _Calvin_, and which we shall then consider more minutely--a mere existence in thought, was subst.i.tuted for the real existence of the Messiah,--His predestination, for His pre-existence.--But in aftertimes they came still further down. To supply ”the name,” was too arbitrary to admit of their resting satisfied with such an explanation. Almost unanimously they now came to the supposition, that the words of the pa.s.sage under consideration merely marked the descent of the Messiah from the ancient, royal house of David. Thus _Abenezra_: ”All this is said of David; the words also, 'His goings out are of old,' refer to David.”
<script>