Volume I Part 28 (1/2)

_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.