"_And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, too little to be among the thousands of
Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto Me_ (one) [Pg 480] _to be
Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth are the times of old, the days of
eternity._"
The close connection of this verse with what immediately precedes
(_Caspari_ is wrong in considering iv. 9-14 as an episode) is evident,
not only from the ו copulative, and from the analogy of the near
relation of the announcement of salvation to the prophecy of disaster
in the preceding verse (for if the connection with ver. 14 be
overlooked, the announcement of disaster contained in it remains
without a corresponding consolation,--and this would be against the
analogy of vers. 9, 10, 11-13); but more strikingly so from the
contrast of the בישראל מושל with the שפט ישראל. The _Judge_ of Israel
in his deepest abasement, is here contrasted with the _Ruler_ of Israel
in His highest divine glory. The connection is seen also in the
indication of Bethlehem's natural littleness, as contrasted with the
greatness to be bestowed upon it by God. What could have induced the
prophet thus strongly to point out this circumstance, had it not been
that he considered Bethlehem as the type of the Jewish people in their
misery, described in the preceding verse, and the miraculous elevation
of the former, to be accomplished by divine omnipotence, as the pledge
of a like result for the whole people? There is, moreover, a reference
to the _beginning_ of the pretended episode. In iv. 9, it was said:
"There is no king in thee;" here, it is announced that from Bethlehem
there comes forth a glorious Ruler in Israel. But, on the other hand,
there is also a close connection with ver. 8, as has been rightly
perceived by Caspari. This connection and reference are sufficiently
indicated by the like form. The address to Bethlehem here corresponds
with the address to "the Tower of the flock" there,--the "Ruler," מושל,
here, with the "dominion," ממשלה, there. There, the dominion returns to
the house of David; here, the august person is described by whom this
return is effected, after the events, described iv. 9-14, have come
upon the Covenant-people. That the Ruler here comes forth out of
Bethlehem, corresponds with iv. 8 in so far as there the dominion
_returns_ to the Tower of the flock, to the hill of the daughter of
Zion, which implies the overthrow of the Davidic kingdom, and the
return of the family of David to the condition in which it lived at
Bethlehem before the time of David,--which must necessarily precede its
final glory.--According to _Bachiene_ [Pg 481] ii. 2, S. 7 ff.,
Bethlehem and Ephratah are to be distinguished, so that the former
designates the town alone, and the latter at the same time its whole
environs,--so that Bethlehem Ephratah would be equivalent to Bethlehem
situated in Ephratah. But even if we were to agree with this opinion,
we must not, by any means, consider the two words as standing in the
_stat. constr._, any more than the corresponding בית־לחם יהודה in
Judges xvii. 9, xix. 1, 2, 18. For as a _Nomen proprium_ is equivalent
to a noun with the article, it can never stand in the _stat. constr._
with another noun. We should thus be obliged to assume that, by way of
brevity, common in geographical designations, both appellations were
placed unconnectedly beside each other, without any indication of their
relation, just as in addressing a letter, we would simply write Berlin,
Prussia. But if we compare Gen. xxxv. 19, where Ephratah is simply
declared to be identical with Bethlehem (אפרתה הוא בית לחם);--and if we
consider that the prophet had already alluded to the contents of that
chapter (compare remarks on iv. 8), and that he regards the events
which formerly happened in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem as a type of
those which were to take place in future;--that in ver. 2 (3) he brings
the new birth which is there to happen in parallelism with one which
had formerly occurred in its nearest neighbourhood, and that it is just
in the account of the latter that the designation occurs,--we shall
have the strongest reason for understanding here also the two names as
a designation of the town, without deciding whether the above-mentioned
difference, as regards other passages, be well founded or not.
Interpreters commonly assert that the sole ground of the twofold
designation of the place is the intention of distinguishing it from
another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun; compare Josh. xix. 15. But
in that case, we should rather have expected the common Bethlehem
Judah, instead of Bethlehem Ephratah. There can be no doubt, that the
prophet, in choosing this designation, was guided by a regard to that
passage in Genesis. One might also suppose that the prophet wished to
allude, at the same time, to the appellative significations of these
nouns, viz., "house of bread," and "field of fruit," and to lay stress
upon their typical import: the place, the blessing of which, as regards
temporal things, is indicated by its name, shall, at some [Pg 482]
future time, be blessed and fruitful in a higher sense. It is just in
Micah, who is fond of making significant allusions to names, that such
a supposition is very natural, as is shown, not only by chap. i., but
also by vii. 18, where he gives an interpretation of his own name. As,
however, the two names elsewhere also occur thus connected, without any
attention being given to their signification, the prophet would not
have omitted giving a hint upon this point. It is not the way of
Scripture to make any allusions which cannot be understood with
certainty. We shall, therefore, be obliged to suppose that, after the
common name, the prophet mentions, in addition, the ancient name
rendered sacred by memory from the time of the Patriarch, and by the
authority of the most ancient documents of revelation (compare, besides
Gen. xxxv. 19, Gen. xlviii. 7), in order thereby to impart greater
solemnity to the discourse, and to intimate what great things he had to
say of Bethlehem. In accordance with this designation by two names, is,
then, the circumstance that the address is directed to Bethlehem.--The
word צעיר forms an apposition to Bethlehem: "little to be," instead of,
"who art too little to be." If the sense were to be, "thou art little,"
the אתה would not have been omitted after צעיר. The circumstance that
Bethlehem is addressed as a masculine (comp. צעיר ,אתה, and ממך) may be
accounted for by the prophet's viewing the town in the image of its
_ideal_ representative; compare remarks on Zech. ix. 7. In such a case,
the gender may be neglected; compare, _e.g._, Gen. iv. 7, where sin,
חטאת, appears as a masculine noun, on account of the image of a
ravenous beast. Such personifications occur very frequently. Thus,
nothing is more common in the Mosaic law than that Israel is addressed
as one man. This has been frequently misunderstood, and, in
consequence, that which refers to the whole people has been applied to
the single individual. Thus it is even in the Decalogue. In Is. v. 7,
the people of Judah appear as the _man_ Judah.
The _littleness_ of Bethlehem is sufficiently evident from the
circumstance 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. xxxv.), 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 assertion 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
circumstance 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 (κώμη,
John vii. 42). _Josephus_, indeed, occasionally gives it the title of a
town (compare Luke ii. 4, 11); but, in other passages, he designates it
by χωρίον, _Ant._ v. 2, 8.--צעיר להיות 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," שרי אלפים 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 בְּאַלֻּפֵי instead of בְּאַלְפֵי. But this supposed
emendation is set aside by the consideration that אַלּוּף 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 pass 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."--אלף, "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 constitute a thousand _by itself_. Communities, however,
which were not sufficiently numerous to constitute, 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 יָצָא, "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. xxx.
21: "And their governor shall proceed from the midst of them;" and from
Zech. x. 4.[Pg 485]--יֵצַא 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 κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν,--a circumstance
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 passages--could He have been introduced with a simple unaccented
_he_: the היא could not have been omitted in this case. The case in iv.
8 is but little analogous, for the subject in תאתה is there an
indefinite one.--לי is, by several interpreters, referred to the
prophet. Thus _Rosenmüller_, [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 God is required by the contrast between
human littleness and divine greatness. _Calvin_ remarks on it: "By this
word, God 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 compassion for you.'" The
import of the לי, viz., that God 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 לי might become the more evident, the Lord,
at his election, gave such a direction to the circumstances, that this,
his natural lowliness, might be most strikingly exhibited. It was God
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
bonæ voluntatis_ among the interpreters of all ages, it has most
forcibly impressed itself. Thus, _e.g._, _Chrysostom_, _demonstratio
adv. Judæos et Gentiles, quod Christus sit Deus_, opp. T. V., p. 739:
"He exhibits both Godhead 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 מוצאתיו. The greater number
of interpreters agree in this, that מוצאה, the feminine form of the
more common מוצא 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 Messiæ_, in the
remarks on this passage, 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 multitude
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 מוצאתיו 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 God." _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
מוצאתיו is here used without emphasis. For the Son has not gone forth
from the Father, like a man from a man, who begins to exist only when
he is brought forth from a man, and when he goes forth, ceases to be
brought forth and to go out. In all the days of eternity, the Son
proceeds from the Father, and is the eternal ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης
αὐτοῦ." But this circumstance is, in general, against this explanation,
that the contrast with the going forth from Bethlehem, which is
completed in one act, does not admit of the mention of a manifold going
forth, and that, in this contrast, the arising, the origin of the
existence of the Messiah, can alone be thought of; while, more
specially, _Jerome_, [Pg 488] _Tremellius_, and _Junius_, who, with
_Piscator_ also, limit the going forth to the relation to created
things only, are contradicted by מימי עולם, by which the going forth is
placed beyond the beginning of creation; and _Cocceius_, by the fact
that the מלאך יהוה in the Old Testament, differently from the Λόγος in
the New Testament, appears always as going forth from God, in relation
to the world only. But although the "time of old and the days of
eternity" should be considered as the place of the going forth, yet the
plural cannot be explained, as is done by _Caspari_, from the
circumstance that "a person is always descended from several;" for the
transferring of such a _usus loquendi_ to a relation, to which in
itself it is not applicable, could be admitted only when it could be
demonstrated to be altogether common and firmly established. But the
plural might indeed, although only with some difficulty, be vindicated
and accounted for from the circumstance, that two points of going forth
are mentioned, which, as it were, suppose a twofold act. 2. But even if
the singular were used, the explanation of the act of going forth would
not be admissible. It is contrary to the idea of nouns with מ, that
they could be used as _nomina actionis_. It is only with writers living
at a time when the language was dying out, that a few instances of this
erroneous use can be found. מ denotes the place where, the instrument
wherewith, the time wherein, and perhaps the way and manner whereby,
something is done, or is. _Further_--It may signify also the thing
itself which is done, or is; but, in no writer of the living and
flourishing language, does it ever denote the action itself. _Caspari_,
indeed, attempts to prove that "there occurs in the older books a
number, by no means inconsiderable, of nouns with מ, which undeniably
denote an action;" but what he has advanced on this point requires
still to be minutely sifted, and to be more closely examined; compare,
_e.g._, on Num. x. 2, my pamphlet on "_The Day of the Lord_," S. 32.
But we are quite satisfied with what is granted by _Caspari_ himself
(compare _Ewald's Lehrbuch d. Hebr. Spr._ § 160), that it is against
the nature and common use of this form to denote the action. Even by
this concession, a presumption is raised against the correctness of an
interpretation which would ascribe to מוצא, here, and in other
passages, the signification of going forth, viewed as an action. The
passages quoted by _Winer_ in favour of the signification, _egressus_,
[Pg 489] are the following: 1. Hos. vi. 3, where it is said of the Lord
כשחר נכון מוצאו, "firm like the morning-dawn is His going forth." But
מוצא is there, not the action, but the place and the time of the going
forth, as is evident from the word "firm" also. 2. Ezek. xii. 4: "And
thou shalt go forth at even in their sight, כמוצאי גולה." Several
interpreters agree that מוצא here signifies the kind and mode of the
going forth. _Vatablus_ says, "It denotes the deportment of him who
goes forth, and means, Thou shalt go forth in sorrow, and indignant."
But it is better, with _Hävernick_, to refer it to the time: "According
to the goings forth of prisoners, at the time when emigrants of this
kind prefer to go forth from their places." 3. Num. xxxiii. 2: "And
Moses wrote down את מוצאיהם, 'the places of their goings out.'" 4. Ps.
xix. 7, it is said of the sun: מקצה השמים מוצאו, "from the end of the
heaven is his going forth," which is tantamount to--The end of the
heaven is the place from which he goes forth. 5. 1 Kings x. 28: ומוצא
הסוסים אשר לשלמה ממצרים, which _De Wette_ translates, "And the export
of the horses which Solomon had, (was) from Egypt." But a more accurate
translation is, "And the place of coming forth of the horses which
Solomon had was Egypt," or, more literally still, "from Egypt,"--a
concise mode of expression for, "The place from which the horses of
Solomon came forth was Egypt,"--just as in the preceding example. In
proof of the signification, "action of going out," _Ch. B. Michaelis_
refers, moreover, to 2 Sam. iii. 25, where _De Wette_ translates, "Thou
knowest Abner, the son of Ner; he came to deceive thee, and to see thy
going out and thy coming in, and all that thou doest." But a more
accurate translation would be, "The place from which thou goest out,
and to which thou art going;" compare Ezek. xliii. 11. In all other
passages--and these are rather numerous--the signification "place of
going out," or "that which goes out," is quite obvious. Even _Caspari_
grants that the signification "place of going out" has, _a priori_, the
greatest probability in its favour.--To this it may be added, that the
signification "place of going out" is recommended here, even by the
contrast with what precedes, inasmuch as there Bethlehem, is mentioned
as the place from which the Euler in Israel is to come forth. With this
place of going out, another and a higher one is contrasted. This
contrast also shows us how the מן [Pg 490] in מקדם and מימי עולם must
be understood, viz., in the same manner as מן in ממך; for the evident
reference of מוצאתיו to יצא לי shows that it must correspond with it.
Hence the literal translation would be, "And His places of going out
are from the times of old, from the days of eternity," which is
equivalent to--The places from which He goes forth are the times of
old, the days of eternity,--just as in the two passages, Ps. xix. 7; 1
Kings x. 28. The מן might very well have been omitted; but its
insertion here has arisen chiefly from a desire to make the reference
to the corresponding clause outwardly also more perceptible. This
reference shows also, that the explanation of מן by _præ_, which was
proposed by _Pococke_ and others, is inadmissible, besides involving an
absurdity, inasmuch as nothing can be _before_ eternity; while, on the
other hand, this reference alone affords a satisfactory explanation of
the plural. According to it, the words, "From the time of old, from the
days of eternity," contain a gradation. _First_, the existence of the
Messiah before His birth in time, in Bethlehem, is pointed out in
general; and _then_, in contrast with all time, it is vindicated to
eternity. This could not fail to afford a great consolation to Israel.
He who hereafter, in a visible manifestation, was to deliver them from
their misery, was already in existence,--during it, before it, and
through all eternity.