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 Godhead--could not but exist
at all times; while the second of these--the birth at Bethlehem--made
its appearance, and exercised its influence, only after the birth of
Christ. That this should be set aside, was demanded by two causes.
_First_, there was the desire of depriving the Christians of the proof,
which they derived from the birth at Bethlehem, for the proposition
that He who had appeared was also He who was promised. And, _secondly_,
there was the difficulty of any longer deriving from Bethlehem the
descent of Christ, after, by an ordinance of Hadrian (compare _Reland_,
S. 647), all the Jews had been expelled from Bethlehem and its
neighbourhood. This difficulty was strongly urged against them by
Christian controversialists; compare _Tertullian cont. Jud._ c. xiii.,
"How then can the Ruler be descended from Judah, and how can He come
forth from Bethlehem, as, in the present day, there is not one of
Israel left there, of whose family Christ may be born?" The actual
history furnishes facts and details which only confirm and enlarge
what, in its essential features, we have sketched _a priori_.
1. The reference to the Messiah was, at all times, not the private
opinion of a few scholars, but was publicly received, and acknowledged
with perfect unanimity. As respects the time of Christ, this is obvious
from Matt. ii. 5. According to that passage, the whole Sanhedrim, when
officially interrogated as to the birth-place of the Messiah, supposed
this explanation to be the only correct one. But if this proof required
a corroboration, it might be derived from John vii. 41, 42. In that
passage, several who erroneously supposed Christ to be a native of
Galilee, objected to His being the Messiah on the ground that Scripture
says: ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ καὶ ἀπὸ Βηθλεὲμ τῆς κώμης, ὅπον ἦν
Δαβίδ, ὁ Χριστὸς ἔρχεται. But even after Christ had appeared, the
interest in depriving the Christians at once of the arguments which, in
their controversies, they derived from this passage, was not
sufficiently strong to blind the Jews to the evident indications
contained in this passage, or to induce them to deprive themselves of
the sweet hope which it afforded. This, it is true, would be the case
nevertheless, if we were to rely upon, and believe in the assertion of
_Chrysostom_ (_Hom._ 7, [Pg 492] in Matt. c. 2, in _Nov. Test._, t. i.
p. 80, ed. Frcf.): "Some of them, in their impudence, assert that this
prophecy has a reference to Zerubbabel;" of _Theodoret_ (on this
passage): "The Jews have tried to refer this to Zerubbabel, which
evidently fights against the truth;" of _Theophylact_ (on Matt. ii.);
and of _Euthymius Zigabenus_ (in iv. _Evang._ t. 1, p. 61, ed. Mat.).
But the supposition is here forced upon us--a supposition which, in
another case also (compare remarks on Zech. ix. 9, 10), we must
acknowledge to be well-founded--that the Fathers, having in their
controversies with the Jews sometimes met a reference to Zerubbabel,
forced it upon the Jews, even when the latter themselves refused it.
And there can be the less difficulty in admitting this supposition, as
the apparently fourfold testimony may be easily reduced to a single
one, viz., to that of _Chrysostom_. If these statements had any truth
in them, some traces, at least, of this interpretation must be found
among the Jews themselves. This, however, is not the case. All the
Jewish interpreters adhere to the Messianic interpretation, and in this
they are headed by the Chaldee, who paraphrases the words ממך לי יצא in
this way: מנך קדמי יפק משיחא, _i.e._, From thee Messiah shall go out
before me.
2. A twofold method has been tried to remove the first ground of
objection mentioned above. In ancient times, they gave their full sense
to the words, "Of (or from) the days of eternity," but substituted the
name of the Messiah for His person. This we meet with as early as in
the Chaldee, who says: דשמיה אמיר מלקדמין מיומי עלמא, _i.e._, "Whose
name is said (or called) from the days of old, from the days of
eternity." Thus also the _Pirke R. Elieser_, ch. iii., where, with a
reference to the passage before us, the name of the Messiah is
mentioned among the seven things created before the world existed,
viz., along with the Law, Hell, Paradise, the Throne of Glory, the
Temple, Repentance; compare _Schöttgen_ ii. S. 213. According to
_Eisenmenger_ i. S. 317, the same, with some change, is found in the
Talmud, _Tract. Pesachim_, fol. 54, col. i., and _Nedarim_ f. 39, c. 2.
We cannot, in that explanation by the Chaldee, understand "name" in its
emphatic signification, in which it often occurs in Scripture, viz., as
an expression and image of the substance,--a signification in which the
"name" of the Messiah would be equivalent to "the glory of the
Messiah," or to "the Messiah [Pg 493] in His glory." This is evident
from the אמיר, _i.e._, "said" or "spoken," of the Chaldee, which does
not allow of our thinking of the creation of a substance; and not less
from the consideration, that if this signification of "name" were
assumed, the aim and object which he had in view in substituting "name"
for "person" at all, would have been missed. The name of the Messiah
expresses His nature, the idea of His existence. The creation or
pronouncing of this name marks, accordingly, the rise of this idea in
God,--His forming the decree of redemption by the Messiah. By this
explanation--which we again meet with, afterwards, in _Calvin_, and
which we shall then consider more minutely--a mere existence in
thought, was substituted for the real existence of the Messiah,--His
predestination, for His pre-existence.--But in aftertimes they came
still further down. To supply "the name," was too arbitrary to admit of
their resting satisfied with such an explanation. Almost unanimously
they now came to the supposition, that the words of the passage under
consideration merely marked the descent of the Messiah from the
ancient, royal house of David. Thus _Abenezra_: "All this is said of
David; the words also, 'His goings out are of old,' refer to David."
_Aberbanel_ (_Praec. Sal._ p. 62): "The goings out of the family from
which that Ruler is to be descended are of old, and of the days of
eternity, _i.e._, of the seed of David, and the rod of Jesse, which is
of Bethlehem-Judah." On the similar expositions of _Kimchi_ and others,
compare _Frischmuth l.c._, and _Wichmannshausen_, _Dissert. on the
pass._, Wittenb. 1722, S. 6 ff. We could not urge against this
exposition that מוצאות is erroneously understood either as "going out,"
or, as "family;" and that, in the latter signification, the _usus
loquendi_, as well as the evident reference to יצא, are disregarded.
For that might be given up, and yet the explanation would stand as to
its substance. Even then, it might be translated: "His goings out (in
the signification of 'places of going out') are the days of old, the
days of eternity," _i.e._, the very ancient times; so that there would
be ascribed to the time something which belongs to that which exists in
it, viz., to the family of David. But the following reason is decisive
against it. Every one will admit that the eternal origin of the Messiah
forms a far more suitable contrast with His temporal origin from
Bethlehem, than His descent from the ancient family of [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 hoar antiquity. But was there anything gained by
this, since He had it only in common with the lowest and feeblest
among the people? How does this shallow, unmeaning, and yet so much
pretending contrast in reference to the Messiah, suit the other
contrast in reference to Bethlehem, which is so brilliant and exalted?
And now what reason is there for preferring that explanation which is
so unnatural, to the other, which is so natural, so obvious, which
presents a contrast so beautiful, and opens up to the Covenant-people a
source of consolation so rich? Is it this, perhaps, that the eternity
of the Messiah is not mentioned anywhere else in the Old Testament? But
the eternity of the Messiah is only a single feature of His divine
nature, and just that feature which, according to the context, came
here into special consideration. _Caspari_ very correctly remarks: "The
prophet pointed out just the feature of the pre-existence, and of
the eternal existence of the Messiah, and these only, because the
announcement of His origin from the little Bethlehem led just to this,
and to this alone." The intimation of the divine nature of the Messiah
is, [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 passage before
us, the divine glory of the Messiah is contrasted with the lower aspect
of His existence; and the closer the points of contact are between
Isaiah and Micah, the less can we refuse to acknowledge such here. This
circumstance also must prevent us from doing so, that immediately
afterwards, in ver. 3 (4), the divine dignity and nature of the Messiah
meet us anew. This passage requires, as its foundation, the one upon
which we are now commenting. Moreover, the eternity which, in contrast
with His birth in time, is here ascribed to the Messiah, corresponds
with the eternity of His existence and dominion after His birth, which
is repeatedly ascribed to the Messiah, and, most prominently, in Is.
ix. 5, where He receives the name "Father of eternity," _i.e._, He who
will be Father in all eternity.--Some one, perhaps, would infer from
the subjoined words, "of the days," that עילם is here to be understood
in a limited sense. But who does not know that, when eternity is
predicated in contrast with a limited duration of time, just to make
the contrast the more striking, those measures of time, which are
properly applicable to the latter only, are transferred to the former?
For in order to be able to compare things, a certain resemblance
between them must necessarily be first established. Thus in Dan. vii.
9, God is called "the Ancient of Days;" thus it is said of Him in Ps.
cii. 28, "Thy years have no end;" and the New Testament frequently
speaks in the same way of eternal times. We are, in our thoughts,
generally so much bound to time, that we can conceive of eternity only
as "time without time." It cannot by any means be satisfactorily or
incontrovertibly proved from vii. 14, 20, that קדם and ימי עילם here
designate merely the ancient time. All which that passage proves is,
that such a sense is possible--and this, no one probably has ever
doubted--but not that it is applicable in this connection. If the
connection be considered, Prov. viii. 22, 23, will then be acknowledged
to be parallel,--a passage in which the eternal existence of Wisdom is
spoken of in a similar manner.
3. That, in the prophecy under consideration, Bethlehem is [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 circumstance that, after
the tumult raised by Barcochba, not only Jerusalem, but Bethlehem also,
was, by the Emperor Adrian, interdicted to the Jews as a residence,
renders it probable that this interpretation was not given up
immediately after the death of Christ. But even after this edict of
Adrian, and after the difficulty had appeared in all its force, they
did not, for a considerable time, venture to assert that the prophecy
knew nothing of Bethlehem as the birth-place of the Messiah. It is with
the later Rabbinical interpreters only, who were better skilled in the
art of distorting, that this assertion is found. The ancient Jews
endeavoured to evade the difficulty by the fable, dressed up in various
ways, that the Messiah was indeed born at Bethlehem, on the day of the
destruction of the temple, but that, on account of the sins of the
people. He was afterwards carried away by a storm, and had, since that
time, remained, unknown and concealed, in various places. Thus speak
the Talmud, the very ancient commentary on Lamentations, _Echa
Rabbati_, and the very old commentary on Genesis, _Breshith Rabba_
(compare the passages in _Raim. Martini_, S. 348-50; _Carpzovius_ and
_Frischmuth_, l.c.). Indeed, we can trace this fiction still farther
back. Closely connected with it is the explanation of עפל בת־ציון by
"darkness of the daughter of Zion" (עפל being confounded with אפל),
_i.e._, hidden on account of Zion. This explanation is found as early
as in Jonathan. The concealment of the Messiah is only an isolated
feature of this fiction. The fiction itself, indeed, has its roots, not
only in the passage under review, but also in the endeavour to remove
the contradiction between the destruction of the temple, and the
firm expectation of the Messiah's appearing during the time of its
existence,--an expectation founded on passages of the Old Testament.
This concealment of the Messiah is mentioned as early as in the
_Dialogus cum Tryphone_ (No. 8 _Bened. Ven._; compare also p. 114):
"Christ, even if he be born, and exist anywhere, is unknown, and
neither manifests himself in any way, nor has he any power until Elijah
come, etc." In order to be convinced that, at the time when this book
was composed, [Pg 497] and hence in the second century, the fiction was
already fully developed, we need only compare the account in _Breshith
Rabba_. After Elijah, at the time of the birth of the Messiah, had
visited his mother in Bethlehem Judah, and consoled her who was
afflicted on account of the destruction of the temple, which was
contemporaneous with her delivery, he withdraws. "After five years had
elapsed, he said, I will go and see the Saviour of Israel, whether he
be nursed up in the manner of kings or of ministering angels. He went
and found the woman standing at the door of her house, and said to her:
My daughter, in what state is that boy? And she answered him: Rabbi,
did I not tell thee that it is a bad thing to nurse him, because, on
the day on which he was born, the temple was destroyed? But this is not
all; for _he has feet and walks not, he has eyes and sees not, he has
ears and hears not, he has a mouth and does not speak at all, and there
he lies like a stone._"
The Rabbinical interpreters felt, however, that this fiction, being
destitute of all warrant, was of no use to them in their controversies
with Christians; and it was to these that their view was chiefly
directed. Hence they sought to remove the difficulty by means of the
interpretation; and as all had the same interest, the result was that
the distorted explanation became as generally prevalent, as the correct
one had formerly been. _Kimchi_, _Abenezra_, _Abendana_, _Abarbanel_,
and, in general, all the later Rabbins (compare the passages in
_Wichmannsh._ l. c. S. 9), maintain that Bethlehem is mentioned here as
the birth-place of the Messiah indirectly only,--in so far only as the
Messiah was to be descended from David the Bethlehemite. There cannot
well be a prepossession in favour of this exposition. The circumstance
that, formerly, no one ever thought that it was even possible to
explain the passage under review in any other way than that, in it,
Bethlehem is spoken of as the birth-place of the Messiah, and that this
exposition was discovered and introduced, only at a time when the other
could no longer be received, raises, _a priori_, strong suspicions
against it. And this suspicion is fully confirmed by a closer
examination. _Cæteris paribus_, that explanation which here finds
Bethlehem mentioned as the birth-place of the Messiah, would deserve
the preference, even for this reason, that the passage, as thus
understood, fills up a blank [Pg 498] in the Messianic prophecy,--and
that from the whole analogy, we are led to expect that no such blank
would be left. Should the family from which Christ was to descend,
the time at which He was to appear, the part of the country which
was pre-eminently to enjoy His blessings, and so many other things
concerning Him, have been so minutely foretold, and not the place where
He was to be born? Even the question of Herod, ποῦ ὁ Χριστὸς γεννᾶται;
shows how much reason we have, _a priori_, to expect such a prediction.
He supposes that, as a matter of course, the birth-place of the Messiah
must have been determined in the Old Testament; he only inquires about
the place where. But the matter is not so, that there could be any
choice at all betwixt the two explanations. If we suppose that it is
only the descent of the Messiah from the family of David which is here
announced, the contrast between the natural littleness of Bethlehem,
and its divine greatness, would be very far from being appropriate.
After the family of David had, for centuries, resided and ruled at
Jerusalem, the natural littleness of Bethlehem came very little into
further consideration. It was not this which could render improbable
the appearance of the Messiah. It was only the downfall of Jerusalem,
and the destruction of the King's Castle, which were in opposition to
the belief in the Messiah's appearance. And, in like manner, the glory,
resulting from His appearance, was not imparted to Bethlehem, but to
Zion. Hence it is that, in iv. 8, where the prophet wishes to declare
the descent of the Messiah from the family of David, he contrasts the
glorification of Zion, and especially of the King's Castle, with its
previous degradation.--_Further_--There is not a single instance to be
found of a place, in which the ancestors of some one resided centuries
ago, being spoken of as the place of his descent. Is there a single
passage in which Bethlehem is mentioned as the native place of any of
the kings from the Davidic dynasty who were born at Jerusalem, or as
the native place of Zerubbabel who was born at Babylon? For further
details concerning this argument, _Huetius_, _dem. Evang._ p 579 _ed.
Amstel._ 1680, maybe compared.--_Further_--The relation of the passage
under review to the parallel passage Is. viii. 23 (ix. 1) must not be
overlooked. As in the latter text, the _province_ is marked out which,
by the appearance of the Messiah, is to be raised from the deepest
degradation [Pg 499] to the highest glory, so, in the passage under
consideration, the _place_ is designated.--_Finally_--If any doubt yet
remained, it must surely be removed by the fulfilment,--by the fact
that Christ was actually born at Bethlehem; and this so much the more,
that this fact cannot be looked upon as an accidental circumstance, for
Bethlehem was not the residence of His parents.
But the Jews endeavoured, in another way, to wrest from Christian
controversialists the advantage afforded by this passage. They denied
altogether that Christ was born at Bethlehem. Thus _Abr. Peritsol_
(compare _Eisenmenger_, l. c. S. 259): "Since they called Him Jesus the
Nazarene, and not Jesus the Bethlehemite, it is to be inferred that He
was born at Nazareth, as it is written in the _Targum_ of Jerusalem."
Upon this point, however, there existed no unanimity among them. _David
Gans_, in the Book _Zemach David_, mentions, without any remark,
Bethlehem as the birth-place of the Messiah (S. 105 of _Vorst's_
translation).