The conviction that Christ is the subject of the prophecy under
consideration was so much the prevailing one in the Christian Church,
that the mention of any of its defenders is altogether superfluous. It
were more interesting to learn who were the opponents of it. The
assertion of _Huetius_, l. c., that _Chrysostom_, _Theophylact_, and
_Euthymius Zigabenus_ attempted an explanation by which it was referred
to Zerubbabel, rests on a misapprehension resulting from want of
memory. _Huetius_ himself ascribes to them that very view which they
most decidedly oppose as the one alleged to be held by the Jews.
But this interpretation was actually advanced by _Theodorus_ of
_Mopsueste_, whose exegetical tendencies it admirably suited. Along
with several other interpretations, it was condemned by the Council at
Rome, under Pope Vigilius; compare _H. Prado_ on Ezek. _prooem. Sect._
3, and _Hippol. a Lapide in prophet. min. prooem._, and in the remarks
on this passage. The immediate successor of _Theodorus_ was _Grotius_.
His book _de veritate relig. Christ._--where in i. 5, § 17 (p. 266, ed.
Oxon. 1820), he proves [Pg 500] against the Jews the Messianic dignity
of Christ, from the circumstance that He was, in accordance with the
passage, born at Bethlehem--might, indeed, entitle us to infer that he
was not confirmed in this opinion. But perhaps he only imagined that,
in a popular work, he needed not to be so careful, and that, even
according to his own views, he had retained a certain right to this use
of the passage, inasmuch as he considered Zerubbabel as a type of
Christ, and the birth of the latter at Bethlehem as an outward
representation of His descent from the Davidic family. It was at the
commencement of the Rationalistic period, when an easier mode of
evading the reference to Christ had not as yet been discovered, that
the reference to Zerubbabel was seized upon. It is found in _Dathe_ and
_Kuehnöl_ (_Mess. Weissagungen_, S. 88). The latter, however, changed
his opinion (compare Commentary on Matt. ii.), after such a mode had
been discovered, by referring the prophecy to the _ideal_ Christ. From
that time onwards, the reference to the _ideal_ Christ is found in
almost all the Rationalistic interpreters. The distinctness with which
the marks here given, viz., the birth in time at Bethlehem, and the
eternity of the origin, lead to the _historical_ Christ; and the
difficulty of explaining these when the prophecy is referred to the
_ideal_ Messiah, are rendered sufficiently evident by the efforts which
all these interpreters, without exception, have made to explain these
marks away. Who does not discover, in these very efforts, a confession
of their force, on the supposition that they can be, as they have
already been, demonstrated to have an actual existence? God Himself has
borne witness by facts against this explanation; for He ordered the
circumstance in such a manner that, by the birth of Christ at
Bethlehem, the prophecy was fulfilled. But how can a fulfilment be
spoken of by those who do not believe in prophecy, but see in it human
conjectures only, since the very idea of prophecy necessarily implies
divine inspiration? How should God have impressed His own seal upon
mere human conjectures, as He would have done by effecting an apparent
fulfilment? He would Himself have surely become the author of error by
so doing. _Finally_,--We shall afterwards see that, in the New
Testament, this passage has been explained in the strictest sense,
of the historical Christ; and the attempts of the Rationalistic
interpreters to divest that [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
God under the Old Testament should serve as a substratum for the
description of the kingdom of Christ. It can be demonstrated, from the
intimations contained in this passage, in which the Messiah appears
in His glory, how little it is contradictory to others, in which
He is represented in His lowest humiliation. Through humiliation to
glory,--this is the proposition which lies at the foundation of the
announcements of the prophet concerning the destinies of the
Covenant-people, and which he distinctly expresses in regard to
Bethlehem. That this proposition is applicable to the Head not less
than to the members,--to Him who was born, not less than to the place
where He was born, appears from the circumstance that He was to be born
at the time of the deepest degradation of the Davidic dynasty, iv. 8,
and not at Jerusalem, where His Royal ancestors resided, but at
Bethlehem.
2. As regards the last words of this verse, the same twofold false
interpretation which we noticed among Jewish interpreters, is found
among Christian expositors also. One of these, which, besides in other
Jewish interpreters, occurs in _Jarchi_ ("_and His goings out_, etc.;
just as in Ps. lxxii. 17, it was said that His name [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 God. I know that some
pertinaciously insist that the prophet speaks here of Christ's eternal
essence, and as far as I am concerned, I _willingly_ acknowledge that
Christ's eternal Godhead is here proved to us; but as we shall never
succeed in convincing the Jews of this, I prefer to hold that the words
of the prophet signify that Christ would not thus suddenly proceed from
Bethlehem, as if God had formerly decreed nothing concerning Him." He
speaks indeed of his "_willingly_ acknowledging;" but that he was not
very much in earnest in his willingness, appears from what follows:
"Others advance a new and ingenious view," etc. It is only from the
relation of _Calvin_ to the earlier interpreters, that we can account
for his advancing an exposition so very arbitrary. These had, _ad
majorem Dei gloriam_, advanced a multitude of forced expositions.
Calvin, who very properly hated such interpretations ("I do not like
such distorted explanations," he says, in his commentary on Joel ii.),
always regarded them with suspicion; and whensoever there was the
appearance of any motive which may possibly have guided them in
adopting a certain explanation, he himself, rather than concur with
them, falls upon the most unnatural explanations in return. The best
refutation of his exposition is to be found in _Pococke_. It is absurd
to suppose that the actual going forth of Christ from Bethlehem is here
contrasted with one which is merely imaginary,--the action, with a
mere decree. It is without any analogy that some one should be
designated as actually existing, or going forth, who exists merely in
the divine foreknowledge, or the divine predestination.--The other
view, which regards the last words of this verse as referring to the
Messiah's descent from the ancient family of David, is found among all
interpreters who, from some cause, were prevented from adopting the
sound one. It is thus with the Socinians (compare, _e.g._, _Volkel de
vera religione_, l. 5, c. 2), some of whom, in order the more surely to
set aside a passage so damaging to their system, supposed that,
according to its proper sense, it did not refer to Christ at all;
_e.g._, _Jo. Crellius_, who, in his exposition of Matt. ii., asserts
that it refers indefinitely to [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,
illustrious from ancient times, and governing for five hundred years."
Thus it is with all the Rationalistic interpreters. Among recent
faithful Christian expositors, _Jahn_ also (_Vatic. Mess._ 2, p. 147)
has been led away to the adoption of this opinion. But that he felt
strongly, at least, one of the difficulties which stood in its way,
viz., that if the reference to the family of David be assumed, it is
the mere age of the family, apart from every preference on the ground
of its dignity, which is mentioned to magnify the Messiah--appears from
the strange exegetical process which he employs for the purpose of
removing it. He supplies at the end, _celebris est_:--"His origin or His
family (thus he erroneously explains מוצאתיו) is _celebrated_ from
ancient times." One may see in this case how much, in particulars, an
individual still remains dependent upon a community, even although,
upon the whole, he may have freed himself from such dependence. For it
is certainly from this dependence alone that the fact can be accounted
for, that this commentator rejected an exposition which must have been
to him the most agreeable, which has everything in its favour, and
nothing against it,--and chose another instead, the nakedness of which
he was obliged to cover as well as he could, while, in so doing, he was
violating his _exegetical convictions_. _Ewald_ also permits himself to
introduce into the passage what is necessary for the sense which he has
made up his mind to adopt. In place of the simple antiquity, he puts:
"Descended from the ancient, venerable royal family of David." The view
taken by _Hofmann_ is peculiar: "He comes from the family of David,
just as it had happened long ago, when that family still belonged to
the community of Bethlehem,--from the community of Bethlehem does He
come." _Weiss. u. Erf._ 1, S. 251. In order to get at this rather
superfluous repetition, he has substituted the manner in which the
family of David formerly existed, for "the days of old, and eternity."
The "origins" (this is the sense which he gives to מוצאתיו) cannot be
attributed to that portion only of David's family which dwelt at
Bethlehem; for He was descended from them indirectly only, through the
royal family of David.
[Pg 504]
3. The Jewish assertion, that in the prophecy there is no allusion to
the birth at Bethlehem of Him who was to come, could not fail to be
repeated by _Grotius_ and his supporters, inasmuch as Zerubbabel was
not born at Bethlehem. "Zerubbabel," he says, "is rightly said to have
been born at Bethlehem, because he was of the family of David which had
its origin there." This is, in like manner, repeated by the
Rationalistic interpreters, in order to avoid the too close coincidence
of the prophecy with the actual history of Christ, _e.g._, by _Paulus_
and _Strauss_ (both, in their "Life of Jesus"), and by _Hitzig_. It is
remarkable, however, that, in order the more securely to attain this
object, some have gone so far even as to follow the example of several
Jews, and of the infamous _Bodinus_ (_de abditis rerum sublimium
arcanis_, l. 5, compare the refutation by _Huetius_, l.c. p. 701), and
to characterize the evangelical account concerning the birth of Christ
at Bethlehem as unworthy of credit. Such has been the case with _Ammon_
especially.