Several interpreters, _Paulus_ especially, have asserted 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 assertion 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 circumstance, 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: τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ. Even the ὅλον proves that all
which precedes is mentioned solely with a view to the prophecy. The
παρερμηνεία of _Olshausen_ which refers the ὅλον to the whole, in
contrast with the particular, can be accounted for only from the
embarrassment 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, καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, correspond exactly
with καὶ καλέσουσι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ. The Evangelist explains
the latter name by μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός, which, again, cannot be without an
object, for the name of Jesus (_Gottheil_, _God-Salvation_) has, with
him, the same signification. We pass 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 passage 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 God."
Israel was called to preserve the truth of God in the midst of error,
to proclaim among the Gentiles the mighty acts of God, and to be His
messenger and ambassador. 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 passages 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 Antitype;--if this relation was not
accidental, but designed by God, 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 Antitype, 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 circumstance 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 God, 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 God, 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 God 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. xxxi. 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, constitutes the essence of that passage 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: τεθνήκασι γὰρ πάντες οἱ
ζητοῦντές σου τὴν ψυχήν. 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 God 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 God. Moses is
first withdrawn from threatening danger by flight into distant regions.
As soon as it is time that he should enter upon his vocation, the door
for the return to the scene of his activity is opened to him. Just
so is it with regard to Christ.--Vers. 21-23 have for their sole
foundation the prophetic declaration: ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται
(compare, on these words, the remarks on Is. xi.). The particular
circumstances which are mentioned, viz., that Joseph had the intention
of settling in Judea, but received from God the command to go into
Galilee, are designed only to make it more perceptible that the
fulfilment of this prophecy was willed by God.
From this summary it sufficiently appears that the object of Matthew in
chap. i. and ii. was by no means of an historical, but rather of a
doctrinal nature; and since this is the case, all the objections fall
to the ground, which _Sieffert_, solely by disregarding this object of
the writer, has lately drawn from these [Pg 508] chapters against the
genuineness of Matthew's Gospel. And if we apply this to the question
before us, it follows that the section ii. 1-12 must likewise have an
Old Testament foundation. That this foundation can, in the first
instance, be sought for only in the prophecy of Micah, becomes evident
from the circumstance, that Bethlehem is, in ver. 1, mentioned as
Christ's birth-place. If we now take into consideration the fact that
the Evangelist does not mention at all that the parents of Jesus
formerly resided at Nazareth, just because it had no reference to any
prophecy of the Old Testament (it is merely by designating, in the
account of the birth of Jesus, Bethlehem as the place of His parents,
that he intimates that that which had been previously reported had
happened in a different place),--and that, on the other hand, he
mentions the residence of the Holy Family at Nazareth, after their
return from Egypt, evidently for the sole purpose of bringing it into
connection with a prophecy,--it becomes quite evident that it is not
from any historical interest that this circumstance, which was known to
all his readers, is mentioned. To this it may be further added, that
the account given in vers. 1-6, especially the communication of the
answer of the Sanhedrim to the question of Herod, would, according to
the proved object and aim of Matthew, stand altogether without a
purpose, unless he had considered the answer of the Doctors as being in
harmony with the truth, and hence as superseding his usual formula, ἵνα
πληρωθῇ. In order to show how much Matthew was guided by a regard to
the Old Testament, and how frequently, at the same time, he contented
himself with a mere allusion, supposing his readers to be acquainted
with the Old Testament--as is quite evident from vers. 20 and 23--we
must further consider the second Old Testament reference which he has
in view in vers. 1-12. The passages to which he refers are Ps. lxxii.
10: "The kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts;" and Is. lx. 6:
"All they from Sheba shall come, they shall bring gold and incense, and
they shall show forth the praises of the Lord." The representation, in
these and other similar passages, is, in the first instance, a
figurative one. Gifts are in the East a sign of allegiance. The
fundamental thought is this: "The most distant, the wealthiest, and the
most powerful nations of the earth shall do homage to the Messiah, and
consecrate to Him themselves and all that they have." But that which is
[Pg 509] prophesied by a figurative representation in these Old
Testament passages began to be fulfilled by the symbolical action of
the Magi, by which the image was represented externally; for the gold,
incense, and myrrh which they consecrated to the new-born King of the
Jews symbolized the homage which they offered to Him; and these gifts
are certainly expressly mentioned by Matthew for this reason, that they
occur in the Old Testament passages. As this event formed, in one
respect, the beginning of the fulfilment, so, in another, it formed a
new prophecy by deeds,--the type of a new, greater, and more proper
fulfilment. The Apostles considered these Magi as the types and
representatives of the whole mass of heathen nations who were, at a
subsequent period, to do homage to the Messiah. They were the
ambassadors, as it were, of the heathen world, to greet the new-born
King, just as the shepherds, whom God Himself had chosen, were the
deputies of the Jews. In my work on Balaam, pp. 480-482, I have proved
that, even with these references, the contents of the passage are not
yet exhausted,--that there still remains a prominent point, viz., the
star which the Magi saw, and that this refers to Balaam's prophecy of
the star proceeding from Jacob.
But if it be established that the view of the prophecy under
consideration, which the Evangelist reports as that of the Sanhedrim,
must, at the same time, be considered as his own, we must also suppose
that the quotation, even in its particulars, is approved by him, and
that the view which was first advanced by _Jerome_ ("I believe that he
wished to exhibit the negligence of the scribes and priests, and wrote
it down as it had been spoken by them"), and recently by _Paulus_,
cannot be made use of in order to justify the deviations,--if any
should indeed be found. In order to ascertain this, we must examine
more closely the quotation in its relation to the original text of the
passage, Matt. ii. 6: Καὶ σὺ Βηθλεέμ, γῆ Ἰούδα οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν
τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰουδα· ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις ποιμανεῖ
τὸν λαόν μου, τὸν Ἰσραήλ. The first thing which demands our attention
is γῆ Ἰούδα for the Ephratah of the original. The reason of this
deviation is to be sought for in the circumstance, that the place
appears as Bethlehem Judah in 1 Sam. xvii. 12, where it is mentioned
with a reference to David. The deviation at the beginning has,
accordingly, the same purpose [Pg 510] as that at the close. As regards
the grammatical exposition of γῆ Ἰούδα, it stands for: Bethlehem
situated in the land of Judah,--a short mode of expression which is
common in geographical and other similar designations, just as in the
Old Testament also we find בית־לחם יהודה, for: Bethlehem situated in
the land of Judah. The assertion of many interpreters, that γῆ has
here the signification "town," is as objectionable as the attempt to
change the text, made by _Fritzsche_, who advances nothing on the whole
verse that can stand examination. The Evangelist here as little follows
the LXX. as he does the Hebrew text. The former has here: καὶ σὺ
Βεθλεέμ, οἶκος Ἐφραθά (thus without an article. _Cod. Vatic._).
_Fritzsche_ thinks that οἶκος had been brought into the text from the
margin. But the translator evidently considered "Ephratah" to be the
proper name of Caleb's wife (1 Chron. ii. 19, 50, iv. 4), from whom
others also, _e.g._, _Adrichomius_ (compare _Bachiene_ ii. 2, § 190),
derived the name of the place, and did nothing else than express more
definitely, by the subjoined οἶκος, the relation of dependence which,
as he supposed, was indicated by the Genitive. The apparent
contradiction, that the prophet calls Bethlehem small, whereas the
Evangelist speaks of it as by no means small, has already been so
satisfactorily explained by ancient and modern interpreters (compare,
_e.g._, _Euthymius Zigabenus_ _l. c._ p. 59: "Although in appearance
thou art small, yet, truly, thou art by no means the least among the
principalities of the tribe of Judah;" _Michaelis_: "Micah, looking to
the outward condition, calls it small; Matthew, looking to the
birth of the Messiah, calls it by no means small, inasmuch as, by
that birth, that town was in a wonderful manner adorned and exalted"),
that we need not dwell upon it. We only remark, that the supposition
of _Paulus_, that the members of the Sanhedrim understood the verse
interrogatively--"Art thou, perhaps, too small," etc.--receives no
confirmation from the passage in _Pirke Eliezer_, c. 3, which he quotes
in favour of it, but which he saw only in the Latin translation of
_Wetzstein_; for, in the original text, the verse is quoted in literal
agreement with the Hebrew original; compare _Eisenmenger_, i. p. 316. A
comparison with the Chaldee, who with similar liberty paraphrases,
"Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, shalt soon be numbered," clearly shows that
the deviation has arisen rather from an endeavour to express the sense
more [Pg 511] clearly and definitely. On such deviations, _Calvin_
strikingly remarks: "Let the reader always attend to the purpose
for which the Evangelists quote Scripture passages, that they
may not scrupulously insist upon single words, but be satisfied
with this,--that the Scriptures are never distorted by them to a
different sense."--Micah introduces Bethlehem in the person of its
representative; but this figure Matthew has dropped at the beginning.
Instead of the Masculine צעיר he puts the Feminine ἐλαχίστη; and, on
the other hand, he renders באלפי by ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσι, which, in a way
not to be mistaken, suggests this representation. _Fritzsche_ announces
himself as the man who would heal this _fœdum solœcismum_ which had not
hitherto been remarked by any one. He proposes to read: Καὶ σὺ Βεθλεὲμ
τῆς Ἰουδαίας οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα,--"and thou
Bethlehem, by no means the smallest part of the land of Judah, art,"
etc. But altogether apart from the arbitrary change of γῆ Ἰούδα,--which
certainly no one could ever have been tempted to put for the more
simple τῆς Ἰουδαίας,--the personification could even then not have been
maintained, and the _fœdus solœcismus_ would still remain. Even
although the ἐλαχίστη be understood in accordance with the
"_elegantissimus Græcorum usus_," Bethlehem must, after all, be treated
as a thing--as a town. Nor is the case much improved by the assistance
which _Fritzsche_ immediately afterwards endeavours to give to the
text: καὶ σὺ Βεθλεὲμ, γῆ Ἰουδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν ταῖς ἡγεμόσιν
Ἰούδα, "among the principal towns of the families in Judea." Is there
an instance in which αἱ ἡγεμόνες means the "principal towns?" Moreover,
the relation of ἡγεμόσιν to the subsequent ἡγούμενος, which requires
the Masculine, has been overlooked.--Micah personifies Bethlehem from
the outset. Matthew first introduces Bethlehem as a town, but
afterwards passes to the personification by speaking of the ἡγεμόνες;
instead of the tribes. For this he had a special reason in the regard
to the subsequent ἡγούμενος. Bethlehem, although outwardly small, is,
notwithstanding, when regarded from a higher point of view, even in the
present by no means small among the _leaders_ of Judah, for, from it,
in the future, the great _leader_ of Judah shall proceed. This
relation, which is so evident, must the rather be assumed, that in
Micah also a contrast occurs which, as to the sense, is altogether
similar. It serves, at the [Pg 512] same time, for a proof against the
assumption that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in the
Aramean language,--a view which is, generally, opposed also by the free
handling of the Old Testament text in the whole quotation. The
inconsistency in the use of the personification is, further, the more
easy of explanation, since it is altogether of an _ideal_ character,
and, substantially, person and town are not distinguished.--The last
words in Micah, "And His goings forth," etc., have been omitted by
Matthew, because they were not needed for his purpose, which was to
show that, according to the prophecies of the Old Testament, the
Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem. On the other hand, the בישראל of
Micah is paraphrased by: ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου, τὸν Ἰσραήλ. These
words refer to 2 Sam. v. 2: "And the Lord says to thee, _Thou shalt
feed My people Israel_, and thou shalt be a prince over Israel." They
point out the typical relation between the first David who was born at
Bethlehem, and the second David, the Messiah.
With respect to the relation betwixt prophecy and its fulfilment, we
must here still make a general remark. It is everywhere evident
(compare the remarks on Zech. ix. 9), that the fulfilment of the
prophecies of the Old Testament forms a secondary purpose of the events
of the New Testament, but that in none of the latter this fulfilment is
the sole object. Every one, on the contrary, has its significance apart
from the prophecy; and it is by this significance that prophecy and
history are equally governed. This general remark is here also
confirmed. The birth of Christ at Bethlehem testified, in one respect,
for the divine origin of the prophecy of the Old Testament, and, in
another, that Jesus is the Christ. But its main object, altogether
independent of this, was to represent, outwardly also, the descent of
Christ from David. This was recognised by the Jews even, at the time of
Christ, as appears from the addition ὅπου ἦν Δαβίδ, John vii. 42. Of
the two seats of the Davidic family, viz., Bethlehem and Jerusalem, the
former is chosen, partly, because, from its external littleness, it
was, generally, very suitable for prefiguring the lowliness of the
Messiah at the outset--a circumstance which is expressly pointed out by
the prophet himself--and partly, because it was peculiar to the family
of David during its obscurity; whilst Jerusalem, on the contrary,
belonged to their regal condition,--and the Messiah [Pg 513] was to be
born in the fallen tabernacle of David, to be a rod from the cut off
stem of Jesse, Is. xi. 1. That this reference also was in the view of
the prophet, seems to be evident from a comparison of iii. 12, and iv.
8, 9, 14. At all events he considered the family of David as having
altogether sunk at the time of the Messiah's appearing. The very
threatenings in chap. i.-iii. imply the destruction of the Davidic
kingdom. This meets us, very distinctly, in chap. iv.
* * * * *
Ver. 2. "_Therefore will He give them up until the time that she who is
hearing hath brought forth; and then the remnant of his brethren shall
return unto the sons of Israel._"
The description of what the Messiah is to bestow upon the
Covenant-people begins in this verse, and is carried on through the
whole chapter. By לכן the close connection of v. 1 with vi. 9-14 is
indicated. _Michaelis_ remarks: "Because this is the counsel of God,
first to afflict Zion, on account of her sins, and, afterwards only, to
restore her through the Messiah to be born at Bethlehem." In chap. iv.
9-14, it is implied that the giving up will not terminate _before_ His
birth; in v. 1, that it will come to an end _with_ His birth. The whole
time described in iv. 9-14 is a time of affliction, of giving up Israel
to the world's power in a threefold form of its manifestation. In iv.
14, however, the affliction has reached its highest point, and the
lucid interval, mentioned in vers. 12, 13, has fully expired. It is
only when we look back to v. 1 alone, that the "therefore" with which
our verse opens is not explained, inasmuch as there it is said only,
that with the Messiah deliverance and salvation would come, but not
that the affliction would continue until He should come.--נתן is
similarly used in 2 Chron. xxx. 7: "And be not ye like your fathers,
and like your brethren who trespassed against the Lord God of your
fathers; therefore He gave them up to desolation (ויתנם לשמה), as you
see." With respect to the words, "Until the time that she who is
bearing hath brought forth," there is an essential difference of
opinion as to the explanation of the main point. One class of
interpreters--comprehending _Eusebius_ and _Cyril_, and by far the
greatest number of the ancient Christian expositors; and among
the more recent, _Rosenmüller_, _Ewald_, _Hitzig_, _Maurer_, and
_Caspari_--understand [Pg 514] by "her who is bearing," the mother of
the Messiah. Another class understands thereby the Congregation of
Israel. The latter, however, differ from each other as to the
signification and import of the figure of the birth. Some--_Abendana_,
_Calvin_, and _Justi_--suppose the _tertium comparationis_ to be the
joy following upon the pain. Others--_Theodoret_, _Tarnovius_ ("until
Israel, like a fruitful mother, has brought forth a numerous progeny"),
_Vitringa_ (in his _Commentary on Revel._ S. 534)--suppose it to be the
great increase. Let us first decide between these two modifications of
that view which refers the words to the Congregation of Israel. The
former--the joy following after the pain--appears to be inadmissible
for this single reason, that among the very numerous passages of the
Old Testament where the image of a birth is employed, there does not
occur even one, in which the joy following after the pain is made
prominent, as is the case in the well-known passage in the New
Testament. On the contrary, in all the passages which come into
consideration on this point, it is rather the pain accompanying the
birth which is considered. Thus Mic. iv. 10; Is. xxvi. 17; Jer. iv. 31:
"For I hear a voice as of a woman in travail, anguish as of her that
bringeth forth her first-born child, the voice of the daughter of
Zion, she groaneth, spreadeth her hands: Woe to me, for my soul
is wearied, through them that kill;" xxx. 6, xlix. 24; Hos. xiii. 13.
To consider the pain alone, however, as the _tertium comparationis_, is
inadmissible, because, in that case, we would obtain the absurd
meaning: the suffering shall continue until the suffering cometh. It is
likewise impossible to understand the bringing forth as the highest
degree of affliction,--so that the sense would be: the Lord will give
them up until the distress reaches its highest point,--because this
meaning could apply only in the event of the lower degrees, the pains
before the birth, being also mentioned. They who hold and defend the
second modification of this view, can indeed refer to, and quote, a
large number of parallel passages--almost all of them from the second
part of Isaiah--where this image occurs with a similar signification.
Thus, _e.g._. Is. liv. 1: "Shout for joy, O barren, thou that didst not
bear; break forth into shouting and exult, thou that didst not travail;
for more numerous are the sons of the desolate than the sons of the
married wife, saith the Lord;" xlix. 21, 22, lxvi. 7-9. But we must
nevertheless prefer [Pg 515] to this explanation, that which refers the
words to the mother of the Messiah, for the following reasons. 1. If
the words were to be referred to the Congregation of Israel, we should
expect the Article before יולדה. For the Congregation of Israel is
substantially mentioned in what immediately precedes; she is only a
personification of those who are to be given up. 2. It is true that,
frequently, the personification is not consistently carried out; but
the circumstance that here, in the same sentence, the children
of Israel are spoken of in the plural ("He will give _them_ up"), and
that no trace of a personification is found in what follows, but that,
on the contrary, the children of Israel are mentioned expressly, makes
the pretended personification appear in rather an abrupt manner, so
that such an assumption would be admissible in a case of necessity
only. 3. If referred to the Congregation of Israel, the relation of the
Messiah to that great event, and epoch, is not intimated by a single
word. Of Him ver. 1 speaks, and of Him vers. 3-5. How then can it be
that in ver. 2 there should all at once be a transition to the general
Messianic representation? 4. The suffix in אחיו, which refers to the
Messiah, requires that He should be indirectly mentioned in what
precedes; and such is the case, only when the יולדה is she who is to
bring forth the Ruler announced in ver. 1. 5. It appears from the
reference to Gen. xxxv., which we have already pointed out and proved,
that the prophet has in view one who is to bring forth in Bethlehem.
Bethlehem, which had in ancient times already become remarkable by a
birth, is in future to be ennobled by another birth, infinitely more
important. 6. The comparison of Is. vii. 14, where likewise the mother
of the Messiah is mentioned; compare the remarks on that passage. 7,
and lastly--The evident reference of "Until the time that she who is
bearing hath brought forth" to "From thee shall come forth," suggests
the mother of the Messiah. That she is designated as "she who brings
forth," may be explained from the circumstance that she comes into view
here in a relation which is altogether one-sided, viz., only as regards
the one event of the birth of the Messiah.--Among the blessings which
the Messiah is to confer upon the Congregation of the Lord, there is
first of all viewed the fundamental blessing, the condition of all
others, viz., the change which He is to effect in the disposition of
the Covenant-people. [Pg 516] It is this which, above and before
everything else, needs to be changed, if Israel is not any more to be
given up; for Israel which is so only by name and in appearance, is the
legitimate prey of the world.--By the Brethren of the Messiah, the
members of the Old Covenant-people, His brethren according to the
flesh, can alone be understood. There is no Old Testament analogy for
referring the expression to the Gentiles. We are led to the reference
to Israel by the connection with the first member of the verse. The
brethren are such as have become the Messiah's brethren by the
circumstance that He has been born of the Bethlehemitish woman "who is
to bring forth" (_Caspari_). We are led to it, _further_, by v. 1,
according to which, the Messiah is to be Ruler in Israel; and, _still
further_, by the fundamental passage in Ps. xxii. 23: "I will declare
Thy name unto my brethren," where, according to the address in ver. 24,
the brethren are all the descendants of Israel, among whom a great
awakening is to be produced.--The construction of שוב with על may be
explained by the remark of _Ewald_: "על stands in its primary local
signification with verbs also, when the thing moves to another thing,
and remains upon it." Of a material return the verb שוב with על is thus
used in Prov. xxvi. 11, Eccles. i. 6;--of a spiritual return, 2 Chron.
xxx. 9: בשובכם על יהוה "when ye return to the Lord," properly, "upon
the Lord;" and Mal. iii. 24 (iv. 6): "And he makes return the hearts of
the fathers to the sons, על בנים,"--which latter passage has a striking
resemblance to the one under review. In the latter signification שוב
must be taken here also.--By the "sons of Israel," here, as ordinarily,
the whole of the Covenant-people are signified, and that by its highest
and holiest name. From this holy communion, the wicked--the souls
which, according to the expression of the Lord, are cut off from their
people--are separated and dissevered; compare my commentary on Ps.
lxxiii. 1. The whole description of the prevailing corruption, and
especially vii. 1, 2, show us to what an extent this separation existed
at the time of the prophet. But, by the Saviour, this separation is to
be abolished, and the lost and wandering are to be brought back to the
communion of the church,--a work which, according to Rom. xi., will be
perfected in the future only.[1]
[Pg 517]
Ver. 3. "_And He stands and feeds in the strength of the Lord, in the
majesty of the name of the Lord His God; and they dwell, for now shall
He be great unto the ends of the earth._"
In this verse we are told what the Saviour shall do for awakened
and, thus, inwardly united Israel. "He stands," has here not the
signification of "He abides," but belongs merely to the graphic
description of the habit of the shepherd; compare Is. lxi. 5: "And
strangers stand and feed your flocks." The shepherd stands, leaning
upon his staff, and overlooks the flock. The connection of "He feeds"
with "in the strength of the Lord," we cannot better express than
_Calvin_ has done in the words: "The word 'to feed' expresses what
Christ will be towards His people, _i.e._, towards the flock committed
to Him. He does not exercise dominion in the Church like a formidable
tyrant who keeps down his subjects through terror, but He is a
Shepherd, and treats His sheep with all the gentleness which they can
desire. But, inasmuch as we are surrounded on all sides by enemies, the
prophet adds: 'He shall feed in the strength,' etc.; _i.e._, as much
power as there is in God, so much protection there will be in Christ,
when it is necessary to defend and protect His Church against enemies.
We may learn, then, from this, that we may expect as much of salvation
from Christ as there is strength in God." The great King is so closely
united to God, that the whole fulness of divine power and majesty
belongs to Him. Such attributes are never given to any earthly king.
Such a king has, indeed, strength in the Lord, Is. xlv. 24; "The Lord
giveth strength to His king, and exalteth the horn of His anointed," 1
Sam. ii. 10; but the whole strength and majesty of God are not his
possession. The passage [Pg 518] in Is. ix. 5 (6) is parallel,--where
the Messiah is called אל גבור, God-hero.--The "name of God" points to
the rich fulness in deeds, by which He has manifested the glory of His
nature. The Messiah will be the brightness and image of this His
glory,--a glory which is manifested by acts, and not a glory which
is inactive and concealed. "They dwell" forms a contrast to the
disquietude and scattering, and we are, therefore, not at liberty to
supply "safely" before it. The last words are deprived of their meaning
and significance by explanations such as that of _Dathe_: "His name
shall attain to great renown and celebrity." The ground of the present
rest and safety of the Congregation of the Lord rather is this,--that
her Head has now extended His dominion beyond the narrow limits of
Palestine, over the whole earth; compare iv. 3.--2 Sam. vii. 9 cannot
here be compared, as there the _name_ of the Lord is not spoken of
as it is here. That the "being great" here implies real dominion
(_Maurer_: _auctoritate et potentia valebit_), which alone can afford a
pledge for the dwelling in safety, is shown also by the fundamental
passages Ps. ii. 8, lxxii. 8; compare Zech. ix. 10. In Luke i. 32 the
passage before us is referred to. The "now" does not by any means form
a contrast with a former condition of the Messiah, but with the former
condition of the Congregation when she did not enjoy so powerful a
Ruler.
Ver. 4. "_And this_ (man) _is peace. When Asshur comes into our land,
and when he treads in our palaces, we raise against him seven
shepherds, and eight princes of men._ Ver. 5. _And they feed the land
of Asshur with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in its gates; and He
protects from Asshur when he comes into our land, and when he treads
within our borders._"
"And this man (He whose glory has just been described) is peace,"--He
bestows that which we have so much needed, and longed for with so much
anxiety in these troublous times before His appearing. In a similar
manner, and with reference to the passage before us, it is said in
Ephes. ii. 14: αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, compare also Judges vi.
24: "And Gideon built an altar there unto the Lord, and called it
Jehovah-Peace, יהוה שלום." Abandoning this explanation, which is so
natural, _Jonathan_, _Grotius_, _Rosenmüller_, and _Winer_ explain:
"And _there_ will be peace to us,"--an interpretation, however, which
is inadmissible even on philological grounds, זה is nowhere used,
either [Pg 519] as Adverb, loci = "here," or as Adverb, temp. = "then."
As regards the latter, such passages as Gen. xxxi. 41--"These are to me
twenty years," instead of, "twenty years have now elapsed"--are, of
course, not at all to the purpose. But of such a kind are almost all
the examples quoted by _Nolde_. In Esther ii. 13 בזה is used. The verb
הציל in ver. 5 is likewise in favour of understanding זה personally;
compare also Zech. ix. 10: "And He shall speak peace unto the
nations."--There can scarcely be any doubt that the words allude to the
name of Solomon, and that the Messiah is represented in them as the
Antitype of Solomon. Upon this point there is the less room for doubt,
because even Solomon himself called the Messiah by his name in the Song
of Solomon; and in Is. ix. 5 (6) also, He is, with an evident allusion
to the name of Solomon, called the Prince of Peace.--All which follows
after these words, to the end of ver. 5, is only a particularizing
expansion of the words: "And this (man) is peace." Interpreters have
almost all agreed, that Asshur, the most dangerous enemy of the
Covenant-people at the time of the prophet, stands here as a type of
the enemies of the Covenant-people. Even _L. Baur_ has translated: "And
though another Asshur," etc., with a reference to the passage in
_Virgil_ to which allusion had already been made by _Castalio_: "_Alter
erit tum Tiphys et altera quæ vehat Argo delectos heroas._" That the
prophet, however, was fully conscious of his here using Asshur
typically, appears from iv. 9, 10. For, according to these verses, the
first of the three catastrophes which preceded the birth of the
Messiah, proceeds from a new phase of the world's power, viz., from the
Babylonian empire, the rising of which implies the overthrow of the
Assyrian. But the figurative element in the representation goes still
farther. From ver. 9 ff.--according to which the Lord makes His people
outwardly defenceless, before they become, in Christ, the conquerors of
the world--it is obvious that the spiritual struggle against the
world's power is here represented under the image of the outward
struggle, carried on with the sword. One might be tempted to confine
the thought of the passage to this: "The Messiah affords to His people
the same protection and security as would a large number of brave
princes with their hosts," inasmuch as the bestowal of these was, under
the Old Testament, the ordinary means by which the Lord delivered His
people. If, however, the spiritual character [Pg 520] of the struggle
only be maintained, there is no sufficient reason for considering the
seven and more shepherds and the princes as mere imagery, because, in
the kingdom of Christ also, the cause of the kingdom of God is carried
on by human instruments, whom He furnishes with His own strength.
The words, "This (man) is peace," and "He protects," in ver. 5,
show indeed with sufficient distinctness, that, in the main, Christ
is the only Saviour,--the shepherds, His instruments only,--and their
world-conquering power, a derived one only. The apparent contradiction
of the passage before us to iv. 1-3, vii. 12--according to which the
heathen nations shall, in the time of the Messiah, spontaneously press
towards the kingdom of God--is removed by the remark, that we have here
before us two different streams which may as well flow together in
prophecy as they do in history. The zeal with which the nations press
towards the kingdom is, in part, greatly called forth by the fact,
that, in attacking the kingdom of Christ, they have experienced its
world-conquering power. The circumstance that the words, "This (man) is
peace," stand at the beginning, proves that the main idea is the
security of the kingdom of God against all hostile attacks. For the
like reason it is, towards the end, resumed in the words, "And He
protects," etc. But this affords no reason for saying, with _Caspari_:
"It forms part of the defence, it is indeed its consummation, that the
war is carried into Asshur." In the first hemistich of ver. 5, it is
intimated rather, that, in the time of the Messiah, the positions of
the world and of the people of God are changed,--that the latter
becomes world-conquering; and for this reason, every thought of their
own insecurity must so much the rather disappear. "The land of Nimrod"
is, according to Gen. x. 11, Asshur. The "gates" are those of the
cities and fortresses, corresponding with, "When he treads in our
palaces," in ver. 4. It weakens the sense to think of the gates of the
country, as such, _i.e._, the borders. The attack, on the contrary, is
directed against, and strikes the real centre of the seat of the
world's power, just as, formerly, the stroke was always directed
against Zion.
With regard to the remaining part of the chapter, we content ourselves
with a mere statement of the contents. The Congregation of the Lord
shall, at that time, not only be lovely and refreshing, ver. 6 (7),
(this is the constant signification of the [Pg 521] image of the dew,
compare Ps. cx. 3, cxxxiii. 3, lxxii. 6; the relative pronoun אשר must
be referred to the grass, mentioned immediately before; that which the
dew descending from heaven is to the grass, Israel will, in his
heavenly mission, be to the heathen world), but at the same time
fearful and irresistible, vers. 7, 8 (8, 9); the latter of these
qualities shall show itself not only as a curse in the case of
obstinate despisers, but also as a blessing in the case of those who
are estranged from the kingdom of God, through ignorance only. Resuming
then the last words of ver. 8 (9), "All thine enemies shall be cut
off," the prophet declares that before this word shall be fulfilled,
the destructive activity of the Lord will be manifested in Israel
itself. He will cut off by His judgments, and by the catastrophes
described in iv. 9-14, everything in which, in the present, they placed
a carnal confidence, everything by which they became externally strong
and powerful (_Caspari_: "A cutting off, in the first instance, of all
wherewith elsewhere enemies are commonly cut off"), and so likewise all
idolatry, to which the Chaldean catastrophe already put a violent end.
It is only of such a termination by force, and not of a purely inward
effect of the "gentle power of the Spirit then poured out upon them,"
that the words here, as well as in reference to the horses, etc.,
permit us to think. The two kinds of objects of false confidence are
then, in conclusion, in ver. 13 (14) once more summed up,--when the
cities, just as in ver. 10 (11), come into view as fortresses only. If
thus the path be cleared and prepared for the Lord, He will, on behalf
of His people, execute vengeance upon the heathen world.
Footnote 1: After the example of _Hofmann_, _Caspari_ gives this
exposition: "And the remnant of His brethren, viz., the inhabitants of
Judah, shall return from the captivity to Canaan, along with the sons
of Israel, _i.e._, the ten tribes." But the return from the captivity
never appears in the prophets, as a work of the Messiah. It has here
taken place long before His appearing: chap. iv. 10, iv. 11-14 supposes
it to have taken place, and Zion to be in existence. The "brethren of
the Messiah" can neither be the inhabitants of Judah especially, nor
the sons of Israel, the ten tribes, unless the antithesis to Judah be
distinctly expressed. It is absurd to suppose that the ten tribes
should appear as those chiefly who are to be redeemed. שוב, which means
"to return," cannot be used simply of a return to the country, while
שוב with על can, according to the _usus loquendi_, be understood only
in the sense of "to return to," etc., etc.