Chapter 43

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.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION.

1. AMONG THE JEWS.

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.