Chapter 20

the needy out of the dunghill, that He may set him with princes, with the princes of His people,"--in which, the second time, the transition should take place from the low condition to the royal dignity, should not be mentioned according to its royal, but according to its rustic character. This explanation of the fact is confirmed by the circumstance that it agrees exceedingly well with the right interpretation of [Hebrew: gze]: Jesse is mentioned and not David, because the Davidic dignity had become a [Hebrew: gze]. The mention of Jesse's name thus explained, agrees, then, with the birth of Christ at Bethlehem, announced by Isaiah's cotemporary, Micah. Christ was to be born at Bethlehem, because that residence was peculiar to the [Pg 105] family of David during its lowliness; comp. vol. I., p. 508-9.--The second hemistich of the verse may either be explained: "a twig from his roots shall bear fruit," or, as agrees better with the accents: "a twig shall from his roots bear fruit." The sense, at all events, is: A shoot proceeding from his roots (_i.e._, the cut-off stem of Jesse) shall grow up into a stately fruitful tree; or: As a tree cut down throws out from its roots a young shoot which, at first inconsiderable, grows up into a stately fruit-bearing tree, so from the family buried in contempt and lowliness, a _King_ shall arise who, at first humble and unheeded,[3] shall afterwards attain to great glory. Parallel is Ezek. xvii. 22-24. The Messiah is there compared to a tender twig which is planted by the Lord on a high hill, and sends forth branches and bears fruit, so that all the birds dwell in the shadow of its branches.--It has now become current to explain: "A branch breaks forth or sprouts;" but that explanation is against the _usus loquendi_. [Hebrew: prh] is never equivalent to [Hebrew: prH] "to break forth;" it has only the signification "to bear," "to bear fruit," "to be fruitful." _Gesenius_ who, in the later editions of his translation, here explains [Hebrew: prh] by, "to break forth," knows, in the _Thesaurus_, of no other signification. In the passage of Ezekiel referred to, which may be considered as a commentary on the verse before us, [Hebrew: ewh pri] corresponds to the [Hebrew: iprh] here. The change of the tense, too, suggests that [Hebrew: iprh] does not contain a mere repetition, but a progress. This progress is necessary for the sense of the whole verse. For it cannot be the point in question that, in general, a shoot comes forth; but the point is that this shoot shall attain to importance and glory. [Hebrew: iprh] comprehends and expresses in one word that which, in the subsequent verses of the section, is carried out in detail. First, there is the bestowal of the Spirit of the Lord whereby He is enabled to bear fruit; then, the fruit-bearing itself.

We here subjoin the discussion of the New Testament passage which refers to this verse.

[Footnote 1: Their testimony is collected by _Seb. Edzardi_ in the treatise: _Cap. xi. Esaiae Christo vindicatum adversus Grotium et sectatores ejus, imprimos Herm. v. d. Hardt._ Hamburg 1696.]

[Footnote 2: "The madness of the Jews is indeed to be lamented who refer this prophecy to Zerubbabel."]

[Footnote 3: Although _Umbreit_ denies it, yet this is implied in the designation of the Messiah as a shoot from the roots. Moreover, the lowliness of the Messiah himself at His appearance is a necessary consequence of the lowliness of His family; and it is a bad middle course to acknowledge the latter and deny the former. To this may, moreover, be added the parallel passage Is. liii. 2.]

[Pg 106]

ON MATTHEW II. 23.

[Greek: Kai elthôn katôkêsen eis polin legomenên Nazaret. hopôs plêrôthê to rhêthen dia tôn prophêtôn, hoti Nazôraios klêthêsetai.]

We here premise an investigation as regards the name of the town of Nazareth. Since that name occurs in the New Testament only, different views might arise as to its orthography and etymology. One view is this: The name was properly and originally [Hebrew: ncr]. Being the name of a town, it received, in Aramean, in addition, the feminine termination [Hebrew: a]. And, finally, on account of the original appellative signification of the word, a [Hebrew: t], the designation of the _status emphaticus_ of feminine nouns in [Hebrew: a], was sometimes added. We have an analogous case in the name _Dalmanutha_, the same place which, with the Talmudist, is called [Hebrew: clmvN]. Compare _Lightfoot decas chorog. Marc. praem., opp._ II., p. 411 sqq. So it is likewise probably that [Greek: gabbatha], [Hebrew: gbta] is formed from the masculine [Hebrew: gb], _dorsum_. Our view is that the original name was _Nezer_, that this form of the name was in use along with that which received a [Hebrew: t] added, and that this [Hebrew: t] served for the designation of the _status emphaticus_ only; or also, if we wish to take our stand upon the Hebrew form, was a mere hardening of the [Hebrew: h] Femin. (either of which suppositions is equally suitable for our purpose); and this our view we prove by the following arguments: 1. The testimonies of the Jews. _David de Pomis_ (in _De Dieu_, _critic. sacr._ on M. II. 23) says: [Hebrew: ncri mi wnvld beir ncr hglil rHvq mirvwliM drK wlwt imiM] "A Nazarene is he who is born in the town of _Nezer_, in Galilee, three days'journey from Jerusalem." In the Talmud, in _Breshith Rabba_, and in _Jalkut Shimeoni_ on Daniel, the contemptuous name of _Ben Nezer_, _i.e._, the Nazarene, is given to Christ; compare the passages in _Buxtorf_, _lex. c._ 1383; in _Lightfoot_, _disquis. chorog. Johan. praem. opp._ II., 578 sqq.; _Eisenmenger_, I., p. 3139. It is true, _Gieseler_ (on Matth. ii. 23, and in the _Studien u. Kritiken_, 1831, III. S. 591) has tried to give a different interpretation to this appellation. He is of opinion that this appellation has reference to Is. xi. 1; that it had come to the Jews from the Christians, who called [Pg 107] their Messiah [Hebrew: bN ncr], because He was He who had been promised by Isaiah. But this supposition is correct thus far only, that, no doubt, this appellation was chosen by the Jews with a reference to the circumstance that the Christians maintained that Jesus was the [Hebrew: ncr] announced by Isaiah, just as, for the very same reason, they also assign to Him the names [Hebrew: ncr napvP] "adulterous branch," and [Hebrew: ncr nteb] "abominable branch" (from Is. xiv. 19); comp. _Eisenmenger_ I. S. 137, 138. But _Gieseler_ is wrong in deriving, from this reference to Is. xi. 1, the origin of the appellation, be it properly or mainly only. Against that even the very appellation is decisive, for in that case it ought to have been _Nezer_ only, and not _Ben-Nezer_. _Gieseler_, it is true, asserts that he in whom a certain prophecy was fulfilled is called the "Son of the prophecy," and in confirmation of this _usus loquendi_ he refers to the circumstance that the pseudo-Messiah under Hadrian assumed, with a reference to the [Hebrew: kvkb] in Numb. xxiv. 17, the name [Hebrew: bN kvkb] or [Hebrew: bN kvkba], in so far as the star there promised had appeared in him. But this confirmation is only apparent; it can as little be proved from it, that Christ could be called _Ben-Nezer_ because He was He in whom the prophecy of the _Nezer_ was fulfilled, as it can be proved from the appellation _Ben Nezer_ that that pseudo-Messiah could be called _Bar Cochba_, only because it was believed that in him the prophecy of the star was fulfilled. _Reland_ has already proved (Geogr. II. p. 727) that _Barcochba_ probably had that name because he was a native of Cocab, a town or district in the country beyond Jordan. And the reason why he laid such special stress upon that descent was, that he sought a deeper meaning in this agreement of the name of his birth-place with the designation of the subject of the prophecy in Numb. xxiv. Moreover the supposition that, by the Jews, he in whom some prophecy was fulfilled, was called the son of that prophecy; that, _e.g._, the Messiah, the Servant of God, the Prince of Peace were called the Son of the Messiah, &c., is not only destitute of all foundation, but is, even in itself, most improbable. To this must still be added the consideration that this interpretation of _Ben-Nezer_ is opposed by the constant interpretation of the Jews. _Jarchi_, in a gloss on that passage of the Talmud referred to, explains _Ben Nezer_ by: "He who has come from the town of Nazareth." _Abarbanel_ [Pg 108] in his book _Majenehajeshua_, after having quoted from _Jalkut Shimeoni_ the passage in question, observes: "Remark well how they have explained the little horn in Daniel vii. 8, of the _Ben Nezer_ who is Jesus the _Nazarene_." From the Lexicon _Aruch_ which forms a weighty authority, Buxtorf quotes: "[Hebrew: ncr ncri hmqll] Nezer, (or Ben Nezer), is the accursed _Nazarene_." _Finally_--It could not well be supposed that the Jews, in a contest where they heap the most obnoxious blasphemies on Christ, should have given Him an honourable epithet which they had simply received from the Christians.

2. The result which we have obtained is confirmed by the statements of Christian writers. Even at the time of _Eusebius_ (Hist. Eccles. i. 7), and of _Jerome_, the place was called _Nazara_. The latter says: "_Nazareth_: there exists up to this day in Galilee a village opposite Legio, fifteen miles to the east of it, near Mount Tabor, called _Nazara_" (comp. _Reland_ i. S. 497). In _Epistol._ xvii. ad _Marcellum_ he expressly identifies the name with _Nezer_, by saying: "Let us go to Nazareth, and according to a right interpretation of that name, we shall see there the flower of Galilee."

3. To this may be added, that the _Gentilitia_ formed from Nazareth can be explained only when the [Hebrew: t] is not considered as belonging to the original form of the name. For, in that case, it must necessarily be found again in the _Gentilitia_, just as, _e.g._, from [Hebrew: entt] we could not by any means form [Hebrew: enti], but only [Hebrew: entti]. In the New Testament the two forms [Greek: Nazôraios] and [Greek: Nazarênos] only occur, never the form [Greek: Nazaretaios]. _Gieseler_ has felt the difficulty which these names present to the common hypothesis, but has endeavoured (l. c. p. 592) to remove them by the conjecture that this form, so very peculiar, had been coined by a consideration of [Hebrew: ncr] which the first Christians were accustomed to bring into connection with [Hebrew: ncrt]. But this conjecture would, at most, be admissible, only if, with the Jews too, the form [Hebrew: ncri] were not found throughout without a [Hebrew: t], and if the Arabic form also were not entirely analogous.[1]

[Pg 109]

The question now is:--In what sense was [Hebrew: ncr] assigned as a _nomen proprium_ to a place in Galilee? Certainly, we must at once reject the supposition of _Jerome_ that Nazareth was thus called, as being "the flower of Galilee," partly because [Hebrew: ncr] never occurs in this signification; partly because it is not conceivable that the place received a name which is due to it [Greek: kat'anti phrasin] only. It is much more probable that the place received the name on account of its smallness: a weak twig in contrast to a stately tree. In this signification [Hebrew: ncr] occurs in Is. xi. 1, xiv. 19, and in the Talmudical _usus loquendi_ where [Hebrew: ncrim] signifies "_virgulta salicum decorticata, vimina ex quibus corbes fiunt._" There was so much the greater reason for giving the place this name that people had the symbol before their eyes in its environs; for the chalk-hills around Nazareth are over-grown with low bushes (comp. Burkhardt II. s. 583). That which these bushes were when compared with the stately trees which adorned other parts of the country, Nazareth was when compared with other cities.

This _nomen_ given to the place on account of its small beginnings, resembling, in this respect, the name of Zoar, _i.e._, a small town, was, at the same time, an _omen_ of its future condition. The weak twig never grew up into a tree. Nowhere in the Old Testament is Nazareth mentioned, probably because it was built only after the return from the captivity. Neither is it mentioned in _Josephus_. It was not, like most of the other towns in Palestine, ennobled by any recollection from the olden times. Yea, as it would appear, a special contempt was resting upon it, besides the general contempt in which all Galilee was held; just as every land has some place to which a disgrace attaches, which has often been called forth by causes altogether trifling. This appears not only from the question of Nathanael, in John i. 47: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" but also from the fact, that from the most ancient times the Jews thought to inflict upon Christ the greatest disgrace, by calling Him the Nazarene, whilst, in later times, the disgrace which rested on all Galilee [Pg 110] was removed by the circumstance that the most celebrated Jewish academy, that of Tiberias, belonged to it.

Let us now examine in how far Christ's abode at Nazareth served the purpose of fulfilling the Old Testament prophecy. It is, throughout, the doctrine of the prophets, that the Messiah, descending from the family of David, sunk into utter lowliness, would at first appear without any outward rank and dignity. The fundamental type for all other passages here concerned is contained in that passage of Is. xi. 1, now under consideration: "And there cometh forth a twig from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit," which is strikingly illustrated in the following words of _Quenstedt_, in his _Dissertatio de Germine Jehovae_, in the _Thesaurus theol. philol._ I. p. 1015: "The stem of Jesse which, from low beginnings, was, in David, raised to the glory of royal majesty, shall then not only be deprived of all royal dignity, and all outward splendour which it received in David, but shall again have been reduced to the private condition in which it was before David; so that it shall present the appearance of a stem deprived of all boughs and foliage, and having nothing left but the roots; nevertheless out of that stem thus reduced and cut off, and, as it appeared, almost dry, shall come forth a royal rod, and out of its roots shall grow the twig upon whom shall rest the Spirit of the Lord," &c. Quite in harmony with this, it is said in chap. liii. 2: "He grew up before the Lord as a tender twig, and as a root out of a dry ground." To [Hebrew: ncr], in chap. xi., corresponds [Hebrew: ivnq] in chap. liii.; to [Hebrew: HTr] the [Hebrew: wrw]; to the cut-off stem the dry land, with this difference, however, that by the latter designation, the low condition of the Servant of God, generally, is indicated; but His descent from the family of David sunk in lowliness, is not specially pointed at thereby, although it is necessarily implied in it. The same thought is further carried out in Ezek. xvii. 22-24. As the descendant of the family of David sank in lowliness, the Messiah appears in that passage as a small tender twig which is taken by the Lord from a high cedar, and, being planted upon a high mountain, growls up into a lofty tree, under which all the fowls dwell. In Jeremiah and Zechariah, the Messiah, with reference to the image of a cut-off tree used by Isaiah, is called the Sprout of David, or simply the Sprout; [Pg 111] compare remarks on Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12. All that is here required is certainly only to place beside one another, on the one hand, prophecy, and, on the other, history, in order clearly and evidently to point out the fulfilment of the former in the latter. It was not at Jerusalem, where there was the seat of His royal ancestor, where there were the thrones of His house (comp. Ps. cxxii.), that the Messiah took up his residence; but it was in the most despised place of the most despised province that, by divine Providence, He received His residence, after the predictions of the prophets had been fulfilled by His having been born at Bethlehem. The name of that place by which His lowliness was designated was the same as that by which Isaiah had designated the lowliness of the Messiah at His appearing.

We have hitherto considered prophecy and fulfilment independently of the quotation by St. Matthew. Let us now add a few remarks upon the latter.

1. It seems not to have been without reason that the wider formula of quotation: [Greek: to rhêthen dia tôn prophêtôn] is here chosen, although _Jerome_ infers too much from it when he remarks: "If he had wished to refer to a distinct quotation from Scripture, he would never have said: 'As was spoken by the prophets,'but simply, 'as was said by the prophet.'By using prophets in the plural, he shows that it is the sense, and not the words which he has taken from Scripture." No doubt St. Matthew has one passage chiefly in view--that in Is. xi. 1, which, besides the general announcement of the Messiah's lowliness, contains, in addition, a special designation of it which is found again in the _nomen_ and _omen_ of his native place. This appears especially from the circumstance that, if it were otherwise, the quotation: in [Greek: hoti Nazôraios klêthêstai], would be inexplicable, since it is very forced to suppose that "Nazarene" here designates generally one low and despised.[2] But he chose the general formula of [Pg 112] quotation (comp. _Gersdorf_, _Beiträge zur Sprachcharacteristik_ 1. S. 136), in order thereby to intimate that in Christ's residence at Nazareth those prophecies, too, were at the same time fulfilled, which, in the essential point--in the announcement of Christ's lowliness--agree with that of Isaiah. But it is just this additional reference which shows that, to Matthew, this was indeed the essential point, and that the agreement of the name of the town with the name which Christ has in Isaiah, appears to him only as a remarkable outward representation of the close connection of prophecy and fulfilment; just as, indeed, every thing in the life of Christ appears to be brought about by the special direction of Divine providence.

2. The phrase [Greek: hoti klêthêsetai] likewise is explained from the circumstance that Matthew does not restrict himself to the passage Is.