Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume Ii Part 5

The connection of the two pa.s.sages appears so much the more plainly when we consider, that that which, in chap. x., was said of a.s.shur, and especially the close in vers. 33 and 34: "Behold Jehovah of hosts cuts down the branches with power, and those of a high stature shall be hewn down, and the high ones shall be made low. And He cuts down the thickets of the forest with the iron, and Lebanon shall fall by the glorious one," _refers to him as the representative of the whole world's power_; that the defeat of Sennacherib before Jerusalem is to be considered as the nearest fulfilment only, but not as the _full_ and _real_ fulfilment.

From the family of David sunk into total obscurity--such is the substance--there shall, at some future period, rise a Ruler who, at first low and without appearance, shall attain to great glory and bestow rich blessings,--a Ruler furnished with the fulness of the Spirit of G.o.d and of His gifts, filled with the fear of G.o.d, looking sharply and deeply, and not blinded by any appearance, just and an helper of the oppressed, an almighty avenger of wickedness, ver. 1-5.

By him all the consequences of the fall, even down to the irrational creation, in the world of men and of nature, shall be removed, ver.

6-9. Around Him the Gentiles, formerly addicted to idols, shall gather, ver. 10. In ver. 11-16 the Prophet describes what he is to do for Israel, to whom the discourse was in the first instance addressed, and upon whom it was to impress the word: "Fear not." Under Him they obtain deliverance [Pg 97] from the condition of being scattered and exiled from the face of the Lord, the removal of pernicious dissensions, conquering power in relation to the world which a.s.sails them, and the removal of all obstacles to salvation by the powerful arm of the Lord.

The reference of the prophecy to the Messiah is, among all the explanations, the most ancient. We find it in the Targum of Jonathan, who thus renders the first verse: ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????

????? ?????. St. Paul quotes this prophecy in Rom. xv. 12, and proves from it the calling of the Gentiles. In 2 Thes. ii. 8 he quotes the words of ver. 4, and a.s.signs to Christ what is said in it. In Rev. v.

5, xxii. 16, Christ, with reference to ver. 1 and 10, is called the root of David. The Messianic explanation was defended by most of the older Jewish interpreters, especially by _Jarchi_, _Abarbanel_, and _Kimchi_.[1] It is professed even by most of the rationalistic interpreters, by the modern ones especially, without any exception (_Eichhorn_, _De Wette_, _Gesenius_, _Hitzig_, _Maurer_, _Ewald_), although, it is true, they distinguish between Jesus Christ and the Messiah of the Old Testament,--as, _e.g._, _Gesenius_ has said: "Features such as those in ver. 4 and 5 exclude any other than the political Messiah, and King of the Israelitish state," and _Hitzig_: "A political Messiah whose attributes, especially those a.s.signed to him ver. 3 and 4, are not applicable to Jesus."

But the non-Messianic interpretation, too, has found its defenders.

According to a statement of Theodoret, the pa.s.sage was referred by the Jews to Zerubbabel.[2] Interpreters more numerous and distinguished have referred it to Hezekiah. This interpretation is mentioned as early as by _Ephraem Syrus_; among the Rabbis it was held by _Moses Hakkohen_, and _Abenezra_; among Christian interpreters, _Grotius_ was the first who professed it, but in such a manner that he a.s.sumed a higher reference to Christ. ("The Prophet returns to praise Hezekiah in words under which the higher praises of Christ are concealed.") He was followed by _Dathe_. The exclusive reference to Hezekiah was maintained by _Hermann v. d._ [Pg 98] _Hardt_, in a treatise published in 1695, which, however, was confiscated; then, by a number of interpreters at the commencement of the age of Rationalism, at the head of whom was _Bahrdt_. Among the expositors of the last decade, this interpretation is held by _Hendewerk_ alone.

The reasons for the Messianic interpretation, and against making Hezekiah the subject of the prophecy, are, among others, the following:--

1. _The comparison of the parallel pa.s.sages._ The Messiah is here represented under the figure of a shoot or sprout. This has become so common, as a designation of the Messiah, that the name "Sprout" has almost become a proper name of the Messiah; compare the remarks on chap. iv. 2. A striking resemblance to ver. 1 is presented by chap.

lviii. 2, where the Messiah, to express His lowliness at the beginning of His course, is, in the same manner as here, compared to a feeble and tender twig. Ps. lxxii. and the prophecies in chap. ii., iv., vii., ix., and Mic. v., present so many agreements and coincidences with the prophecy under consideration, that they must necessarily be referred to one and the same subject. The reception of the Gentile nations into the Kingdom of G.o.d, the holiness of its members, the cessation of all hostilities, are features which constantly recur in the Messianic prophecies.

2. There are features interwoven with the prophecy which lead to a more than human dignity of its subject. Even this circ.u.mstance is of importance here, that the _whole earth_ appears as the sphere of His dominion. Still more distinctly is the human sphere overstepped by the announcement that, under His government, _sin_, yea, even all destruction in the outward nature is to cease, and the earth is to return to the happy condition in which it was before the fall.

According to ver. 4, He slays the wicked in the whole earth by His mere word,--a thing which elsewhere is said of _G.o.d_ only; and according to ver. 10, the heathen shall render Him religious reverence.

3. A _future_ scion of David is here promised. For ???? in ver. 1 must be taken as a _praeteritum prophetic.u.m_, as is evident from its being connected with the preceding chapter, which has to do with future things, and in which the preterites have a prophetic meaning; as also by the a.n.a.logy of the following preterites from which this can by no means be separated. But [Pg 99] at the time when this prophecy was composed, Hezekiah had long ago entered upon the government.

4. The circ.u.mstances under which the Prophet makes the King appear are altogether different from those at the time of Hezekiah. According to ver. 1 and 10, the royal house of David would have entirely declined, and sunk into the obscurity of private life, at the time when the Promised One would appear. The Messiah is there represented as a tender twig which springs forth from the roots of a tree cut down. In the circ.u.mstance, too, that the stem is not called after David, but after Jesse, it is intimated that the royal family is then to have sunk back into the obscurity of private life. This does not apply to Hezekiah, under whom the Davidic dynasty maintained its dignity, but to Christ only. _Farther_: In ver. 11 there is an announcement of the return of not only the members of the kingdom of the ten tribes, but also of the members of the kingdom of Judah from all the countries in which they were dispersed. This must refer to a far later time than that of Hezekiah; for at his time no carrying away of the inhabitants of Judah had taken place. This argument is conclusive also against the false modified Messianic explanation as it has been advanced by _Ewald_, according to which the Prophet is supposed to have expected that the Messiah would appear immediately after the judgment upon the a.s.syrians, and after the conversion and reform of those in the Church who had been spared in the judgment. The facts mentioned show that between the appearance of the Messiah, and the Present and immediate Future, there lay to the Prophet still a wide interval in which an entire change of the present state of things was to take place. Ver. 11 is here of special importance. For this verse opens up to us the prospect of a whole series of catastrophes to be inflicted upon Israel by the world's powers, all of which are already to have taken place at the time of the King's appearance, and which lay beyond the historical horizon at the time of the Prophet.

A certain amount of truth, indeed, lies at the foundation of the explanation which refers the prophecy to Hezekiah. The fundamental thought of the prophecy before us: "The exaltation of the world's power, is a prophecy of its abas.e.m.e.nt; the abas.e.m.e.nt of the Davidic Kingdom is a prophecy of its exaltation," [Pg 100] was, in a prelude, to be realized even at that time. But the Prophet does not limit himself to these feeble beginnings. He points to the infinitely greater realization of this idea in the distant future, where the abas.e.m.e.nt should be much deeper, but the exaltation also infinitely higher. To him who had first, by a living faith, laid hold of Christ's appearance, it must be easy, even in the present difficulty, to hope for the lower salvation.

The distinction between the "political Messiah" of the prophecy before us, and "Jesus of Nazareth"--a distinction got up by Rationalism--rests chiefly upon the fact that Rationalism knows Christ as the _Son of Man_ only, and is entirely ignorant of His true eternal Kingdom. Hence a prophecy which, except the intimation, in ver. 1, of His lowliness at first, refers altogether to the glorified Christ, could not but appear as inapplicable. But it is just by ver. 4, to which they chiefly appeal, that a "political Messiah" is excluded; for to such an one the words: "He smiteth the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He slayeth the wicked" do not in the least apply.

And so likewise vers. 6-9 altogether go beyond the sphere of a political Messiah, All that at first sight seems to lead to such an one belongs to the imagery which was, and could not fail to be, taken from the predecessors and types on the throne of David, since Christ was to be represented as He in whom the Davidic Kingdom attains to its full truth and glory.

In the whole section, the Redeemer appears as a _King_. This is altogether a matter of course, for He forms the ant.i.thesis to the king of a.s.shur. It is quite in vain that _Umbreit_ has endeavoured to bring political elements into the description. Thereby the sense is essentially altered. We must keep closely in view the Prophet's starting-point. Before those who were filled with cares and fears, lest the Davidic Kingdom should be overturned by the a.s.syrian kingdom, he holds up the bright image of the Kingdom of David, in its last completion. When they had received that into their hearts, the king of a.s.shur could not fail to appear to them in a light altogether different, as a miserable wretch. The giant at once dwindled down into a contemptible dwarf, and with tears still [Pg 101] in their eyes they could not avoid laughing at themselves for having stood so much in awe of him.

As is commonly the case in the Messianic prophecies, so here, too, no attention is paid to the development of Christ's Kingdom in time.

Everything, therefore, is fulfilled only as to its beginning; and the complete fulfilment still stands out for that future in which, after the fulness of the Gentiles has been brought in, and apostate Israel has been converted, the consequences of the fall shall, in the outward nature also, be removed.

Ver. 1. "_And there cometh forth a twig from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit._"

The circ.u.mstance that the words in the first verse are completed in the number seven, divided into three and four, intimates that the Prophet here enters upon the territory of the revelation of a mystery of the Kingdom of G.o.d. Totally different--so the Prophet begins--from the fate of a.s.shur, just now proclaimed, shall that of the royal house of David be. a.s.shur shall be humbled at a time when he is most elevated. Lebanon falls through the mighty One: but the house of David shall be exalted at a time when he is most humbled. Who then would tremble and be afraid, although it go downward? _Luther_ says: "This is a short summary of the whole of theology and of the works of G.o.d, that Christ did not come till the trunk had died, and was altogether in a hopeless condition; that hence, when all hope is gone, we are to believe that it is the time of salvation, and that G.o.d is then nearest when He seems to be farthest off!" The same contrast appears in Ezek. xvii. 24. The Lord brings down the high tree of the world's power, and exalts the low tree of the Davidic house. The word ??? does not mean "stem" in general, as several rationalistic interpreters, and _Meier_ last, have a.s.serted, but rather stump, _truncus_, ?????, as _Aquila_, _Symmachus_, _Theodotion_, translate. This is proved from the following reasons: (1) the derivation from ???, in Arabic _secuit_, equivalent to ???, "to cut off," chap. ix. 9; x. 33. The ????? in latter pa.s.sage clearly refers to the ??? here. The proud trees of a.s.shur shall be _cut down_; from the cut down trunk of David there shall grow up a _new_ tree overshadowing the earth, and offering glorious fruits to them that dwell on it.--(2) The _usus loquendi_. The signification, "stump," is, by [Pg 102] the context, required in the two pa.s.sages in which the word ??? still occurs. In Job xiv. 8, it is obvious. The whole pa.s.sage there from vers. 7-9 ill.u.s.trates the figurative representation in the verse under review. "For there is hope of a tree; if it be _cut down_ it will sprout again, and its tender branch does not cease. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the _stump_ thereof die in the dust, through the scent of waters it buds, and brings forth boughs, like one newly planted." We have here the figure of our verse carried out. That which water is to the natural tree decaying, the Spirit and grace of G.o.d are to the dying tree, cut down to the very roots, of the Davidic family. In the second pa.s.sage. Is. xl. 23, 24, it is only by a false interpretation that ??? has been understood of the stem in general. "He bringeth princes to nothing, He destroyeth the kings of the earth. They are not planted; they are not sown; their _stump_ does not take root in the earth." The Prophet, having previously proved G.o.d's elevation over the creature, from the creation and preservation of the world, now proves it from the nothingness of all that which on earth has the greatest appearance of independent power. It costs Him no effort to destroy all earthly greatness which places itself in opposition to Him.

He blows on them, and they have disappeared without leaving any trace.

If G.o.d's will be not with it, princes will not attain to any firm footing and prosperity (they are not planted and sown); they are like a cut-down stem which has no more power to take root in the earth. A tree not planted dries up; corn not sown does not produce fruit; a cut down tree does not take root.--(3.) The connection. In the second member of the verse we read: "A branch from his roots shall bear fruit." Unless we mean to adopt the altogether unsuitable expedient of explaining it of a wild twig which shoots forth from the roots of a still standing tree, we cannot but think of a stem cut down to the very root. Against the opinion of _Hendewerk_ who remarks: "An indirect shoot from the root which comes forth from the root through the stem;" and against _Meier's_ opinion: "The root corresponds with the stem, and both together form the living tree," it is decisive, that in ver. 10, the Messiah is simply, and without any mention being made of the stem, designated as ??? "a shoot from the root." Farther, chap. liii. 2, where the Messiah is represented [Pg 103] as a shoot from the root out of a dry ground.--(4.) It is only when ??? has the meaning, "stump,"

that it can be accounted for why the ??? of Jesse, and not of David, is spoken of--(5.) The supposition that the Messiah shall be born at the time of the deepest humiliation of the Davidic family, after the entire loss of the royal dignity, pervades all the other prophetical writings.

That Micah views the Davidic family as entirely sunk at the time of Christ's appearance, we showed in vol. I. p. 508-9. Compare farther the remarks on Amos ix. 11, and those on Matth. ii. 23 immediately following.--_Hitzig_ is obliged to confess that ??? can designate the cut-off stem only; but maintains that Jesse, as an individual long ago dead, is designated as a cut-off tree. But against this opinion is the relation which, as we proved, exists between this verse and the last verses of the preceding chapter; the undeniable correspondence of ???

with ????? in chap. x. 33. In that case the ant.i.thesis also, so evidently intended by the Prophet, would be altogether lost. It is not by any means a thing so uncommon, that a man who is already dead should have a glorious descendant. To this it may further be added that, according to this supposition, the circ.u.mstance is not all accounted for, that Jesse is mentioned, and not David, the royal ancestor, as is done everywhere else. _Finally_--In this very forced explanation, the parallel pa.s.sages are altogether left out of view, in which likewise the doctrine is contained that, at the time of Christ's appearance, the Davidic family should have altogether sunk. The reason of all these futile attempts at explaining away the sense so evident and obvious, is none other than the fear of acknowledging in the prophecy an element which goes beyond the territory of patriotic fancy and human knowledge.

But this dark fear should here so much the more be set aside, that, according to other pa.s.sages also, the Prophet undeniably had the knowledge and conviction that Israel's course would be more and more downward before it attained, in Christ, to the full height of its destiny. We need remind only of the prophecies in chap. v. and vi.; and it is so much the more natural here to compare the latter of them, that, in it, in ver. 13, Israel, at the time of the appearing of the Messianic Kingdom, is represented as a felled tree,--a fact which has for its ground the sinking of the [Pg 104] Davidic race which is here announced. We farther direct attention to the circ.u.mstance that in our prophecy itself, Israel's being carried away into all the countries of the earth is foreseen as future,--a circ.u.mstance which is so much the more a.n.a.logous, that there also, as here, the foreknowledge clothes itself in the form of the _supposition_ and not of express announcement. With regard to the latter point, it may still be remarked that Amos also, in chap. ix. 11, by speaking of the raising up of the tabernacle of David which is fallen, antic.i.p.ates its future lowliness.--The question still arises:--Why is it that the Messiah is here designated as a rod of Jesse, while elsewhere, His origin is commonly traced back to David? _Umbreit_ is of opinion that the mention of Jesse may be explained from the Prophet's desire to trace the pedigree as far back as possible; in its apparent extinction, the family of the Messiah was to be pointed out as a _very old_ one. But if this had been his intention, he would have gone back beyond Jesse to the older ancestors whom the Book of Ruth mentions; and if he had been so anxious to honour the family of the Messiah, it would, at all events, have been far more suitable to mention David than Jesse, who was only one degree removed from him. The sound view has been long ago given by Calvin, who says: "The Prophet does not mention David; but rather Jesse. For so much was the dignity of that family diminished, that it seemed to be a rustic, ign.o.ble family rather than a royal one."

It was appropriate that that family, upon whom was a second time to be fulfilled the declaration in Ps. cxiii. 7, 8: "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust; He lifteth up 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 circ.u.mstance that it agrees exceedingly well with the right interpretation of ???: Jesse is mentioned and not David, because the Davidic dignity had become a ???. 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_. ??? is never equivalent to ??? "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 ??? by, "to break forth,"

knows, in the _Thesaurus_, of no other signification. In the pa.s.sage of Ezekiel referred to, which may be considered as a commentary on the verse before us, ??? ??? corresponds to the ???? here. The change of the tense, too, suggests that ???? does not contain a mere repet.i.tion, 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. ???? 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage Is. liii. 2.]

[Pg 106]

ON MATTHEW II. 23.

?a? ????? ?at???se? e?? p???? ?e?????? ?a?a??t ?p?? p?????? t? ?????

d?? t?? p??f?t??, ?t? ?a???a??? ?????seta?.

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 ???. Being the name of a town, it received, in Aramean, in addition, the feminine termination ?.

And, finally, on account of the original appellative signification of the word, a ?, the designation of the _status emphaticus_ of feminine nouns in ?, was sometimes added. We have an a.n.a.logous case in the name _Dalmanutha_, the same place which, with the Talmudist, is called ????????. Compare _Lightfoot decas chorog. Marc. praem., opp._ II., p. 411 sqq. So it is likewise probably that ?aa??, ??????? is formed from the masculine ???, _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 ? added, and that this ? 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 ? 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: ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ???? "A Nazarene is he who is born in the town of _Nezer_, in Galilee, three days' journey from Jerusalem." In the Talmud, in _Bres.h.i.+th Rabba_, and in _Jalkut s.h.i.+meoni_ on Daniel, the contemptuous name of _Ben Nezer_, _i.e._, the Nazarene, is given to Christ; compare the pa.s.sages 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 ?? ???, 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 circ.u.mstance that the Christians maintained that Jesus was the ??? announced by Isaiah, just as, for the very same reason, they also a.s.sign to Him the names ???

????? "adulterous branch," and ??? ???? "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, a.s.serts 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 circ.u.mstance that the pseudo-Messiah under Hadrian a.s.sumed, with a reference to the ???? in Numb. xxiv. 17, the name ?? ???? or ?? ?????, 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 G.o.d, the Prince of Peace were called the Son of the Messiah, &c., is not only dest.i.tute 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 pa.s.sage 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 s.h.i.+meoni_ the pa.s.sage 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: "??? ???? ????? 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 ? 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 ???? we could not by any means form ????, but only ?????. In the New Testament the two forms ?a???a??? and ?a?a????? only occur, never the form ?a?a?eta???. _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 ??? which the first Christians were accustomed to bring into connection with ????. But this conjecture would, at most, be admissible, only if, with the Jews too, the form ???? were not found throughout without a ?, and if the Arabic form also were not entirely a.n.a.logous.[1]

[Pg 109]

The question now is:--In what sense was ??? a.s.signed 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 ??? never occurs in this signification; partly because it is not conceivable that the place received a name which is due to it ?at' ??t? f?as?? 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 ??? occurs in Is. xi. 1, xiv. 19, and in the Talmudical _usus loquendi_ where ????? signifies "_virgulta salic.u.m 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, enn.o.bled 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 circ.u.mstance 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 pa.s.sages here concerned is contained in that pa.s.sage 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 ill.u.s.trated 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 ???, in chap. xi., corresponds ???? in chap. liii.; to ???

the ???; to the cut-off stem the dry land, with this difference, however, that by the latter designation, the low condition of the Servant of G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sage 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.