Bible Commentaries

Matthew 1:24. Ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου] from the sleep in which he had had the vision.

καὶ παρέλ.] The course of the thought proceeds simply, without any participial construction, by means of the epexegetic and.

Matthew 1:25. Ἐγίνωσκεν] He had no sexual intercourse with her (imperfect). In this sense ידע is used by the Hebrews, and γινώσκειν by the Greeks of a later age (often in Plutarch); also the Latin novi and cognosco (Justin, v. 2, xxvii. 3; Ovid. Meta. iv. 594; comp. Caesar, de bello Gallico, vi. 21 : feminae notitiam habuisse). See Wetstein and Kypke. Since Epiphanius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, very many expositors have maintained, with a view to support the perpetual virginity of Mary, but in opposition to the straightforward and impartial character of the narrative, that Joseph, even after the birth of Jesus, had no sexual intercourse with Mary.[365]

But (1) from ἕως οὗ of itself no inference can be drawn either in favour of or against such a view, as in all statements with “until” the context alone must decide whether, with regard to that which had not formerly occurred, it is or is not intended to convey that it afterwards took place. But (2) that it is here conceived as subsequently taking place, is so clear of itself to every unprejudiced reader from the idea of the marriage arrangement, that Matthew must have expressed the thought, “not only until—but afterwards also he had not,” if such had been his meaning. That he did not, however, mean this is clearly shown (3) by his use of πρωτότοκον, which is neither equivalent to ΠΡῶΤΟς ΚΑῚ ΜΌΝΟς (Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus), nor does it designate the first-born, without assuming others born afterwards (so formerly most expositors). The latter meaning is untenable, because the evangelist employed πρωτότοκον as an historian, from the standpoint of the time when his Gospel was composed, and consequently could not have used it had Jesus been present to his historical consciousness as the only son of Mary. But Jesus, according to Matthew (Matthew 12:46 ff., Matthew 13:55 f.), had also brothers and sisters, amongst whom He was the firstborn. Lucian’s remark (Demonax, 29), speaking of Agathocles, is correct: εἰ μὲν πρῶτος, οὐ μόνος· εἰ δὲ μόνος, οὐ πρῶτος. (4) All a priori suppositions are untenable, from which the perpetual virginity of Mary is said to appear,—such as that of Euth. Zigabenus: πῶς ἂν ἐπεχείρησεν, ἢ καὶ ὅλως ἐνεθυμήθη γνῶναι τὴν συλλαβοῦσαν ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ τοιοῦτον δοχεῖον γεγενημένην; of Olshausen: “it is manifest that Joseph, after such experiences, might with good reason believe that his marriage with Mary was intended for another purpose than that of begetting children.” Hofmann has the correct meaning (Schriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 405), so also Thiersch, Wieseler, Bleek, Ewald, Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 153 ff., Schenkel, Keim, Kahnis, I. p. 426 f. Comp. on the passage before us, Diogenes Laertius, 3:22, where it is said of Plato’s father: ὅθεν καθαρὰν γάμου φυλάξαι ἕως τῆς ἀποκυήσεως; see also Wetstein; Paulus, exeget. Handb. I. p. 168 f.; Strauss, I. p. 209 ff.

ἐκάλεσε] is not to be referred to Mary, so that ἝΩς ΟὟ ἜΤΕΚΕ … ΚΑῚ ἘΚΆΛΕΣΕ would be taken together, as Paulus, after some older interpreters, maintains, but to Joseph, as is certain after Matthew 1:21; comp. Grotius.

[365] As a logical consequence of this supposition, Joseph was made to be a worn-out old man (Thilo, ad cod. Apocr. I. p. 361; Keim, Gesch. Jes. I. p. 365), and his children were regarded either as children of a former marriage (Origen, Epiphanius, and many other Fathers), or the brothers of Jesus were transformed into cousins (Jerome). Of any advanced age in the case of Joseph there is no trace in the N. T. In John 6:42, the Jews express themselves in such a way that Joseph might be conceived as still alive at the time.

CHAPTER 2

Matthew 2:8. ἀκριβ. ἐξετάσατε] According to B C* D א, 1, 21, 33, 82, 124, 209, Copt. Sahid. It. Vulg. Syr. p. Eus. Aug., we must read ἐξετάσατε ἀκριβῶς, with Lachm. and Tisch.

Matthew 2:9. ἔστη] B C D א, 33, 209, Or. Eus. read ἐστάθη. So Lachm. and Tisch., of the nature of a gloss; for the more precise definition of the conception in the passive, as in Matthew 27:11, in almost the same manuscripts.

Matthew 2:11. εἶδον] Elz.: εὗρον, against decisive testimony.

Matthew 2:13. φαίνεται κατʼ ὄναρ] C K Π, Curss. Theophyl.: κατʼ ὄναρ φαίνεται, Β: κατʼ ὄναρ ἐφάνη. So Lachm. Latter reading is derived from Matthew 1:20, which passage also led to the κατʼ ὄναρ being placed first. The Received reading is therefore here to be retained, and Matthew 2:19, after B D Z א, Curss. Verss., to be changed into φαίνεται κατʼ ὄναρ (with Lachm. and Tisch.).

Matthew 2:17. ὑπό] B C D Z א, Curss. Verss. Chrys. Jer. read διά. Corresponds to the standing style of quotation in Matth., therefore rightly approved (comp. on Matthew 3:3) by Griesbach and Schultz, after Gersdorf; adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.

Matthew 2:18. θρῆνος κ. κλαυθμός] B Z א, 1, 22, Verss. and Latin Fathers have merely κλαυθμός. So Lachm. and Tisch. The Received reading is an extension from that of the LXX.

Matthew 2:21. ἦλθεν] B C א: εἰσῆλθεν. So Lachm. and Tisch. 8, correctly: the compound was easily neglected.

Matthew 2:22. ἐπί] is wanting in B א, Curss. Eus. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But it was all the more easily omitted as unnecessary, because the syllable El preceded it.

The genuineness of the whole of the first and second chapters has been controverted, or at least suspected, by Williams (A Free Inquiry into the Authenticity of the First and Second Chapters of St. Matthew’s Gospel, Lond. 1771, enlarged, 1790), by Stroth (Eichhorn’s Repert. IX. p. 99 ff.), Hess (Biblioth. d. heil. Gesch. I. p. 208 ff.), Ammon (Diss. de Luca emendatore Matthaei, Erl. 1805), J. Jones (Sequel to Ecclesiastical Researches, etc., Lond. 1813). In answer to Williams, Flemming wrote a work (Free Thoughts upon a Free Inquiry, etc., Lond. 1771) and Velthusen (The Authenticity of the First and Second Chapters, etc., Lond. 1771); in answer to Stroth, Henke (de ev. Matth. integritate, etc., Helmst. 1782); to Hess, Rau (Symbola ad quaestionem de authentia, etc., 1793). Amongst the defenders are Griesbach (Epimetron ad Comment. crit. in Matth. II. p. 47 ff.), Schubert (de infantiae J. C. historiae authentia atque indole, Gripeswald 1815), Kuinoel (Proleg. § 6), Fritzsche (Commentar. Excurs. III.), Müller (üb. d. Aechth. der ersten Kapitel des Evang. nach Matth., Trier 1830). Amongst the writers of Introduction, Eichhorn and Bertholdt have gone over to the side of the opponents.

Both chapters are genuine—that is, they were integral portions of the Hebrew Gospel writing, of which our Matthew is the translation, and consequently belonged to the latter from the very beginning. For (1) all the Codices and Versions contain them, the Fathers of the second and third centuries (Irenaeus, iii. 9. 2 f., Clement of Alexandria, and others) also quote passages from them, and Celsus has made reference to them (Orig. c. Cels. i. 28, ii. 32); (2) their contents are highly appropriate to the beginning of a gospel writing composed for Jewish Christians; (3) the beginning of ch. 3 is connected with Matthew 2:23, where the residence of Jesus at Nazareth is mentioned; Matthew 4:13 also manifestly refers to Matthew 2:23. The construction and style of expression are in keeping with the character of the whole Gospel. See Griesbach, Epimetr. p. 57; Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 38 ff.; Credner, I. p. 62 ff.; Fritzsche, l.c. p. 850 ff.

The main argument of those who oppose the genuineness is, that our chapters were wanting in the Gospel of the Ebionites (Epiph. Haer. xxx. 13). But on a correct estimate of the Gospel secundum Hebraeos in its relation to the Gospel of Matthew, that counter argument can be of no weight (see Introduction, § 2); and, in accordance with Ebionitic views, it is very conceivable that they did not admit the miraculous preliminary history, and made their Gospel (according to Epiphanius), in keeping with the original gospel type, begin at once with the appearance of the Baptist. It is also related of Tatian (Theodoret, Haeret. fab. i. 20): τάς τε γενεαλογίας περικόψας καὶ τὰ ἄλλα, ὅσα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα γεγεννημένον τὸν κύριον δείκνυσιν. But Tatian was a disciple of Docetism, and his treatment was determined by dogmatic considerations. As, moreover, the genealogy contained in ch. 1 implies the use of a piece of writing already in existence, so also the legendary character of both chapters in general,—and the certainly peculiar manner in which the third chapter is connected with them, which, amid all its literal connection with what has preceded it, passes over the whole history of the youth of Jesus,—appear to point to this, that the portions composing both chapters were originally special gospel documents. Ch. Matthew 1:1-16 appears to have been one such document by itself, then Matthew 2:18-23 a second, and ch. 2 a third, in which are now found for the first time the locality and time of the birth of Jesus. The unity of the Greek style of expression with that in the other parts of the Gospel is not opposed to this (Ewald, Bleek, Holtzmann), but is to be explained from the unity of the translator. How much, however, considering the free style of quoting Old Testament passages, is to be set down to the account of the first author of these documents, or to that of the Hebrew editor of the Gospel, or to the translator, cannot be determined.

Matthew 2:1.[366] Γεννηθέντος] The star is to be considered as appearing contemporaneously with the birth (Matthew 2:7). But how long it was after the birth when the Magi came, is ascertained approximately from Matthew 2:16, according to which, even taking into account all the cruelty of Herod, and his intention to go to work with thorough certainty, the arrival of the Magi is most probably to be placed somewhat more than a year after the birth.

[366] See on the history of the Magi, Thilo, Eusebii Emeseni oratio περὶ ἀστρονόμων, praemissa de magis et stella quaestione, Hal. 1835; Münter, Stern der Weisen, 1827; Roth (Catholic), de stella a magis conspecta, 1865. In reference to chronology based upon astronomical observation, Ideler, Handb. d. Chronol. II. p. 339 ff.; Anger in the Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. 1847, p. 347 ff.; Wieseler, chronol. Synopse u. Beiträge z. Würdigung d. Evang., 1869, p. 149 ff.; also in Herzog’s Encykl. XXI. p. 543 f.; Seyffarth, Chronol. sacr. 1846; Weigl, üb. d. wahre Geburts- u. Sterbejahr J. Chr. I., Sulzbach 1849; Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 375 ff.

δέ is continuative, leading on to another history connected with the birth of Jesus which has just been related.

Βηθλεὲμ (house of bread) τῆς Ἰουδαίας, to distinguish it from Bethlehem in the tribe of Zabulon, Joshua 19:15. Our village (Bethlehem Ephrata, Genesis 35:16; Genesis 35:19), designated in John 7:42 as κώμη, was situated in the tribe of Judah (Jdg 17:9; Jdg 19:1; 1 Samuel 17:12), six miles to the south of Jerusalem, now the little manufacturing town Beit lachm. See Robinson, Pal. II. p. 379 ff.; Tobler, Bethl. in Paläst. 1849, and the relative articles in Herzog and Schenkel.

ἐν ἡμέραις] כִּימֵי, Genesis 26:1; 2 Samuel 21:1; 1 Kings 10:21.

Ἡρώδου] Herod the Great, son of Antipater, received in the year 714 U.C. from the Senate the dignity of king through the influence of Antony, by whom he had been not long before made tetrarch, but first came into the actual possession of his kingdom after the capture of Jerusalem by himself and Sosius in the year 717, and died, after a brilliant and flagitious reign, in 750. See concerning the whole family of Herod, Schlosser, Gesch. d. Fam. Herodes, Lpz. 1818; Ewald, Gesch. d. Volks Isr. IV., and Gesch. Chr. p. 95 ff. ed. 3; Gerlach in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 13 ff.; Hausrath, neut. Zeitgesch. I. and II.

μάγοι] The Magi (מָגִים) constituted, amongst the Persians and the Medes, of whom they formed, according to Herod. i. 101, one of the six tribes, a distinguished priestly caste, and occupied themselves principally with the knowledge of the secrets of nature, astrology, and medicine. Herod. i. 32; Xen. Cyr. viii. 3. 6; Diog. Laert. i. 1–9; Aelian. V. H. ii. 17; Porphyry, de abst. an. iv. 16; Cic. de div. i. 41; Plin. N. H. xxiv. 29, xxx. 2; Curt. iii. 3. 8. Amongst the Babylonians also (Jeremiah 39:3) there was, at the time when the Chaldean dynasty was in power, such an order, of which Daniel became the president (Daniel 2:48). The name of Magi was then generally transferred, without distinction of country, to all those who had devoted themselves to those sciences, which, however, were frequently also accompanied with the practices of magic and jugglery (Acts 8:9; Acts 13:6; Acts 13:8). See Wetstein, and Müller in Herzog’s Encykl. VIII. p. 675 ff.

ἀπὸ ἀνατ.] belongs to μάγοι, Magi from the East—that is, Oriental Magi. The position of the words most naturally suggests this connection; but the article (οἱ ἀπὸ ἀνατ.) is not required, because μάγοι is without the article (in answer to Fritzsche, who connects it with παρεγένοντο). The indefinite expression, eastern lands (Matthew 8:11, Matthew 24:27; Luke 13:29; Revelation 21:13), is to be left in its indefiniteness, and in so doing we are to assume that the evangelist himself had no more precise information at his command. If Arabia has been thought of (Justin. c. Tr. 77 f.; Epiphanius, Tertullian, Maldonatus, Jansen, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Lightfoot, Michaelis, Kuinoel, de Wette, Wieseler), or Persia (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Calvin, Beza, Calovius, Petavius, Casaubon, Wolf, Olshausen), or Parthia (Hydius), or Babylonia (Paulus), or even Egypt (Möller, neue Ansichten in loc.), yet we have no sure hold, even in a slight degree, either in the very indefinite ἀνατολῶν, or in the nature of the presents in Matthew 2:11. It was entirely baseless to determine their number from the threefold gifts, and to regard them as kings[367] on account of Psalm 68:30; Psalm 68:32; Psalm 72:10; Isaiah 49:7; Isaiah 60:3; Isaiah 60:10 (especially since the fifth century; yet Tertullian, c. Marcion, already takes this view). Are we to think of heathens (so most expositors, including Olshausen, Krabbe, B.

Crusius, Lange, de Wette, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Bleek, Keim), or of Jews (v. d. Hardt, Harenberg in the Bibl. Brem. VII. p. 470 ff.; Münter, Paulus, Hofmann, L. J. von Strauss geprüft, p. 249; Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 217)? In favour of the first, the question, Where is the new-born King of the Jews? is decisive. And how appropriate was it to the idea of Messiah, that the very first-fruits of the distant heathen appeared to do homage to the King of the Jews (Isaiah 60:3 ff.)! The expectation of the Jews, that their Messiah was to rule over the world, might at that period have been sufficiently disseminated throughout the foreign countries of the East (Sueton. Vesp. iv.; Tac. H. v. 13; Joseph. B. J. vi. 5. 4) to lead heathen astrologers, for the object in question, to the Jewish capital. Comp. Dio Cass. Hist. R. xlv. 1; Suet. Oct. xciv.

Ἱεροσόλυμα] In the capital they expected to find, if not the Babe Himself, at least the most certain information regarding Him.

[367] According to Bede, their names also have been commonly given as Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar (see Petr. Comestor. Hist. schol. 8), but also differently. See Beza in loc., and Paulus, exeget. Handb. I. p. 204.

Matthew 2:2. Γάρ] Reason of the question. “De re deque tempore ita certi sunt, ut tantum quaerant ubi,” Bengel.

αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀστέρα] that is, the star which indicates Him. We are to think of a strange star, which had not previously been seen by them, from the rising of which they had inferred the birth of the new King of the Jews, in accordance with their astrological rules. Here we must observe the emphasis on the αὐτοῦ, which is placed first, the star which refers to Him, and to no other. From the word ἀστήρ (not ἄστρον) it is indisputably certain, Matthew 2:8, that it is not a constellation which is meant. This is in answer to Kepler, de J. Chr. servator. nostri vero anno natalitio, 1605; Münter, Ideler, Paulus, Neander, Olshausen (with hesitation), Krabbe, Wieseler, Ebrard, who think of a very close conjunction, which occurred in the year 747 U.C., of Jupiter and Saturn in the sign of the fishes; where Ebrard, however, keeping more closely to the word ἀστήρ, is of opinion that it is not that constellation itself, but the new star of the first magnitude, which Kepler saw appear in the year 1604 at the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, and again disappear in 1605; whilst Wieseler summons to his aid a comet which was observed in China in 750. The Jew Abarbanel in his Commentary on Daniel (1547) inferred, from a similar conjunction in the year 1463, that the birth of the Messiah was at hand, and indicates the sign of the fishes as that which is of importance for the Jews. If Matthew 2:9, however, points only to a miraculous star, to one that went and stood in a miraculous manner, then it is evident that neither a comet (Origen, Michaelis, Rosenmüller), nor a fixed star, nor a planet, nor even a meteor, is what is meant, which ἀστήρ by itself might signify (Schaefer, ad Apoll. Rh. II. p. 206). The Fathers of the church (in Suicer, sub ἀστήρ) thought even of an angel. The glory of the star is wonderfully portrayed in Ignatius, Eph. 19 (sun, moon, and stars, illuminated by it, surround it as a choir), Protev. Jac. xxi. See Thilo, ad Cod. apocr. I. p. 390 f. The universal belief of antiquity was, that the appearance of stars denoted great changes, and especially the birth of men of importance. Wetstein in loc. The Jews in particular believed, in accordance with the Messianic passage, Numbers 24:17 (see Baur, alttest. Weissag. I., 1861, p. 346 ff.), in a star of the Messiah; Bertholdt, Christolog. Jud. p. 55 ff.

ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ] Several commentators (Hammond, Paulus, Fritzsche, Ebrard, Wieseler, Ewald) translate: in the rising. Comp. Luke 1:78; Wis 16:28; 2Ma 10:28; 2 Maccabees 3 Esdr. Matthew 5:47; Plat. Polit. p. 269 A; Locr. p. 96 D; Stob. Ecl. Phys. i. 20; Polybius, xi. 22. 6. In this way the ἀνατολή corresponds to the τεχθείς. And as the ordinary explanation, “in the East” (Luther), in accordance with Matthew 2:1, and especially with the current usage of the word, which in the singular only rarely denotes the East (as in Herodian, iii. 5. 1, ii. 8. 18), would lead us to expect the plural (Genesis 2:8; Jdg 8:11; Ezekiel 11:1; Ezekiel 47:8; Bar 4:36 f.; 3Ma 4:15; Herod. iv. 8; Polyb. xi. 6. 4, ii. 14. 4), the first rendering is to be preferred. Comp. regarding the use of the word to denote the rising of stars, Valckenaer, ad Eur. Phoen. 506.

προσκυνεῖν] הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה, to show reverence and submission to any one by bowing down with the face toward the ground. Genesis 19:1; Genesis 18:2; Genesis 42:6; Genesis 48:12; Herod. i. 134; Nep. Con. iii.; Curtius, v. 2, vi. 6. See Hoelemann, Bibelstud. I. p. 96 ff. To connect it with the dative (instead of the accus.) is a usage of the later Greek. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 463.

Matthew 2:3. Herod was afraid, because he dreaded the overthrow of his throne; the inhabitants of Jerusalem, however, not so much on account of the times of misfortune which were expected to precede the Messiah (Lightfoot on Mark 13:19; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 45 f.), but in keeping with their special circumstances, because they dreaded the adoption by the tyrant, in the maintenance of his rule, of measures hostile to the people.

Ἱεροσόλυμα] Feminine form, occurring only here and in Matthew 3:5, and without any various reading in the Codd. It is found also in Latin (Tac. Hist. v. 2; Sueton. Aug. xciii.). To take the name as neuter, and to supply πόλις (Wetstein, Grimm, Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 16 [E. T. 18]), is not grammatically possible. The feminine form must have been in actual use, although the neuter, as in Matthew 2:1, and Ἱερουσαλήμ, were and remained the prevailing forms.

Matthew 2:4. Πάντας … λαοῦ] is regarded, after Grotius, by Fritzsche, Arnoldi, Lange, not as an assembly of the Sanhedrin (so commonly), but an extraordinary convocation of all the high priests and learned men. This explanation, in which, moreover, πάντας is not to be taken literally, is the correct one. Indeed, οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ γραμματεῖς, even without adding the third element of the Sanhedrin, the πρεσβύτεροι, may denote the Sanhedrin (Matthew 20:18, Matthew 21:15; while, on the other hand, elsewhere, as in Matthew 26:47, Matthew 27:1, the γραμματεῖς are not mentioned along with them). But here πάντας is decisive, which would designedly draw attention to a full sitting of the high council, and therefore would have made it necessary not to omit an entire class of the members, but to mention in full all the three classes, as in Matthew 16:21, Matthew 27:41; τοῦ λαοῦ also stands opposed to the common interpretation, as the latter, in designating the Sanhedrin in Matthew, serves only to denote the πρεσβύτεροι more precisely (Matthew 21:23, Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:47, Matthew 27:1). Herod summoned together all the theologians of the nation, because he wanted a theological answer; τοῦ λαοῦ belongs to both words; observe the non-repetition of the article after καί.

ἀρχιερεῖς] certainly comprises partly the actual ruling high priest (ὁ ἀρχιερεύς, כֹּהֵן הַנָּרוֹל, Leviticus 15:10), partly those who had formerly held this high official post, which very often changed hands under the Herods. See Schürer, Stud. u. Krit. 1872, p. 593 ff. That the presidents of the twenty-four classes of priests are also to be understood (Bleek, Ewald), is nowhere certainly attested, and has against it the designation of the office itself, ἀρχιερεῖς. Both reasons, moreover, are in opposition to our including, with Wieseler, the priestly nobles, or, with Schürer, the members of the at that time privileged high-priestly families (Joseph. Bell. iv. 3. 6), which is not justified by Acts 4:6, and cannot be proved by a few individual names mentioned in Josephus, whose relation to the high-priesthood is otherwise unknown (Schürer, p. 638 f.). The last high priests who ruled before the death of Herod were Matthias (5 B.C.), and Jozarus, who soon after followed him (Joseph. Antt. xvii. 4. 2, xvii. 6. 4).

γραμματεῖς] corresponds to the Hebr. מוֹפְרִים—that is, first, writers, then learned men (Ezra 7:6; Ezra 7:11; Nehemiah 8:1; Gesenius, Thes. II. p. 966). This was the name specially of the expositors of the divine law, who, as Jewish canonists and learned councillors, belonged chiefly to the sect of the Pharisees, and in part to the Sanhedrin, and were held in great respect. See Lightfoot on the passage, and on Matthew 23:13; Leyrer in Herzog’s Encykl. XIII. p. 731 ff.

γεννᾶται] not in the sense of the future, but purely present: where is the Messiah born? The theologians were to tell what they knew concerning the birthplace of the Messiah. By this question Herod leaves it quite undetermined whether the birth had already taken place, or was still to come.

Matthew 2:6. In Micah 5:1 the sense is: Although Bethlehem is too unimportant to be reckoned among the cities of the district, yet a ruler in Israel will come forth from it. In Matthew this thought is, with a slight deviation, changed into: Bethlehem is undoubtedly an important place, because, etc. It is therefore unnecessary, with Grotius, to take the passage in Micah as interrogative: “Art thou, then, Bethlehem, too small,” etc., and to derive the turn of the thought with οὐδαμῶς from this interrogative interpretation (Hilgenfeld). But the Ruler to whom Micah alludes is none other than the Messianic King of David’s race (see Ewald, Proph.), so that in the birth of Jesus this prophecy receives its complete historical fulfilment. Comp. John 7:42.

ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν] בְּאַלְפֵי, LXX. ἐν χιλιάσιν. The Hebrew אֶלֶף denotes the subdivision of the tribes (the thousands, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 323 f.; Keil, Arch. II. p. 223), which had their principal places and their heads (אַלּוּף). See Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 106. The translation by ἡγεμόσιν (Chrysostom: φυλάρχοις) clearly shows that either the evangelist himself had read the word in question not בְּאַלְפֵי, but בְּאַלֻפֵי, or that his translator had committed this mistake. In the Septuagint also אַלּוּף is rendered by ἡγεμών, Genesis 36:15 f.; Exodus 15:15; 1 Chronicles 1:51 f.; Psalm 55:14. According to the words as they stand in Matthew, Bethlehem, the town, appears personified in the midst of the heads of families (Ewald, “amongst the princes of Judah”), amongst whom it had by no means the lowest position. Fritzsche conjectures ταῖς ἡγεμόσιν, in primariis familiarum in Judaea sedibus. But even thus the sense of אֶלֶף is not yet obtained. How easily, on the contrary, might the evangelist or his translator derive אלפי from אלוף, as the ἡγούμενος which follows must have been before him!

γῆ] not city, but strip of land, province, which includes the same, 1Ma 5:68. Often likewise in the tragic writers. See Fritzsche in loc. Comp. Seidler, ad Eurip. Troad. iv.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 361.

ἐξελεύσεται] will come forth, namely, by birth. Thus יָצָא, Genesis 17:6. Comp. Hebrews 7:5; 1Ma 1:10.

ποιμανεῖ] Comp. the Homeric ποιμένες λαῶν. In like manner רָעָה is used of rulers, 2 Samuel 5:2; 2 Samuel 7:7; Jeremiah 23:2 ff.; Micah 5:3.