opinion, it is to avoid doctrinal embarrassment that men have explained the formula in question with such a neglect of grammatical rule. They thought they had no right to consider as prophecies all those passages quoted in the New Testament, which, when compared with the Old, in its proper connections, were found to contain no prophecies whatever. To evade the objection that the writers of the New Testament have quoted, as prophecy, passages from the Old Testament which contain no prophecy, the phrase "va λng has in such instances been so interpreted. Hence, if the obstacle be removed, no excuse will remain for deviation from the true literal sense. But the obstacle may be removed by acknowledging in the prophecies of the Old Testament a double reference,-to a present debased something, and to a future exalted something. Under such a supposition, we shall be able to keep everywhere to the one true, simple, grammatical, literal sense, and to acknowledge the quotations made in the New Testament as prophecies in the full sense of the word. It belongs to the peculiar arrangement and order of the Scripture, that the life and being of the Old Testament should form a mirror reflecting the life of the New Testament, especially of the person of Christ, as the representative of the New Testament, and that the threads of all the ideas and institutions of the Old Testament should be concentrated there, as in its centre).' (Comp. my treatise: Ein Wort über tiefern Schriftsinn. Königsberg, 1824. Against it, Steudel in Bengel's Archiv. vol. iii. art. 2. Finally, Kleinert's Bemerkungen in Tholuck's Anz. Jahrg. 1831. Numb. 28). This general character of the Old Testament is exhibited likewise in the passage (Is. vii. 14,) here quoted. The literal sense of the passage necessarily requires a reference to something present, since the

1

1 Comp. Hamann's History of his Conversion, (Works vol. i. p. 211, sqq.), where he says: "I found the unity of the divine will in the redemption of Jesus Christ, that all history, all the miracles, all the commands and works of God, met in this centre point." In the works of Hamann, we may discover an instance of modern times, of that spiritual interpretation as it was in use by the writers of the New Testament. Very truly, indeed, does Bengel say in his Gnom. ad h. 1. Saepe in N. T. allegantur vaticinia, quorum contextum prophetarum temporum non dubium est, quin auditores eorum ex intentione divina interpretari debuerint de rebus jam tum praesentibus. Eadem vero intentio divina, longius prospiciens, sic formavit orationem, ut magis proprie deinceps ea convenirent in tempora Messiae, et hanc intentionem divinam apostoli nos docent, nosque dociles habere debent.

נְבִיאָה

Tagévos, who is to give birth to Immanuel, is exhibited by the prophet to king Ahaz as a sign; a reference to the Messiah, to be born "from a virgin" after many centuries, appears not at all to the purpose under existing circumstances. The most natural way would be to understand by virgin' the betrothed of the prophet, who as his spouse is called prophetess, Is. viii. 3. In that case we can naturally expound the passage as follows:-Isaiah gives to Ahaz a sign that his present bride and future wife will bear a son called Immanuel, and that his promises will become fulfilled before the infant shall be grown to a boy; hence, in two or three years. Thus was given to king Ahaz a sign, soon to be recognized; the birth of Immanuel, however, at the same time, in a far higher sense, had reference to the Messiah, through whom the prophecy was fulfilled, since he was born from a virgin, as a sign (i) for the incredulous world, which was represented by Ahaz. This suits very well with the entire symbolizing manner in which Isaiah named his sons. He represented a whole series of ideas and facts, which appeared to him, under the circumstances of those days particularly important, in his children, the one of whom was called Shearjashub (vii. 3,) the other Maher-shalal-hash-baz, (viii. 3,) whilst the third and last was called Immanuel. Thus the prophet formed of his family a circle of ideas which was, so to speak, embodied and personified, and within which his prophetic spirit dwelt and acted. Such a manner of teaching is quite in accordance with the prophetic ministry, and hence St Matthew was quite right in applying the birth of Immanuel, the son of the prophet, to the birth of Christ, because that parallel was had in view, and was expressed by the spirit of prophecy. Besides, the 1 magdévos, unmarried female, differing in itself from which necessarily signifies pure virginity; but the word may also, and, in fact, must here be used as speaking of a pure

בְּתוּלָה

virgin.

=

2 Not even the able defence of the opposite party, conducted by Hengstenberg in his Christologie, vol. i. part ii. p. 45, sqq. where he says, that the prophetic words expressed or implied nothing of a low character, has been able to convince me that this manner of explaining the passage is untenable, (Is. vii. 14). It seems to me that Hengstenberg has not succeeded in solving the difficult problem, how the reference made to the Messiah could be a sign for Ahaz. An unbiassed reflection necessarily leads us to suppose, that Ahaz must have

terms which St Matthew here uses do not quite agree with the Septuagint, nay, they even depart from the original text, inasmuch as the word (signifying thou shalt call, 2d person of

the fem. gend.) is rendered zaλéσovor.

Ver. 24, 25. Joseph obeyed the divine command in all things; he believed in the purity of his wife, and having taken her unto himself, he gave the child after its birth the name which had been commanded. However, the Evangelist makes here a remarkable addition in the following words:—οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν, ἕως οὗ ἔτεκε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον. That here γινώσκειν = 9 is used to denote conjugal cohabitation requires no proof; the only question is, whether these words express the notion of a cohabitation not having taken place at all during the married life of Joseph, or whether such was only the case previous to the birth

been informed that something would happen during his life. The reference made to the period of two or three years which would be required for the growth of the Messiah, who was to be born centuries afterwards, contains much that is exceedingly forced. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the prophecy must necessarily have been of little importance to Ahaz. However, the grounds brought forward against my view appear to me very feeble. For, when Hengstenberg says that there exists no analogy between the birth of Immanuel in a natural manner, and that of the Messiah in a supernatural, it is then correct that St Matthew urges the expression TagOvos, which has not, however, the same emphasis in the prophet. Still, this free use of the prophecy is not uncommon in the New Testament, especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and may be safely received, if, as in this case, the passage quoted is a true prophecy or type. For, the references in this passage harmonize with each other to the name Immanuel; the son of Isaiah had the name, but Christ the nature, he was the visible God whom the other only represented. Besides, anomalous features must exist in every type or symbol, for otherwise it would be no type, but the thing itself. Hence, all the prophecies of Scripture have sufficient resemblances to be recognized by those who are in want of them, and who from necessity seek them; but they have likewise a sufficient number of dissimilarities to be mistaken by those who have no desire to discover and know them. (In the main point I agree in opinion with the remarks made by Umbreit on Isaiah vii. 14, in the Stud. und Krit. for 1830, part iii. p. 538 sqq). The assumption of the late Kleinert, (see Tholuck's Anz. for 1832, numb. 25 sqq,) that it was a vision which God showed to Ahaz through the prophet, concerning the virgin and Immanuel, and that we ought to consider it as such, would doubtless contribute to explain many a point; but in the text a vision is not named by the prophet, and hence, without an intimation of this kind, the assumption of a vision is quite arbitrary.

of Jesus. From the text before us, especially from the words ws o and gwróronos, we are led to suppose the latter. The former seems to imply that the conjugal life of Joseph and Mary commenced after the birth of Jesus; and the latter expression seems to assert that Mary had many children. But as it is improbable, from Gospel-history, that Mary had other children, (for the particulars on this subject see Matth. xiii. 55,) no forced conclusion can be drawn from the word gwróronos in favour of the assumption that a conjugal relation existed subsequently between Joseph and Mary. For, the expression in

-which may imply the first פֶטֶר רֶחֶם or בְּכוֹר Hebrew is but

=

born of children as well as the only one. (Besides, it must be well remembered, that the words here used are πρωτότοκος αὐτῆς; in the formulas πρωτότοκος ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς [Rom. viii. 29,] ἐκ τῶν VEXgV [Rev. i. 5,] άons xríosws [Col. i. 15] this expression, of course, has quite a different meaning. In like manner we find in Heb. i. 6, a parallel passage, where the expression stands unconnected. (See the commentary on these passages). Neither does the formula ws of necessarily imply that whatever is denied to have happened before or up to a given time, has happened afterwards. This is proved in the Old Testament by passages such as Gen. viii. 7; 2 Sam. vi. 23. It is true, that no passage in the New Testament having any reference to it, for example, Matth. xxii. 44; (comp. with 1 Cor. xv. 28,) Matth. v. 26, is quite decisive. But it is in accordance with the nature of the particle, not to imply necessarily that whatever has not happened up to a certain point of time, has occurred at the expiration of it. All depends upon conditions and circumstances. We can say, for example: We waited till midnight, but no one came; herein it is not implied that any one came after midnight, —it only means, no one came at all. Hence, we must say, that no conclusion can be safely drawn from this passage in support of either the one view or the other; St Matthew asserts it only as a fact, that Joseph disowned Mary up to the birth of Jesus. Joseph, it is evident, had great reason to suppose, from what had occurred, that the end of his marriage with Mary was not to beget children. The words of the Evangelist run perhaps designedly as they do, in order to prevent any inference being drawn from these events which might prove unfavourable to the sacredness of the marriage; but it seems natural, nevertheless,

that the last female member of the house of David, from whom the Messiah was born, should close her race with this eternal offspring, and only child. (The contrary opinion is defended by Stier in his Andeutungen, vol. 1st, p. 404 sqq).

§ 3. ARRIVAL OF THE MAGI. FLIGHT TO EGYPT.

MASSACRE

Ver. 1. St Matthew observes, only incidentally, and by way of addition, that Jesus was born at Bethlehem,' at the time of Herod (surnamed the Great, who was the son of Antipater); yet he makes no distinct mention of the dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary, from which it appears clear that the Evangelist, in recording the life of Christ, intentionally speaks as little about the time as the place, a circumstance which is not unimportant, from the seeming discrepancies which exist between St Matthew and St Luke, upon which we shall touch

hereafter. (Bŋéé, nb-na was two leagues, or six Roman

millia south by west of Jerusalem. Originally this town was called Ephrath, [Gen. xxxv. 19; xlviii. 7,] and is here distinguished by the addition of rs 'Iovdaías from another Bethlehem in Galilee, which belonged to the children of Zebulun, as mentioned in Josh. xix. 15. As the native town of David, it is called simply is aßid, Luke ii. 4, 11). The most important thing with St Matthew is the homage done by the magi to the newly born Messiah. (The magi, as is well known, were the priests and wise men among the Persians. In Jerem. xxxix. 3, the expression occurs, and there signifies the head of the college of magi. The Greek translation of this term by Suidas, who renders it φιλόσοφοι, φιλόθεοι, is inferior to one of Persian origin, signifying great, excellent. Afterwards the title máyos, like mathematicus, chaldaeus, was applied to every lover of secret

1 As St Matthew does not describe more minutely the person of Herod, many of which name ruled over Palestine, (comp. the first chronological table of my exposition of the Acts of the Apostles), it is clear that he supposes his readers to be acquainted with the circumstances; and this likewise contributes to the explanation of many peculiarities in his narrative.