Matthew 2:6

6. And thou Bethlehem The New Testament quotations will often be found to vary from the passage in the Old. New Testament writers sometimes quoted the words of the Hebrew precisely; sometimes quoted the Septuagint or Greek translation, which was commonly read by the Jews of their day; and sometimes quoted substantially, with such variations as rendered the passage more clear, without misrepresenting the original divine mind in the passage.

This passage in the Old Testament reads thus: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel. Micah 5:2. The evangelist leaves out Ephratah as a name now little known, and substitutes land of Judah as expressing the same limitation of the site of Bethlehem. Though thou be little, in the Hebrew, the evangelist changes to art not the least; for the smallness of the external size is mentioned by the Hebrew to imply its not being small in divine favour, as expressed by the evangelist. Matthew puts princes, or rulers of a thousand apiece, for the thousands themselves, which amounts to the same thing.

This is a most signal passage of prophecy, for many reasons, among which are the following:

1 . It was the uniform practice of the ancient Jews, agreeing with Herod’s Sanhedrim, to apply it to the Messiah. “All the Jewish interpreters,” says Hengstenberg, “with the Chaldee at their head, (who paraphrase the closing part of the passage, ‘from thee shall the Messiah go forth to me, before me,’) maintain the application to the Messiah.” But so fatal to their own cause has this proved that the modern Jews have been obliged to abandon their ancient interpretation!

2 . This prophecy brings to a point a whole series of converging prophecies. First we have the Edenic prediction of the seed of the woman; it is narrowed to the line of Shem; next to the line of Abraham, to that of Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, and finally to the city of David, Bethlehem.

3 . This pointing to Bethlehem made more conspicuous the fact that Jesus was of the royal line of David. It pointed to the place where David spent his boyhood; and to the place where the record of the pedigree of Jesus was to be found, so completing the evidence presented in Matthew’s genealogy. Moreover, of the two cities of David, Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the latter is selected as the starting place of both David and Jesus, each from a humble origin, the latter from the decayed line of the former.

4 . And those who complain that the whole account of the Messiah’s birth seems an obscure and humble matter, in a narrow corner of the world, unlike what an incarnation should be, should take into consideration how clear are the predictions that God would fling the vail over that transaction. See note on Matthew 2:23.

5 . The predicted birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, of the line of David, and so of the tribe of Judah, settles the point that the Messiah has come. Not only was it predicted that Messiah should appear during the second temple, (which is now no more,) but the tribeship of Judah and the lineage of David are lost. All traces of the royal line disappeared at the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of their race.

6 . Finally, no infidel can say these prophecies were forged by Christians, or were made to suit the event, for the records are preserved by our opponents, the Jews. The Hebrews keep our library of proofs. Judaism furnishes the prophecy; Christianity furnishes the fulfilment; and how will infidelity explain the agreement?