Thirdly, He seems not to repeat the words of the prophet himself immediately, but only to record the answer which, from these words of the prophet, was given unto Herod by the priests and scribes; so that the repetition of the words is theirs, and not his properly.
Fourthly, Whose soever the words are, as there is nothing in the whole of them discrepant from, much less contrary unto, those of the prophet,—nor are they used to signify any thing but the open, plain intention of the prophet,—so are all the particulars wherein a difference appears between them capable of a fair reconciliation. This we shall manifest by passing briefly through them :—
The first difference is in the first words: TES pnp-n’a AAS), — “And thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah;” which are rendered in the evan- gelist, Kal od BebActw, v7 ’I0bdx,—And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah.” That Bethlehem which was of old called Ephratah, from
SECT. 19.] THE ONLY TRUE AND PROMISED MESSIAH. 383
its first builder, 1 Chron. iv. 4, that name being now forgotten and worn out of use, is here said to be, as it was indeed, “in the land of Judah,” to distinguish it from Bethlehem that was in the lot or land of Zebulun, as both Rashi and Kimchi observe, Josh. xix. 15; and, it may be, to denote withal the relation that the Messiah had to Judah. So that here there is no discrepancy. “ Beth-lehem Ephratah,” and “ Bethlehem in the land of Judah,” are one and the same name and place. Secondly, In the ensuing words there is more variety : ‘pONA nin VS ;—“ Little to be in the thousands of Judah.” In the evangelist, Obdapés sAaxviorn ef ev roils Hyemoow “Iovdue —“ Art not the least among the leaders of Judah.” Y¥, “parva,” or “ little,’ in the positive, is rendered by the evangelist 2Aayforg, in the superlative degree. The Hebrews have no superlative degree in their language, and therefore do often express the importance of it by the positive with 2 following, as it doth in this place: ‘DONA VYY, —“ Little in the thousands of Judah;” that is, the least of them, if the word be adjectively to be expounded.
DDS, that is, xauddes (as the word is rendered by the LXX,), is in the evangelist jysudves, “ princes, rulers, leaders.’ The Is- raelites, in their political order, were distributed into tens, hundreds, and thousands,—not unlike the distribution in our own country into tithings, hundreds, and counties; and each portion had its peculiar captain, ruler, or leader. According to this distribution, when there was a considerable number, a thousand or more, inhabiting to- gether, they made a peculiar kind of town or city, which had its special chiliarch, or governor. And these were called the thousands of Israel or Judah, or places that had such a proportion of people belonging to them, and consequently such a special ruler of their own; which kind of rulers in the commonwealth were alone taken notice of, those others of tens and hundreds being under their govern- ment. So that “thousands” and “rulers” denote one and the same thing,—the one with respect unto the people, the other unto the governors of them.
The only évavrégaveg is in the mode or manner of expression. The proposition in the prophet seems to be affirmative, “ Thou art little.” In the evangelist it is expressly negative, “ Thou art not the least.” But, first, This difference concerneth not the testimony as to that end for which it was produced. What way soever the words be interpreted, the importance of the testimony is still the same. Secondly, The words in the prophet contain no perfect enunciation, nor do yield any complete sense, unless it be on one of these two suppositions;—First, That the word "Y¥ is to be taken adverbially, and to signify not “ parva,” but “ parum,”—not “a little one,” but “a little;” and then they give us this sense, “ And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, it is but a little that thou shouldest be among the thou-
384 JESUS OF NAZARETH [EXERO. XVII.
sands of Judah.” And this hath no inconsistency with the words of the evangelist, “Thou art not the least;” for though it were eminent among the thousands of Judah, yet this was but a little or small matter in comparison of the honour that God would put upon it, by the birth of the Messiah. And this is not unusual in the Hebrew language. Adjectives feminine are frequently taken in the neuter gender, which it hath not, and signify adverbially. And though “Y¥ be of a masculine termination, yet being joined with Dno-n’a, the name of a town or city, it is put for 7”Y¥ of the feminine gender. Or, secondly, An interrogation must be supposed to be included in the words, “ Art thou but little?” “ Beth-lehem, VPS NAN,” “art thou but little?” which may well be rendered nega- tively, Otdauis éraxiorn,—“ Thou art not the least among the thou- sands of Judah.” ‘The prophet, then, might have respect both to its present outward estate, which was mean and contemptible in the eyes of men, and also to the respect that God had unto it as to its future worth, which was to prefer it above all the thousands of Judah; which principally the evangelist had regard unto.