 |  |
Bethlehem is the "city of David" and it was meet that David's greater Son should be
born there, but we observe that lowliness, not greatness is attached to the place of
Emmanuel's birth. In Luke's record, we find that the infant Christ is laid in a manger,
because there was no room in the inn (2: 7), and in Matthew's account note is taken of
the fact that Bethlehem is "least among the princes of Judah". The reader may object at
this point and point out that Matt. 2: 6 does not say that Bethlehem "was least", but "art
not the least". If we consult the original passage in Micah 5: 2 we shall read:
"But Thou, Beth-lehem 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,"
and will find that the passage quoted in Matt. 2: 6, does not agree verbally with either
the Hebrew original or the LXX translation of Micah 5: 2. What we must remember
here is that Matt. 2: 6 records the immediate response of the chief priests and scribes to
the question put by Herod. It is apparently a quotation made off hand and from memory,
which true in general, must not be used to set off the original which they failed accurately
to quote. "Ephratah" is paraphrased by "in the land of Judah" and this is true. There was
another Bethlehem in Zebulun (Josh. 19: 15). In all probability Herod had never heard
the ancient name Ephratah, and the Scribes were justified in translating the intention of
the prophet into terms understandable by the king. The alteration also of the word
"thousands" to "princes" is to be explained in the same way. The word translated
"thousand" also meant a family, as the LXX renders Judges 6: 15, where Gideon says
"my family (lit. thousand) is poor"; or again in I Sam. 10: 19 where Samuel calls upon
the people to present themselves "by your thousands", i.e. families. The scribes therefore
were translating again freely for Herod's benefit.
However, it is in the next quotation from the prophets that the blessed fullness of the
idea "God with us" begins to be made manifest. Joseph is warned in a dream that Herod
would seek the young child's life and is instructed to flee to Egypt, where the King's writ
did not run, "And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, out of Egypt have I called My Son"
(Matt. 2: 15). This passage is quoted from Hosea 11: 1:
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."
Unlike the quotation of the Scribes of the prophet Micah, this is a true translation of
the words of Hosea 11: 1. The problem attaching to this quotation does not reside in the
citation, but in the interpretation or application of the prophet's words to Christ. As the
words stand in Hosea they are not a prophecy of the future but a statement of historical
fact. Israel were in Egypt suffering under the bondage imposed by Pharaoh. The Lord
looked with love upon this infant nation which He had chosen and called out of Egypt,
giving them the title "Son", saying:
"Israel is My son, even My firstborn, and I say unto thee, Let My son go" (Exod. 4: 22, 23).
It is evident both in the reference before us, and in the other allusions to Egypt made
by Hosea, that Egypt is referred to as a type (Hosea 2: 15; 7: 11,16; 8: 13; 9: 3, 6;
11: 1, 5, 11; 12: 1, 9, 13; 13: 4).