גרעים גזע גזע גזע is only when has the meaning, "stump," that it can be accounted for why they of Jesse, and not of David, is spoken of.-(5.) The supposition that the Messiah shall be born at the time of the deepest humiliation of the Davidic family, after the entire loss of the royal dignity, pervades all the other prophetical writings. That Micah views the Davidic family as entirely sunk at the time of Christ's appearance, we showed in vol. I. p. 508-9. Compare farther the remarks on Amos ix. 11, and those on Matth. ii. 23 immediately following. Hitzig is obliged to confess that can designate the cut-off stem only; but maintains that Jesse, as an individual long ago dead, is designated as a cut-off tree. But against this opinion is the relation which, as we proved, exists between this verse and the last verses of the preceding chapter; the undeniable correspondence of with in chap. x. 33. In that case the antithesis also, so evidently intended by the Prophet, would be altogether lost. It is not by any means a thing so uncommon, that a man who is already dead should have a glorious descendant. To this it may further be added that, according to this supposition, the circumstance is not all accounted for, that Jesse is mentioned, and not David, the royal ancestor, as is done everywhere else. Finally-In this very forced explanation, the parallel passages are altogether left out of view, in which likewise the doctrine is contained that, at the time of Christ's appearance, the Davidic family should have altogether sunk. The reason of all these futile attempts at explaining away the sense so evident and obvious, is none other than the fear of acknowledg ing in the prophecy an element which goes beyond the territory of patriotic fancy and human knowledge. But this dark fear should here so much the more be set aside, that, according to other passages also, the Prophet undeniably had the knowledge and conviction. that Israel's course would be more and more downward before it attained, in Christ, to the full height of its destiny. We need remind only of the prophecies in chap. v. and vi. ; and it is so much the more natural here to compare the latter of them, that, in it, in ver. 13, Israel, at the time of the appearing of the Messianic Kingdom, is represented as a felled tree,-a fact which has for its ground the sinking of the Davidic race which is here announced. We farther direct attention to the circumstance that in our pro phecy itself, Israel's being carried away into all the countries of the earth is foreseen as future,-a circumstance which is so much the more analogous, that there also, as here, the foreknowledge clothes itself in the form of the supposition and not of express announcement. With regard to the latter point, it may still be remarked that Amos also, in chap. ix. 11, by speaking of the raising up of the tabernacle of David which is fallen, anticipates its future lowliness.-The question still arises :-Why is it that the Messiah is here designated as a rod of Jesse, while elsewhere, His origin is commonly traced back to David? Umbreit is of opinion that the mention of Jesse may be explained from the Prophet's desire to trace the pedigree as far back as possible; in its apparent extinction, the family of the Messiah was to be pointed out as a very old one. But if this had been his intention, he would have gone back beyond Jesse to the older ancestors whom the Book of Ruth mentions; and if he had been so anxious to honour the family of the Messiah, it would, at all events, have been far more suitable to mention David than Jesse, who was only one degree removed from him. The sound view has been long ago given by Calvin, who says: "The Prophet does not mention David; but rather Jesse. For so much was the dignity of that family diminished, that it seemed to be a rustic, ignoble family rather than a royal one." It was appropriate that that family, upon whom was a second time to be fulfilled the declaration in Ps. cxiii. 7, 8: "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust; He lifteth up the needy out of the dunghill, that He may set him with princes, with the princes of His people," -in which, the second time, the transition should take place from the low condition to the royal dignity, should not be mentioned according to its royal, but according to its rustic character. This explanation of the fact is confirmed by the circumstance that it agrees exceedingly well with the right interpretation of: Jesse is mentioned and not David, because the Davidic dignity had become a . The mention of Jesse's name thus explained, agrees, then, with the birth of Christ at Bethlehem, announced by Isaiah's cotemporary, Micah. Christ was to be born at Bethlehem, because that residence was peculiar to the family of David during its lowliness; comp. vol. I. p. 508-9.-The second hemistich of the verse may either be explained: "a twig from his roots shall bear fruit," or, as agrees better with the accents: “a twig shall from his roots bear fruit." The sense, at all events, is: A shoot proceeding from his roots (i.e., the cut-off stem of Jesse) shall grow up into a stately fruitful tree; or: As a tree cut down throws out from its roots a young shoot which, at first inconsiderable, grows up into a stately fruit-bearing tree, so from the family buried in contempt and lowliness, a King shall arise who, at first humble and unheeded,' shall afterwards attain to great glory. Parallel is Ezek. xvii. 22-24. The Messiah is there compared to a tender twig which is planted by the Lord on a high hill, and sends forth branches and bears fruit, so that all the birds dwell in the shadow of its branches. It has now become current to explain: "A branch breaks forth or sprouts;" but that explanation is against the usus loquendi. is never equivalent to "to break forth;" it has only the signification "to bear," "to bear fruit," "to be fruitful." Gesenius who, in the later editions of his translation, here explains by, "to break forth," knows, in the Thesaurus, of no other signification. In the passage of Ezekiel referred to, which may be considered as a commentary on the verse before us, y corresponds to the here. The change of the tense, too, suggests that פרח does not contain a mere repetition, but a progress. This progress is necessary for the sense of the whole verse. For it cannot be the point in question that, in general, a shoot comes forth; but the point is that this shoot shall attain to importance and glory. comprehends and expresses in one word that which, in the subsequent verses of the section, is carried out in detail. First, there is the bestowal of the Spirit of the Lord whereby He is enabled to bear fruit; then, the fruit-bearing itself. We here subjoin the discussion of the new Testament passage which refers to this verse. 1 Although Umbreit denies it, yet this is implied in the designation of the Messiah as a shoot from the roots. Moreover, the lowliness of the Messiah himself at His appearance is a necessary consequence of the lowliness of His family; and it is a bad middle course to acknowledge the latter and deny the former. To this may, moreover, be added the parallel passage Is. liii. 2. ON MATTHEW II. 23. Καὶ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς πόλιν λεγομένην Ναζαρέτ ̓ ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν, ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται. We here premise an investigation as regards the name of the town of Nazareth. Since that name occurs in the New Testament only, different views might arise as to its orthography and etymology. One view is this: The name was properly and originally. Being the name of a town, it received, in Aramean, in addition, the feminine termination. And, finally, on account of the original appellative signification of the word, a, the designation of the status emphaticus of feminine nouns in, was sometimes added. We have an analogous case in the name Dalmanutha, the same place which, with the Talmudist, is called in Compare Lightfoot decas chorog. Marc. praem., opp. II. p. 411 sqq. So it is likewise probably that yaßßalà, N is formed from the masculine dorsum. Our view is that the original name was Nezer, that this form of the name was in use along with that which received an added, and that this served for the designation of the status emphaticus only; or also, if we wish to take our stand upon the Hebrew form, was a mere hardening of the Femin. (either of which suppositions is equally suitable for our purpose); and this our view we prove by the following arguments: 1. The testimonies of the Jews. David de Pomis (in De Dieu, critic. sacr. on M. II. 23) says: ה גב 66 ת A Nazarene is he * הגליל רחוק מירושלים דרך שלשת ימים who is born in the town of Nezer, in Galilee, three days' journey from Jerusalem." In the Talmud, in Breshith Rabba, and in Jalkut Shimeoni on Daniel, the contemptuous name of Ben Nezer, i.e., the Nazarene, is given to Christ; compare the passages in Buxtorf, lex. c. 1383; in Lightfoot, disquis. chorog. Johan. praem. opp. II. 578 sqq.; Eisenmenger, I. p. 3139. It is true, Gieseler (on Matth. ii. 23, and in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1831, III. S. 591) has tried to give a different interpretation to this appellation. He is of opinion that this appellation has reference to Is. xi. 1; that it had come to the Jews from the Christians, who called נצר נתעב their Messiah, because He was He who had been promised by Isaiah. But this supposition is correct thus far only, that, no doubt, this appellation was chosen by the Jews with a reference to the circumstance that the Christians maintained that Jesus was the announced by Isaiah, just as, for the very same reason, they also assign to Him the names N "adulterous branch," and "abominable' branch" (from Is. xiv. 19); comp. Eisenmenger I. S. 137, 138. But Gieseler is wrong in deriving, from this reference to Is. xi. 1, the origin of the appellation, be it properly or mainly only. Against that even the very appellation is decisive, for in that case it ought to have been Nezer only, and not Ben-Nezer. Geiseler, it is true, asserts that he in whom a certain prophecy was fulfilled is called the "Son of the prophecy," and in confirmation of this usus loquendi he refers to the circumstance that the pseudo-Messiah under Hadrian assumed, with a reference to the in Numb. כוכב in so far as the star there בר כוכבא or בן כוכב xxiv. 17, the name promised had appeared in him. But this confirmation is only apparent; it can as little be proved from it, that Christ could be called Ben Nezer because He was He in whom the prophecy of the Nezer was fulfilled, as it can be proved from the appellation Ben Nezer that that pseudo-Messiah could be called Bar Cochba, only because it was believed that in him the prophecy of the star was fulfilled. Reland has already proved (Geogr. II. p. 727) that Barcochba probably had that name because he was a native of Cocab, a town or district in the country beyond Jordan. And the reason why he laid such special stress upon that descent was, that he sought a deeper meaning in this agreement of the name of his birthplace with the designation of the subject of the prophecy in Numb. xxiv. Moreover the supposition that, by the Jews, he in whom some prophecy was fulfilled, was called the son of that prophecy; that, e.g., the Messiah, the Servant of God, the Prince of Peace were called the Son of Messiah, &c., is not only destitute of all foundation, but is, even in itself, most improbable. To this must still be added the consideration that this interpretation of Ben-Nezer is opposed by the constant interpretation of the Jews. Jarchi, in a gloss on that passage of the Talmud referred to, explains Ben Nezer by: "He who has come |