Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 2:6
And thou Bethlehem, [in] the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
6. And thou Bethlehem, &c. ] Mic 5:2. The quotation nearly corresponds with the Hebrew text, the literal translation of which is: But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little to be among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me he that is to be ruler in Israel.
The LXX. is singularly different both in words and construction a proof of the Hebrew original of this gospel; for the Greek translation of the prophecy is evidently independent of the LXX.
A reflection of this prophecy became prevalent in the East. Accordingly the Roman historians designate the Emperor Vespasian as the Eastern Prince who was destined to rule the world: “Percrebuerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio esse in fatis ut eo tempore Juda profecti rerum potirentur. Id de Imperatore Romano quantum postea eventu paruit prdictum Judi ad se trahentes rebellarunt.” Suet. Vesp. iv. Similarly Tac. Hist. Mat 2:13. Comp. Joseph. B. J. vi. 5. 4. See above, Mat 2:2.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mat 2:6
A Governor.
Messiahs government
I. The character of the Governor,
1. His dignity (Rom 9:5; Col 2:9; Jer 33:6; Isa 45:18; Isa 45:24; Rom 14:11-12; Joh 1:1, and others). Suitably sustained by His attributes.
2. His condescension (Php 2:5-8).
3. His fidelity-to Him by whom He was appointed (Mat 22:37-38; Mat 5:17-19; Luk 2:49; Mat 3:15; Joh 4:31-34); to them for whom He was appointed (Joh 16:12-13; Joh 16:33; Eph 4:7-13; Luk 12:50; Heb 2:14-18; Heb 7:25).
4. His clemency. Ever ready to pardon, etc.
II. The character of his subjects.
III. The character of his government.
1. Divine and spiritual (Luk 10:18; Col 1:13; Heb 1:14; Eph 1:18; Col 2:2-3).
2. Mild and equitable. Rules without coercion (Psa 119:32).
3. Vigorous and effective (2Ch 16:9; Psa 11:4-7; Psa 24:7-10; Psa 103:19-21; Col 2:15; Heb 2:14; Rom 8:34-39).
4. Staple, prosperous, everlasting (Heb 12:28; Isa 9:7; Dan 7:27; Heb 1:8). Application: Let the enemies of this government tremble (1Co 15:15; Psa 2:9; Rom 2:4; Rom 2:8-9); submit and find peace (Psa 2:10-12). Let the subjects of this government rejoice in anticipation of its progressive and rapid conquests, and its final triumph (Psa 2:7-8; Rev 7:9-12). (Zeta.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 6. And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda] To distinguish it from Bethlehem, in the tribe of Zebulon. Jos 19:15. See Clarke on Mt 2:1.
Art not the least] In Mic 5:2, it is read, Though thou be little – tsair lehayoth, little to be. Houbigant, struck with the oddness of the construction of the Hebrew, by dividing the last word, and making a small change in two of the letters, makes the prophet agree with the evangelist, tsair lo hayita, thou art not the least. Several learned men are of opinion, that the copy from which St. Matthew quoted, had the text in this way. However, some MSS. of very good note, among which is the Codex Bezae, have , for , Art thou not the least? This reconciles the prophet and evangelist without farther trouble. See the authorities for this reading in Griesbach and Wetstein.
Among the princes of Juda] In Mic 5:2, it is, the thousands of Judah. There is much reason to believe that each tribe was divided into small portions called thousands, as in England certain small divisions of counties are called hundreds. For the proof of the first, the reader is referred to Jdg 6:15, where, instead of my FAMILY is poor in Manasseh, the Hebrew is, my THOUSAND () is the meanest in Manasseh: and to 1Sa 10:19, Present yourselves before the Lord by your TRIBES and by your THOUSANDS: and to 1Ch 12:20, Captains of the THOUSANDS of Manasseh. Now these THOUSANDS being petty governments, Matthew renders them by the word , because the word princes or governors was more intelligible in the Greek tongue than thousands, though, in this case, they both signify the same. See Wakefield.
That shall rule my people Israel.] , Who shall FEED my people. That is as a shepherd feeds his flock. Among the Greeks, kings are called, by Homer, , shepherds of the people. This appellation probably originated from the pastoral employment, which kings and patriarchs did not blush to exercise in the times of primitive simplicity; and it might particularly refer to the case of David, the great type of Christ, who was a keeper of his father’s sheep, before he was raised to the throne of Israel. As the government of a good king was similar to the care a good shepherd has of his flock, hence signified both shepherd and king; and , to feed and to rule among the ancient Greeks.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
6. And thou, Bethlehem, inthe land of Judathe “in” being familiarly left out,as we say, “London, Middlesex.”
art not the least among theprinces of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, c.Thisquotation, though differing verbally, agrees substantially with theHebrew and the Septuagint. For says the prophet,”Though thou be little, yet out of thee shall come theRuler”this honor more than compensating for its naturalinsignificance while our Evangelist, by a lively turn, makes him say,”Thou art not the least: for out of thee shall come aGovernor”this distinction lifting it from the lowest to thehighest rank. The “thousands of Juda,” in the prophet, meanthe subordinate divisions of the tribe: our Evangelist, instead ofthese, merely names the “princes” or heads of thesefamilies, including the districts which they occupied.
that shall ruleor”feed,” as in the Margin.
my people IsraelIn theOld Testament, kings are, by a beautiful figure, styled “shepherds”(Eze 34:1-10, c.). Theclassical writers use the same figure. The pastoral rule of Jehovahand Messiah over His people is a representation pervading allScripture, and rich in import. (See Psa 23:1-6Isa 40:11; Eze 37:24;Joh 10:11; Rev 7:17).That this prophecy of Micah referred to the Messiah, was admitted bythe ancient Rabbins.
The Wise Men Despatched toBethlehem by Herod to See the Babe, and Bring Him Word, Make aReligious Offering to the Infant King, but Divinely Warned, ReturnHome by Another Way (Mt2:7-12).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And thou Bethlehem in the land of Juda,…. This prophecy, which the chief priests and scribes produced, as pointing at the place of Christ’s birth, is owned by both ancient and later Jews y to be a prophecy of the Messiah. The difference between Micah and Matthew is easily reconciled. Bethlehem is called by Micah, Bethlehem Ephratah, and by Matthew, Bethlehem in the land of Judah, and both were one and the same place. Bethlehem Ephratah was in the land of Juda, as appears from the prophecy of Micah itself, from Ru 1:2 and the Septuagint version of Jos 15:60 and is described in this manner by Matthew, partly to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in the land of Zebulun,
Jos 19:15 and partly because its other name Ephratah was now disused, and so unknown to Herod, who was unacquainted with the books and prophecies of the Old Testament. Micah says this place was
little among the thousands of Judah. Matthew says, “not the least”. But in this is no apparent contradiction, it might be “little” and yet “not the least”; besides, it might be “little” and “not little”, or “not the least” in different respects, and at different times; it might be little, mean, and contemptible as to worldly splendour, riches, number of inhabitants, pompous buildings, c. and yet not be little or mean, when considered as the place of the birth of many great persons, such as Booz, Jesse, David, c. and especially Christ. It might be little in Micah’s time, and yet not in Matthew’s especially since it had received a considerable additional honour by Christ’s being born there. Moreover, the words in Micah may be rendered, by way of interrogation, “art thou little, or the least?” To which the answer in Matthew is, “no, thou art not the least”, c. or else the word may be understood, and the text be translated thus “it is a small thing that thou art among the thousands of Judah, for out of thee”, c. a great honour shall be conferred on thee, the Messiah shall spring from thee. Again, what Micah calls “thousands”, are in Matthew called “princes” the reason of this is, because the tribes of Israel were divided into thousands, and every thousand had its prince so that though here is a difference in words, yet none in sense. What Micah styles “a ruler in Israel”, Matthew expresses by “a governor that shall rule or feed my people Israel”; but in this there is no contradiction. Add to all this, that it should be observed, that the Evangelist is not giving a version of his own, but of the chief priests and scribes; and therefore was it ever so faulty, they, and not he, must be chargeable with it; for he has acted the part of a faithful historian in giving it in the words in which they cited it z.
y Targum Jon. Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Kimchi & Abendana in loc. Abarbinel Mashmia Jeshua, fol. 62. 2. R. Isaac Chizuk Emuna, p. 279. z See my book of the “Prophecies of the Messiah”, &c. ch. 6. p. 104-116.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Land of Judah. To distinguish it from Bethlehem in the territory of Zebulon.
Shall be shepherd of [] , from poimhn, a shepherd. So Rev., rightly, instead of shall rule. The word involves the whole office of the shepherd – guiding, guarding, folding, as well as feeding. Hence appropriate and often applied to the guides and guardians of others. Homer calls kings “the shepherds of the people.” To David the people said, “The Lord said to thee, Thou shalt feed (as a shepherd) my people Israel” (2Sa 5:2, compare Psa 78:70 – 72). God is often called a shepherd (Gen 48:15; Psa 23:1; Psa 77:20; Psa 80:1; Isa 40:11; Eze 34:11 – 31). Jesus calls himself the good shepherd (Joh 10:11). Peter, who is bidden by Jesus to shepherd his sheep (Joh 21:16, poimaine, Rev., tend), calls him the Shepherd of Souls (1Pe 2:25), and the Chief Shepherd (1Pe 5:4); and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii. 20), he is styled the great Shepherd of the sheep. In Rev 2:27, rule is literally to shepherd (compare Rev 19:15); but Christ will shepherd his enemies, not with the pastoral crook, but with a sceptre of iron. Finally, Jesus will perpetuate this name and office in heaven among his redeemed ones, for “the Lamb, which is in the midst of the throne, shall be their shepherd (Rev 7:17, Rev.). In this verse the word governor is in harmony with the idea of shepherding, since the word hJgoumenov originally means one who goes before, or leads the way, and suggests Christ ‘s words about the good shepherd in Joh 10:3, 4.” He calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out…. He goeth before them, and the sheep follow him. ”
Inquired diligently [] . Better learned accurately. The verb is formed from akrov, at the point or end. The idea is, therefore, he ascertained to the last point; denoting the exactness of the information rather than the diligence of the search for it. Compare ver. 8, ” Search out carefully [] . So the Rev. for diligently.
What time the star appeared [ ] . Lit., the time of the appearing star. Herod asks, “How long does the star make itself visible since its rising in the East? rather than” At what time did it appear? “
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Jude,” (kai su Bethleem ge louda) “And you Bethlehem, Land of Juda.” This information, known to the scribes, condemned them. Though they aided the magi in furnishing them, and king Herod the information about the place Jesus was to be born, they did not themselves go to see and worship Jesus.
2) “Art not the least among the princes of Juda:” (oudamos elachiste ei en tois hegemosin louda) “You are not at all least among the governors of Juda,” not without honor as a small town or city.
3) “For out of thee shall come a governor,” (ek tou gar ekseleusetai hogoumenos) “Because out of you will come forth a governor,” one who shall administer the government of the Lord on earth, as also prophesied by Isa 9:6-7.
4) “That shall rule my people Israel.” (hostis poimanei ton laon mou ton Israel) “Who will shepherd my people Israel,” who shall rule or keep them by leading them, much as a shepherd rules his flock. The question “where?” of Jesus’ birth, (Mat 2:2) was answered.
a) By the’ Scriptures.
b) By the Scribes.
c) By the Star that stood over the Christ child.
d) By the enemies of the king.
e) By convictions of the heart.
This rule is to reach its earthly fullness at the second coming of Jesus Christ, Luk 1:31; Luk 1:33; 1Co 15:24-28. See also Eze 37:24; Joh 10:11; Rev 7:17.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
6. And thou, Bethlehem The scribes quoted faithfully, no doubt, the words of the passage in their own language, as it is found in the prophet. But Matthew reckoned it enough to point out the passage; and, as he wrote in Greek, he followed the ordinary reading. This passage, and others of the same kind, readily suggest the inference, that Matthew did not compose his Gospel in the Hebrew language. It ought always to be observed that, whenever any proof from Scripture is quoted by the apostles, though they do not translate word for word, and sometimes depart widely from the language, yet it is applied correctly and appropriately to their subject. Let the reader always consider the purpose for which passages of Scripture are brought forward by the Evangelists, so as not to stick too closely to the particular words, but to be satisfied with this, that the Evangelists never torture Scripture into a different meaning, but apply it correctly in its native meaning. But while it was their intention to supply with milk children and “novices” (1Ti 3:6) in faith, who were not yet able to endure “ strong meat,” (Heb 5:12,) there is nothing to prevent the children of God from making careful and diligent inquiry into the meaning of Scripture, and thus being led to the fountain by the taste which the apostles afford.
Let us now return to the prediction. Thus it stands literally in the Prophet:
“
And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth to me, who is Ruler in Israel,” (Mic 5:2.)
For Ephratah Matthew has put Judah, but the meaning is the same; for Micah only intended, by this mark, to distinguish the Bethlehem of which he speaks, from another Bethlehem, which was in the tribe of Zebulun. There is greater difficulty in what follows: for the Prophet says, that Bethlehem is little, when reckoned among the governments of Judah, while Matthew, on the contrary: speaks highly of its rank as one of the most distinguished: thou art by no means the least among the princes of Judah This reason has induced some commentators to read the passage in the prophet as a question, Art thou little among the thousands of Judah? But I rather agree with those who think that Matthew intended, by this change of the language, to magnify the grace of God in making an inconsiderable and unknown town the birth-place of the highest King. Although Bethlehem received this distinguished honor, it was of no advantage to its inhabitants, but brought upon them a heavier destruction: for there an unworthy reception was given to the Redeemer. For he is to be Ruler, Matthew has put he shall feed, ( ποιμανεῖ) But he has expressed both, when he says, that Christ is the leader, ( ἡγούμενος ,) and that to him is committed the office of feeding his people.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(6) And thou Bethlehem. . . .The Evangelist is not quoting the prophecy of Micah himself, but recording it as it was quoted by the scribes. This in part explains the fact that he does not give either the version of the LXX., or a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew, but a free paraphrase. As the Targum, just referred to, belongs to this period, it is perfectly possible that the writer of it may have been one of the Council. At any rate, his Messianic reference of the passage was likely to be dominant. The chief difference for the English reader to note is, that the Hebrew gives thou art little among the thousands (i.e., as in Jdg. 6:15, the families or clans) of Judah; the version given by St. Matthew, thou art not the least among the princes. The prophet contrasts the outward insignificance with the spiritual greatness. The paraphrast sees the outward transfigured by the glory of the spiritual. So again the simpler out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel is paraphrased into out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule (e.g., feed, as a shepherd) my people Israel. The fact that the scribes stopped, and did not go on to the words that told of the Ruler as one whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, may have arisen either from an unwillingness to bring that aspect of the expected Christ before the mind of Herod, or, possibly, from an equal unwillingness to face it themselves.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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. Mic 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 Mat 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?
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are in no wise least among the princes of Judah, for out of you will come forth a governor, who will be shepherd of my people Israel.”
We have no evidence elsewhere that this verse was commonly seen as declaring where the Messiah would be born, for it is not cited in such a way anywhere else (but compare Joh 7:27, although that may simply be a reference to the mysteriousness of the Messiah, not to his birthplace), but it seems unlikely that such a clear reference had never been spotted before, at least as the source from which the Davidic Messiah would come. They would naturally have expected a son of David to be connected with Bethlehem. Certainly, however, to a group of men fearing the worst if they discovered nothing, Micah’s reference would have seemed like manna from Heaven. But they did not follow up their words with action. It may be that they were too apathetic to follow the situation up, or it may simply be that they had no confidence in ‘those astrologers’.
We may compare the rendering here with MT (Hebrew text) and LXX (Greek text). There are some differences, although they make little difference to the overall sense.
MT LXX Matthew ‘But you, Bethlehem ‘And you, Bethleem, house, ‘And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which is little of Ephratha are few in in the land of Judah to be number to be reckoned are in no wise least among the thousands among the thousands among the princes (clans) of Judah, out of (clans) of Juda, yet out of of Judah, for out of you will one come forth you will one come forth you will come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel to me, who is to be ruler a governor, who will in Israel, whose goings in Israel, and his goings forth are from of old, forth were from the from everlasting. beginning, even from eternity. And he shall stand and And the Lord shall stand, be shepherd of my shall feed his flock in and see, and feed his flock people Israel. the strength of the Lord. with power, It will be noted that MT and LXX are very similar to each other, while the ‘Matthaean’ version differs, in that in MT and LXX Bethlehem is described as little or few in number among the clans of Judah, whereas in Matthew Bethlehem is described as in no wise least among the princes of Judah. At first it appears to be a contradiction, but it is in fact not so, for Matthew’s version does not say ‘is in no wise few in number’. ‘In no wise least’ suggests small, but not the smallest, and yet for all that not insignificant. He merely then stresses that its status is not small. It is true that it does at first sight appear, probably deliberately, to give a different impression. But the difference is more apparent than real, for what follows in MT and LXX confirms that while few in number they are not ‘least’ in status as a result of what will ensue, the coming forth of a ruler of Israel. That could only indicate a higher status. No town that produced the glorious Davidic house could be called insignificant. Thus in the end they are all three saying the same thing. The alteration simply helps to draw attention to what all are saying, that the One Who is to come forth from Bethlehem gives to Bethlehem a prestige that lifts up its head among the clans/princes of Judah.
The other difference in emphasis is that MT and LXX are assessing Bethlehem’s size in contrast with the size of the clans of Judah, while Matthew’s version appears to be assessing Bethlehem’s status in the eyes of the princes of Judah, the leaders of the clans. (That is unless we assume that by using ‘princes’ he is really indicating ‘princedoms’, and therefore signifying ‘clans’, which is quite possible. The same consonants in Hebrew can in fact mean both). Thus he is saying that while few in number, Bethlehem is high in status, either in contrast with the princedoms of Judah or in the eyes of the Princes of Judah. We may certainly feel that Matthew’s version is giving an additional boost to Jesus’ Messianic status in that He is thereby being seen as recognised by the princes of Judah, but that is not his major emphasis, nor does it on the whole disagree with the significance of the other renderings. All are in the end saying that Bethlehem is exalted because of the house of David that has sprung from her. Indeed it is unlikely that Matthew, if it had not already been in his text, would have invented this, as the MT would have been more suitable to his purpose, in that the princes of Judah on the whole did not acknowledge Jesus, (although of course some like Joseph of Arimathea did). It may, however, be that Matthew wants to draw out a contrast between Herod and the princes of Judah.
Matthew’s version then goes on to add the clause about the shepherd, (possibly making use of 2Sa 5:2, but having in mind Amo 5:4), while excluding the reference back to eternity. Certainly the shepherd theme points forward to the coming David (compare Eze 34:23). But then so does the reference to a ruler coming from Bethlehem. This additional phrase immediately brings out the fact that Matthew’s is not to be seen as a direct quotation from Amo 5:2 but as an accumulation of ideas. Nor does it actually claim to be an exact rendering of Amo 5:2.
But none of these alterations were in fact needed in order to get over the point, and it therefore seems probable that we are to see Matthew’s citation as taken from some paraphrase known either to him, or to the Sanhedrin, with the differences not being seen as important. After all the main point of the quotation in all versions, is that while Bethlehem is small it should not be discounted for that reason, because one day it will produce a great King who will watch over his people. And thus it will be the home of the Messiah. And that was what whoever quoted it was wanting to bring out.
(We should possibly note here the struggles of some scholars to try to prove that the Messiah was not in fact expected from Bethlehem, while others seek to prove that this ‘revised version’ was inserted precisely because He was. We might feel justified in thinking sometimes that their efforts simply cancel each other out).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 2:6 . In Mic 5:1 the sense is: Although Bethlehem is too unimportant to be reckoned among the cities of the district, yet a ruler in Israel will come forth from it . In Matthew this thought is, with a slight deviation, changed into: Bethlehem is undoubtedly an important place, because , etc. It is therefore unnecessary, with Grotius, to take the passage in Micah as interrogative: “Art thou, then, Bethlehem, too small,” etc., and to derive the turn of the thought with from this interrogative interpretation (Hilgenfeld). But the Ruler to whom Micah alludes is none other than the Messianic King of David’s race (see Ewald, Proph .), so that in the birth of Jesus this prophecy receives its complete historical fulfilment. Comp. Joh 7:42 .
] , LXX. . The Hebrew denotes the subdivision of the tribes (the thousands, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 323 f.; Keil, Arch. II. p. 223), which had their principal places and their heads ( ). See Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 106. The translation by (Chrysostom: ) clearly shows that either the evangelist himself had read the word in question not , but , or that his translator had committed this mistake. In the Septuagint also is rendered by , Gen 36:15 f.; Exo 15:15 ; 1Ch 1:51 f.; Psa 55:14 . According to the words as they stand in Matthew, Bethlehem, the town, appears personified in the midst of the heads of families (Ewald, “amongst the princes of Judah”), amongst whom it had by no means the lowest position. Fritzsche conjectures , in primariis familiarum in Judaea sedibus. But even thus the sense of is not yet obtained. How easily, on the contrary, might the evangelist or his translator derive from , as the which follows must have been before him!
] not city, but strip of land, province, which includes the same, 1Ma 5:68 . Often likewise in the tragic writers. See Fritzsche in loc. Comp. Seidler, ad Eurip. Troad. iv.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 361.
] will come forth, namely, by birth. Thus , Gen 17:6 . Comp. Heb 7:5 ; Mal 1:10Mal 1:10 .
] Comp. the Homeric . In like manner is used of rulers, 2Sa 5:2 ; 2Sa 7:7 ; Jer 23:2 ff.; Mic 5:3 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
Ver. 6. And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least ] “Thou art the least,” saith Micah, Mic 5:2 , via in comparison of greater cities, yet “not the least,” saith Matthew, because “out of thee shall come a Governor,” &c. In Scripture, the place of holy men’s birth is remembered and registered: God loves the very ground his servants tread on. “The Lord shall count, when he numbereth up the people, that this man was born there:” Psa 67:6-7 how much more the man Christ Jesus? Any interest or relation to him ennobleth whatsoever place or person, and may justly comfort us against whatsoever troubles. The prophet Micah, whose words are here cited, opposeth the birth of this babe of Bethlehem to all the troops and troubles of Assyria, Mic 5:1-2 .
For out of thee shall come a Governor ] No sooner is this Child born, this Son given to us, bug the “government is laid upon his shoulder,” Isa 9:6 , as the key of the house of David was upon Eliakim’s, Isa 22:22 . Send ye therefore a lamb to this ruler of the land, Isa 16:1 ; do him all hearty homage and fealty.
That shall rule my people ] Or feed them; a for the art of feeding and ruling are sisters. David was taken from following the ewes to feed God’s people; so was Moses, in whose absence, how soon was Israel, as silly sheep, gone out of the way! Christ is the arch-Shepherd, that feeds his people daily, daintily, plentifully, pleasantly, among the lilies,Son 2:16Son 2:16 ; yea, in his garden of spices, in green pastures of his word, and by the still waters of his sacraments, where we go in and out, and find pasture, Joh 10:9 , such as breeds life, and life in more abundance, Mat 2:10 . We lie down in peace,Jer 23:4Jer 23:4 , and need not fear the spiritual Assyrian, Mic 5:5 , while we keep us within the hedge, and run to the foddering places; submitting to the ministers, those under-shepherds, Son 1:7-8 , who are charged to feed Christ’s sheep, his sheep with golden fleeces; yea, to do it ( , as the Syriac hath it) for me, for my sake (saith our Saviour), to whom Peter cannot better seal up his love than by taking care of his cure. I know how Bellarmine glosseth that text, Joh 21:16 “Feed my sheep,” that is, Regio more impera, Rule like an emperor: Supremum in Ecclesia dominlum tibi assere, saith Baronius, Domineer over the Church, because the word here used ( , -and so in John) signifieth as well to govern as to feed. But what will they say to , the other word there twice used by our Saviour, which always signifieth to feed, and not at all to govern? But these men seize at government, stop feeding, although the Fathers took the text only of feeding by doctrine, and that they beat upon, and urged altogether.
a . Psa 78:71 . . Homer. 1Pe 5:4 ; Son 8:14 ; Psa 23:2-3 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
6. ] This is a free paraphrase of the prophecy in Mic 5:2 . It must be remembered that though the words are the answer of the Sanhedrim to Herod, and not a citation of the prophet by the Evangelist, yet they are adopted by the latter as correct. Lightfoot renders the Hebrew, ‘parvum est ut sis inter chiliadas,’ and adds, that the Chaldee paraphrast, who may possibly have been present at this very council, renders the words ‘intra pauxillum es ut prficiaris.’
] need not be supposed to be put for : the district may be intended, as described in Mat 2:16 .
] or (LXX). The tribes were divided into chiliads, and the names of the chiliads inscribed in the public records of their respective cities. In Jdg 6:15 Gideon says , on which R. Kimchi (cited by Lightfoot) annotates, “Some understand Alphi to mean ‘my father,’ as if it were Alluph, whose signification is ‘prince or lord.’ ” And thus, it appears, did the Sanhedrim understand the word (which is the same) in Mic 5:2 . The word , without points, may mean either , , or , .
. ] It has been remarked that the singular Latin expression, which occurs both in Tacitus and Suetonius (see the passages above in note on . .) ‘ Juda profecti ,’ may have been derived from these words of the LXX.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Juda = Judah.
art not the least. Figure of speech Tapeinosis, in order to magnify the place.
not = by no means. Greek. oudamos. Occurs only here.
among. See App-104.
princes. Put by the Figure of speech Metonymy (of Subject), App-6, for the “thousands” (or divisions) which they led.
out. Greek. ek. App-104. See note on Mic 5:2.
come = come forth, not “come unto”, as in Zec 9:9.
rule = shepherd. Rulers were so called because this was their office.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
6. ] This is a free paraphrase of the prophecy in Mic 5:2. It must be remembered that though the words are the answer of the Sanhedrim to Herod, and not a citation of the prophet by the Evangelist, yet they are adopted by the latter as correct. Lightfoot renders the Hebrew, parvum est ut sis inter chiliadas, and adds, that the Chaldee paraphrast, who may possibly have been present at this very council, renders the words intra pauxillum es ut prficiaris.
] need not be supposed to be put for : the district may be intended, as described in Mat 2:16.
] or (LXX). The tribes were divided into chiliads, and the names of the chiliads inscribed in the public records of their respective cities. In Jdg 6:15 Gideon says , on which R. Kimchi (cited by Lightfoot) annotates, Some understand Alphi to mean my father, as if it were Alluph, whose signification is prince or lord. And thus, it appears, did the Sanhedrim understand the word (which is the same) in Mic 5:2. The word , without points, may mean either , , or , .
.] It has been remarked that the singular Latin expression, which occurs both in Tacitus and Suetonius (see the passages above in note on . .) Juda profecti, may have been derived from these words of the LXX.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 2:6. …, and thou Bethlehem, etc.) The passage referred to is in Mic 5:2, thus rendered by the LXX., , , . On which passage see Hallets Notes.[82] Let the following be accepted as a paraphrase of both the Prophet and the Evangelist. And thou Bethlehem Ephrata, or district in the tribe of Judah, art small, , to be, in other words, inasmuch as thou art (qu sis) (consult on Noldii[83] Concordanti Particularum, p. 458), among the thousands of Judah, if this dignity which is not otherwise to be despised, and which far exceeds thy proportion and measure, be compared with that dignity exclusively thine own, by virtue of which thou art by no means the least, but altogether the greatest among the princes and thousands of Judah, sc., that from thee shall go forth for Me, , one who is to be (qui sit) the Ruler in Israel. A similar mode of expression occurs in 2Sa 7:19; Isa 49:6. The greater honour obscures and absorbs the less.- , a land of Judah. The land or district is put by Synechdoche,[84] for the township, as in Luk 9:12, fields for cantons: Judah was the tribe of the Messiah. Both words supply the place of Ephrata in the Hebrew. The LXX. have in Joshua 15, either between Jos 15:58 and Jos 15:59, or between Jos 15:59 and Jos 15:60, the following passage: …-Theko and Ephrata, which is Bethlehem, etc. If this passage (instead of having fallen out of the Hebrew text from coming between two which have the same ending), be redundant in the Septuagint, it affords a proof, that, at the time when the land of Canaan was divided amongst the tribes of Israel, Bethlehem was not even reckoned among the cities; Cf. Joh 7:42. It must, however, have been so reckoned as early at any rate as the reign of Rehoboam, as we learn from 2Ch 11:6. Micah addresses it in the masculine gender, with an implied reference to , thousands, families, Cf. , , my thousand, i.e., my family, in Jdg 6:15. Wherefore St Matthew, after putting , least, in the feminine gender (to agree with , land, understood), mentions, instead of the thousands themselves, the princes of thousands (for a thousand, family, etc., and , a chief, leader, etc., are cognate words) over whom he places one prince (), even Christ: nor does he so much give the preference to this city or thousand over the other cities or thousands of Judah, as to the Prince who came forth thence, over the other Princes of Thousands.- , FOR from thee shall go forth) The LXX., as we have seen, have, from the Hebrew , from thee shall go forth FOR ME, a reading which is followed by the Codex Basiliensis ,[85] and the Aldine reprint of Erasmus first edition.[86] Others combine both readings thus, -FOR from thee shall go forth FOR ME.[87] The pronoun MOI (to, or for, ME) evidently represents God the Father, speaking of Christ as His Son.-See Luk 1:32, and Cf., Mat 2:13. But the conjunction (for or because) points out the birthplace of Christ more significantly. The word , shall be born (nascetur), which occurs in Mat 2:4, is synonymous with the , shall go forth, of the present passage. The of the Hebrew; the derivative of which (rendered by the LXX., , goings forth) ought also to be understood of birth or generation, and that from everlasting: Cf. in Job 38:27, and Num 30:13. The LXX. render more than once by , children.- , a prince who shall shepherd) In 1Ch 11:2, concerning David, the LXX. have , , thou shalt shepherd My people Israel, and thou shalt be for a prince over My people Israel. Concerning the expression to shepherd, see Psa 78:71-72. It is indeed a word worthy the kingly office, and at the same time according with the pastoral youth of David at Bethlehem. By the word (He shall shepherd) the evangelist includes also and condenses the third [fourth] verse of the chapter of Micah already cited, where the LXX. have the same expression.- , MY people) which corresponds with the expression in Micah, , shall go forth for ME, i.e., GOD.- , Israel) The article is added to the name of a man, when put for that of a people. Israel, i.e., all the tribes of Israel. In the subsequent narrative no further mention occurs of Bethlehem, so that it may be doubted whether our Lord ever returned thither.
[82] JOSEPH HALLET, a dissenting minister, born at Exeter, 1692; died 1744.-(I. B.)
[83] CHRISTIAN NOLDIUS, author of Concordanti Particularum Hebro-Chaldorum, was an eminent Dutch divine, born 1626, died 1683.-(I. B.)
[84] See Explanation of Technical Terms in Appendix.-(I. B.)
[85] A MS. in the Basle Library, entitled there B. vi. 25; but designated as by Bengel, for the sake of convenience.-See App. Crit., p. 90.-(I. B.)
[86] See Tregelles on the printed text of the Greek New Testament, pp. 19-26.-(I. B.)
[87] The only very ancient authority for is C. Theodoret and the Armen. Vers. follow it; but Z (and probably B) and D, and Vulg. omit .-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
thou: Mat 2:1, Mic 5:2, Joh 7:42
a Governor: Mat 28:18, Gen 49:10, Num 24:19, 1Ch 5:2, Psa 2:1-6, Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7, Eph 1:22, Col 1:18, Rev 2:27, Rev 11:15
rule: or, feed, Psa 78:71, Psa 78:72, Isa 40:11, Jer 23:4-6, Eze 34:23-25, Eze 37:24-26
Reciprocal: Gen 35:19 – Ephrath Jdg 17:7 – General Jdg 19:1 – a concubine Rth 4:11 – Ephratah 1Sa 17:12 – Ephrathite 2Sa 5:2 – feed 2Sa 7:7 – feed 1Ch 2:51 – Bethlehem 1Ch 11:2 – Thou shalt 1Ch 17:6 – feed 1Ch 17:7 – ruler 2Ch 11:6 – Bethlehem Psa 28:9 – feed Isa 55:4 – a leader Mic 5:4 – feed Mic 7:14 – Feed Mat 21:5 – thy King Joh 7:27 – no man Act 20:28 – to feed Heb 9:11 – Christ Rev 7:17 – feed
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2:6
Verse 6. As proof of their statement they quoted from Mic 5:2 which designates where the birth was to occur and also what the child predicted was to do. Rule is from POJMAINO and sometimes it means to feed or nourish. Thayer defines it in this place by. “To rule, govern,” and he explains Mat 2:7; Mat 16:5 the word elsewhere as meaning, “of the overseers (pastors) of the church.” It should be observed that the new-born king was to rule the people of israel, not the political world.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And thou Beth-lehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
[Art not the least.] These words do not at all disagree with the words of the prophet whence they are taken, Mic 5:2; which I thus render, “But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrata, it is a small thing that thou art” [or, art reckoned] ” among the thousands of Israel”; for thou art to be crowned with higher dignity; “for from thee shall go forth a ruler,” etc. And in effect to this sense, unless I mistake, does the Chaldee paraphrast plainly render it, whom I suspect to be present at this very council, “Thou art within a little to become chief.” See the same sense of the word in the Targum upon Psa 73:2; Hos 1:4; etc.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 2:6. And thou Bethlehem. Freely quoted from the Greek version (the Septuagint) then in common use. The Hebrew is literally: But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, too small to be among the thousands of Judah [i.e., the towns where the heads of thousands resided, the chief towns of the subdivisions of the tribes]: but of thee shall come forth unto me one who is to be ruler in Israel. The variations are undoubtedly intentional and explanatory. It is not evident whether the passage was quoted by the scribes, or inserted as an explanation by Matthew. Instead of Ephrata, we find the land of Judah, and instead of too small to be among we have art not the least, which is a sort of question introducing the insignificance of the place, and implying its moral greatness as the birthplace of the Messiah. Bethlehem was not among the chief towns of Judah in the list given, Jos 15:59.
Princes is, according to a usual figure, put for the towns where the princes, or heads of thousands, lived.For gives the reason for the greatness in spite of the insignificance.
Shall be the shepherd. This includes both ruling and feeding; the meaning is: shall be a careful and affectionate ruler.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 2:6. Thou Bethlehem, &c., art not the least among the princes of Juda It is justly observed by Dr. Doddridge, after Erasmus, here, that when this and several other quotations from the Old Testament, which we find in the New, come to be compared with the original, and even with the Septuagint, it plainly appears that the apostles did not always think it necessary to transcribe the passages they cited, but sometimes contented themselves with giving the general sense in some little diversity of language. The words of Micah, which we render, Though thou be little, may be rendered, Art thou little? And his expression, thousands of Judah; and that of the evangelist here, princes, or governors of Judah, are in sense the same, the word thousands being used by the prophet, in allusion to the first division of the tribes of Israel into thousands, hundreds, and other subordinate divisions, over every one of which thousands was a prince or chief. But for a full explanation of both passages the reader is referred to the note on Mic 5:2.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2:6 And thou Bethlehem, [in] the land of Juda, art not the {f} least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that {g} shall rule my people Israel.
(f) Though you are a small town, yet you will be very famous and notable through the birth of the Messiah, who will be born in you.
(g) That will rule and govern: for kings are rightly called leaders and shepherds of the people.