ndent member of
the body, the head proceeds. From this contrast appears also the reason
why it is said, "Ruler in Israel," while we should have expected to
hear of the Ruler of Israel [Greek: kat' exochen],--a circumstance
on which _Paulus_ lays so much stress in opposing the Messianic
interpretation.--Had the prophet adopted the latter expression, not
only would this contrast have been less striking, but the other also,
which is likewise intended, viz., the contrast with the Judge of
Israel, in the preceding verse, who loses his dignity. The prophet
was, in the first instance, concerned more about the _genus_ than the
_individual_,--more about the idea of dominion in general, than about
the mode and kind of it. The individual is, afterwards, however, partly
in this verse itself, partly in the following verse, so distinctly
characterized, that he cannot be by any means mistaken. Nothing more,
it is true, is implied in these words, than that, at some future time,
there would come forth from Bethlehem a Ruler over all Israel; and
if these words stood isolated, and if it could be proved that, after
the time of Micah, there came forth from Bethlehem a Ruler over
all Israel, besides the Messiah--a thing which, however, cannot be
proved--then, indeed, it might be questionable which of the two to
choose. _Caspari's_ exposition, "Will _he_ come forth," has this
against it, that, in the preceding verses, the Messiah was not yet
spoken of, and, hence, that He cannot simply be supposed as known; and
least of all--if the acquaintance with Him were to be supposed from
other passages--could He have been introduced with a simple unaccented
_he_: the [Hebrew: hva] could not have been omitted in this case. The
case in iv. 8 is but little analogous, for the subject in [Hebrew:
tath] is there an indefinite one.--[Hebrew: li] is, by several
interpreters, referred to the prophet. Thus _Rosenmueller_, [Pg 486]
following _Michaelis_, says, "_To me_, _i.e._, for my good, the prophet
says, in the name of his whole people." But the reference to God is
required by the contrast between human littleness and divine greatness.
_Calvin_ remarks on it: "By this word, God declares that His decree to
give up the people was not such, that Tie should not be willing to
restore them after some time. He therefore calls the faithful back to
Himself, and reminds them of His counsel, just as if He said, 'I have
indeed rejected you for a time, but not so as that I