which he had in view in
substituting "name" for "person" at all, would have been missed. The
name of the Messiah expresses His nature, the idea of His existence.
The creation or pronouncing of this name marks, accordingly, the rise
of this idea in God,--His forming the decree of redemption by the
Messiah. By this explanation--which we again meet with, afterwards, in
_Calvin_, and which we shall then consider more minutely--a mere
existence in thought, was substituted for the real existence of the
Messiah,--His predestination, for His pre-existence.--But in aftertimes
they came still further down. To supply "the name," was too arbitrary
to admit of their resting satisfied with such an explanation. Almost
unanimously they now came to the supposition, that the words of the
passage under consideration merely marked the descent of the Messiah
from the ancient, royal house of David. Thus _Abenezra_: "All this is
said of David; the words also, 'His goings out are of old,' refer to
David." _Aberbanel_ (_Praec. Sal._ p. 62): "The goings out of the
family from which that Ruler is to be descended are of old, and of the
days of eternity, _i.e._, of the seed of David, and the rod of Jesse,
which is of Bethlehem-Judah." On the similar expositions of _Kimchi_
and others, compare _Frischmuth l.c._, and _Wichmannshausen_, _Dissert.
on the pass._, Wittenb. 1722, S. 6 ff. We could not urge against this
exposition that [Hebrew: mvcavt] is erroneously understood either as
"going out," or, as "family;" and that, in the latter signification,
the _usus loquendi_, as well as the evident reference to [Hebrew: ica],
are disregarded. For that might be given up, and yet the explanation
would stand as to its substance. Even then, it might be translated:
"His goings out (in the signification of 'places of going out') are the
days of old, the days of eternity," _i.e._, the very ancient times; so
that there would be ascribed to the time something which belongs to
that which exists in it, viz., to the family of David. But the
following reason is decisive against it. Every one will admit that the
eternal origin of the Messiah forms a far more suitable contrast with
His temporal origin from Bethlehem, than His descent from the ancient
family of [Pg 494] David. The latter would come into consideration
here, only on account of its antiquity; a reference to its dignity is
not made by even a single word, nor is the family itself mentioned at
all in the text; b