gy, we are led to expect that no such blank
would be left. Should the family from which Christ was to descend,
the time at which He was to appear, the part of the country which
was pre-eminently to enjoy His blessings, and so many other things
concerning Him, have been so minutely foretold, and not the place where
He was to be born? Even the question of Herod, [Greek: pou ho Christos
gennatai]; shows how much reason we have, _a priori_, to expect such a
prediction. He supposes that, as a matter of course, the birth-place of
the Messiah must have been determined in the Old Testament; he only
inquires about the place where. But the matter is not so, that there
could be any choice at all betwixt the two explanations. If we suppose
that it is only the descent of the Messiah from the family of David
which is here announced, the contrast between the natural littleness of
Bethlehem, and its divine greatness, would be very far from being
appropriate. After the family of David had, for centuries, resided and
ruled at Jerusalem, the natural littleness of Bethlehem came very
little into further consideration. It was not this which could render
improbable the appearance of the Messiah. It was only the downfall of
Jerusalem, and the destruction of the King's Castle, which were in
opposition to the belief in the Messiah's appearance. And, in like
manner, the glory, resulting from His appearance, was not imparted to
Bethlehem, but to Zion. Hence it is that, in iv. 8, where the prophet
wishes to declare the descent of the Messiah from the family of David,
he contrasts the glorification of Zion, and especially of the King's
Castle, with its previous degradation.--_Further_--There is not a
single instance to be found of a place, in which the ancestors of some
one resided centuries ago, being spoken of as the place of his descent.
Is there a single passage in which Bethlehem is mentioned as the
native place of any of the kings from the Davidic dynasty who were
born at Jerusalem, or as the native place of Zerubbabel who was born at
Babylon? For further details concerning this argument, _Huetius_, _dem.
Evang._ p 579 _ed. Amstel._ 1680, maybe compared.--_Further_--The
relation of the passage under review to the parallel passage Is.
viii. 23 (ix. 1) must not be overlooked. As in the latter text, the
_province_ is marked out which, by the appearance of the Messiah, is
to be raised from the deepest degradation [Pg 499] to the highest
glory, so,