nding more
comprehensive judgment, and thus to make it manifest that so much the
more plainly, the sending of the Messiah was purely a work of divine
mercy, destined for those only who would recognise it as such. From
this it appears that the Old Testament event, to which the prophet, in
the first instance, refers, viz., the carrying away into captivity, and
the deliverance from it, were prophecies by deeds of those New
Testament relations (in which, however, the typical relation of the
murder of the children at Bethlehem, as we have stated it, must not be
overlooked);--that both were subject to the same laws, that both were a
necessary result of the working of the same divine mercy, and that
hence, a declaration which, in the first instance, referred to the
first event, might at the same time be considered as a prophecy of the
second.--Vers. 19 and 20 have for their foundation Exod. iv. 19, where
the Lord, after having ordered Moses to return to Egypt, subjoins the
words: [Greek: tethnekasi gar pantes hoi zetountes sou ten psuchen].
That which the Lord there speaks to Moses, and that which, here. He
speaks to Joseph, proceed from the same cause. Like all servants of
God under the Old Testament, Moses is a type of Christ. There is
the same overruling by divine Providence, the same direction of all
events for the good of the kingdom of God. Moses is first withdrawn
from threatening danger by flight into distant regions. As soon as it
is time that he should enter upon his vocation, the door for the return
to the scene of his activity is opened to him. Just so is it with
regard to Christ.--Vers. 21-23 have for their sole foundation the
prophetic declaration: [Greek: hoti Nazoraios klethesetai] (compare,
on these words, the remarks on Is. xi.). The particular circumstances
which are mentioned, viz., that Joseph had the intention of settling
in Judea, but received from God the command to go into Galilee, are
designed only to make it more perceptible that the fulfilment of this
prophecy was willed by God.

From this summary it sufficiently appears that the object of Matthew in
chap. i. and ii. was by no means of an historical, but rather of a
doctrinal nature; and since this is the case, all the objections fall
to the ground, which _Sieffert_, solely by disregarding this object of
the writer, has lately drawn from these [Pg 508] chapters against the
genuineness of Matthew's Gospel. And if we apply this to the question
before