for, from
it, in the future, the great _leader_ of Judah shall proceed. This
relation, which is so evident, must the rather be assumed, that in
Micah also a contrast occurs which, as to the sense, is altogether
similar. It serves, at the [Pg 512] same time, for a proof against the
assumption that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in the
Aramean language,--a view which is, generally, opposed also by the
free handling of the Old Testament text in the whole quotation. The
inconsistency in the use of the personification is, further, the more
easy of explanation, since it is altogether of an _ideal_ character,
and, substantially, person and town are not distinguished.--The last
words in Micah, "And His goings forth," etc., have been omitted by
Matthew, because they were not needed for his purpose, which was to
show that, according to the prophecies of the Old Testament, the
Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem. On the other hand, the [Hebrew:
biwral] of Micah is paraphrased by: [Greek: hostis poimanei ton laon
mou, ton Israel]. These words refer to 2 Sam. v. 2: "And the Lord says
to thee, _Thou shalt feed My people Israel_, and thou shalt be a prince
over Israel." They point out the typical relation between the first
David who was born at Bethlehem, and the second David, the Messiah.

With respect to the relation betwixt prophecy and its fulfilment, we
must here still make a general remark. It is everywhere evident
(compare the remarks on Zech. ix. 9), that the fulfilment of the
prophecies of the Old Testament forms a secondary purpose of the events
of the New Testament, but that in none of the latter this fulfilment is
the sole object. Every one, on the contrary, has its significance apart
from the prophecy; and it is by this significance that prophecy and
history are equally governed. This general remark is here also
confirmed. The birth of Christ at Bethlehem testified, in one respect,
for the divine origin of the prophecy of the Old Testament, and, in
another, that Jesus is the Christ. But its main object, altogether
independent of this, was to represent, outwardly also, the descent of
Christ from David. This was recognised by the Jews even, at the time of
Christ, as appears from the addition [Greek: hopou en Dabid], John vii.
42. Of the two seats of the Davidic family, viz., Bethlehem and
Jerusalem, the former is chosen, partly, because, from its external
littleness, it was, generally, very suitable for prefi