Matthew 2:6

Ver. 5,6. It was (as it seems) so received a tradition, and interpretation of Micah 5:2, that they gave him an answer without any hesitation, telling him he was to be born in Bethlehem of Judea; this they confirm by the prophecy of the prophet Micah, Micah 5:2; so confirming the Son of the virgin Mary (at unawares) to be the Messiah from the testimony of the prophet Micah. The words in Micah something vary from those here mentioned; they are thus: But thou, Bethlehem Ephrata, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. We must know,

1. That the writers of the New Testament, in their quotations out of the Old Testament, ordinarily quote only so much of them as makes to their purpose, and not always in the very terms in which they are found in the Old Testament: but keeping to the sense.

2. That it is more than probable that the evangelist keeps to the words in which the priests and scribes delivered in their answer to the king, for in this relation he is but reciting their answer. The sole question propounded to them was: What the place was, where the Messiah, according to their records, was to be born? They answer: In Bethlehem Judah: they prove their answer from the testimony of the prophet. If any object that the prophet calls it Bethlehem Ephratah, not Bethlehem Judah, the answer is, that it is in sense the same, for Bethlehem Ephratah was within the tribe of Judah. It should seem by Genesis 35:19, Genesis 48:7 that it was formerly in Jacob's time called Ephrath. Some think that it was a town within Caleb's portion, and called Ephratah from his second wife, whose name was Ephrath, or Ephratah, 1 Chronicles 2:19,50, if it were not the same place, only fortified anew. We read of another Bethlehem in Judah builded by Rehoboam, 2 Chronicles 11:6; whether it had this addition from its old name in Jacob's time, or from Caleb's wife, or to distinguish it from Bethlehem belonging to the tribe of Zebulun, is hard to say: it is plain that that Bethlehem is meant, both by Micah and Matthew, which was in Judah; possibly in tract of time the addition Ephratah was lost. But, say some, there is a contradiction between Micah and Matthew; Micah saith it was the least, Matthew saith it was not the least. Answer: Here is no contradiction; consider Bethlehem itself, it was but a small city, (if it were in Caleb's lot it is not named), but in other respects it was not the least. It was of old famous for Ibzan, one of the judges, for Elimelech, Boaz, Jesse, David; and now last of all for the birth of Christ, where respect to which the evangelist calls it not the least; or if he reciteth the scribes and priests words, they might call it not the least upon the account of Boaz, Jesse, and David, all which were born or dwelt there; and particularly with respect to Christ, who was born there. The prophet calls it the least with respect to its state in his time, the evangelist not the least with respect to its state then, its state being magnified by the birth of Christ. Micah saith among the thousands. Matthew, among the princes. It is the same thing, for, Numbers 1:16, their princes were heads of thousands in Israel. The Jews would by no means have this text interpreted of Christ, but either of Zerubbabel or David: but as to Zerubbabel, he was born in Babylon, not in Bethlehem, and David was dead long before this prophecy; neither could the following words, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, agree to Zerubbabel or David: Zerubbabel's name tells us where he was born, and we never read that Bethlehem was thus celebrated with reference to David, though he was born there, 1 Samuel 16:1, 1 Samuel 17:58, upon which account it is called the city of David, Luke 2:4. The prophecy certainly related to Christ, and him only, and so is interpreted by the Chaldee paraphrast, who some think was one of this council called by Herod in this cause.