named therefrom is adduced as symbolizing the fulfilment of that whole class of prophecies in HIM.

The formula of citation' which introduces the prophetic reference considered above, has been more or less refined upon as a means of solving the difficulties which the passage presents. Lost and unwritten prophecies have been referred to. Others have inferred from the use of the plural by the prophets,' that there is a merely general reference to the import of those prophetic descriptions wherein Christ is set forth as lowly and despised, and that no more definite solution is to be sought. This laxer view is not, indeed, excluded by the formula of citation, but all things considered, is untenable as it stands: it requires, in fact, to be modified as above, by supposing a reference to a particular expression (Is. xi. 1), itself symbolical, and set forth, not as an actual name by which the Messiah was to be called, but as representing his circumstances and condition. The fulfilment does not consist in merely being called,' but in being all that the name implied: such in fact is the common Biblical usage of the word 'to call.' It has been urged against the interpretation above adopted, that in the far more precise prophecies of the branch, in Zech. iii. 8; vi. 12; Jer. xxiii. 5; xxxiii. 15; Is. iv. 2, the word Tsemach is used. The objection thus stated involves a misconception of the prophecy of the Netser, that frail, feeble shoot, whose increase was to transcend anticipation; and confounds it with other prophecies which describe the aftergrowth without explicit reference to its small beginning. The objection however may be re-stated, and in its revised form requires an answer. The word Netser, it might be urged, is not used in Is. liii. 2, where the Messiah's lowliness is brought out by a like similitude. This is doubtless an argument against the notion that the 'prophets' cited told of Christ as one who should be a Nazarene by name; but it is of no force as against the view explained above, viz. that the prophecies

1 τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν. See Matt. i. 23: ii. 15, 18; iv. 15.

2 Non ait Matthæus scriptum est, sed dictum est.

in question described him, without reference to name or place', as he should truly be. St Matthew singles out retrospectively, one typical example which contains a reference to the name, itself typical of Nazarene; and this actual correspondence is adduced as itself typifying the fulfilment of a whole class of Messianic predictions in JESUS of Nazareth. If Christ had not resided in Nazareth, or been called a Nazarene, it could scarcely have been affirmed that the collection of prophecies of which Isaiah's prophecy of the Netser is viewed as a nucleus, had lacked their accomplishment; no more, in fact, than such failure could now be argued from the non-appearance of any title of our Lord derived from the word choter, which stands in parallelism with netser.

The Evangelist's reference, above considered, was doubtless plain to his contemporaries, however difficult it may be for a later generation to fix its meaning. The prophecy of the netser was familiar to the populace, as descriptive of the Messiah, but it does not follow that its significance was generally accepted; for it is notorious that some passages wherein the unostentatious demeanour of the coming King is most clearly portrayed, were glossed over and explained away in the received Chaldee versions of Holy Writ. The Jews would at once grant the true Messiah to be the antitype of the Netser, but might yet regard the title as inapplicable in its Messianic significance to the lowly Nazarene. There is however an example of our Lord's recognition as at once the Nazarene and the Messiah, which seems to favor the hypothesis of an allusion to Isaiah's prophecy, 'There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch (Netser) shall grow out of his roots:' the same collocation of ideas is perhaps discernible in the following passage: ‘And they came to Jericho and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimeus, the son of

1 One writer, anxious to discover a local reference, observes that Zebulon (Is. ix. 1), which contains Nazareth, is derived from 2, karýkŋoev. Ibi

ergo habes, sed occulte et prophetice, ὅτι Ναζωραίος κληθήσεται, h. e. Hebræorum more erit.'

Timeus, sat by the highway begging. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me. And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, Thou son of David, have mercy on me.' (Mark x. 46-48; Luke xviii. 35-39).

NOTES ON CHAPTER IV.

A. pp (Gen. xlix. 10) has been variously rendered, lawgiver and ruler's staff. The latter rendering is illustrated by Ps. Ix. 7, 8; cviii. 9 Ephraim is my helmet; Judah my sceptre; Moab is my washpot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe. The former by Is. xxxiii. 22: 'For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.' But it matters little whether Judah, conceived of as living in the person of a descendant, be described as in possession of the ruler's staff; or whether it be declared explicitly that his descendant shall bear rule, until a certain terminus ad quem.

B. It has been suggested that the accusative odóv (Matt. iv. 15) might be governed by a verb (which would be either humbled, or glorified) understood from the original Hebrew. 'land' also in the accusative, as in the original? indeed of a reading yŷv, but it ill agrees with the general run of the LXX. rendering. Others seem to have supplied katoɩkoûvtes. See

Holmes and Parsons.

But why is not
There are traces

C. It may be here noted that we are not confined, even by classical usage, to what may be called the strict interpretation of τότε ἐπληρώθη, ἵνα πληρωθῇ, and the like. This is well illustrated by the subjoined passages quoted by Le Clerc, in his note on Matt. ii. 14:

(i). Διογενὴς ὁ Σινωπεὺς συνεχῶς ἐπέλεγεν ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ, ὅτι τὰς ἐκ τῆς τραγῳδίας ἀρὰς αὐτὸς ἐκπληροῖ καὶ ὑπομένει, εἶναι γὰρ πλανὴς, ἄοικος, κ.τ.λ. άOLKOS, K.T.A. Ælianus, Lib. III. c. 29.

Diogenes Sinopensis perpetuo dicebat de se, exsecrationes tragœdiæ se explere et ferre, esse enim erronem, sine domo, &c.

(ii). Simili ratione Olympiodorus, in vita Platonis, ei aptat versum Homeri :

κειμένου αὐτοῦ, μέλιτται προσελθοῦσαι πεπληρώκασιν αὐτοῦ τὸ στόμα κηρίων μέλιτος, ἵνα ἀληθὲς περὶ αὐτοῦ γένηται·

τοῦ καὶ ἀπὸ γλώσσης μέλιτος γλυκίων ῥέεν αὐδή.

Cum jaceret, apes accedentes impleverunt os ejus favis mellis, ut verum de eo fieret illud Homeri : 'Cujus a lingua vox dulcior melle fluebat.'

D. In Ezek. xxiii. 8, this phrase & Alyúrov refers to what had been begun ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ (ver. 3), and continued thenceforward : καὶ τὴν πορνείαν αὐτῆς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου οὐκ ἐγκατέλιπεν. In Hos. xi. I, the LXX. read ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ. But this seems so inconvenient, that a noted learned man (Vossius) as great a defender of the, LXX. as any, not flying to a various reading, as if they read, as Cappell supposeth, saith, sane LXX. interpretes sic vertisse stultum est existimare, that it is a foolish thing to think that the seventy Interpreters did so render...Yet a long while hath this gone for the real version of the LXX. in this place. So Eusebius took it to be, and saith that Aquila reading it in the singular, TÒV υἱόν μου, did it δουλεύσας τῷ Εβραικῷ, addicting himself to the Hebrew. St Jerome also looked on it as so, while he hence takes an argument to shew that St Matthew cited this place, juxta Hebraicam veritatem, according to the Hebrew truth, and not according to the LXX.' There is an opinion, mentioned by Eusebius, and held chiefly by defenders of the LXX. reading, that St Matthew's reference is to Num. xxiv. 8, or elsewhere, instead of to Hosea. This opinion has been taken up by Vossius, who gives a caution, ne quis somniet ex Os. XI. I verba esse deprompta.

The Arabic follows the LXX. The Syriac has, from Egypt I called him my son. Symmachus, ὅτι παῖς Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἠγαπημένος, ἐξ Αἰγύ πτου κέκληται υἱός μου. In Matt. ii. 15, Wiclif has, fro egipt I haue clepid my sone. Other old English translations agree, word for word, with the Authorized Version. Compare, further: èk Koiλías μntpós μov ékáλeσe to ovoμá pov (Is. xlix. 1). St Paul may allude to Hos. xi. 1, 3, in Acts xiii. 17, 18: He reared them (Is. i. 2) in Egypt; He nursed them in the wilderness.

CHAPTER V.

The suffering Messiah.

Is. lii. 13-15; liii.

GREAT as is the contention about the meaning and application of this prophecy, it may be laid down as generally admitted that a doctrine of vicarious satisfaction is contained therein, and that it must have formed the groundwork of apostolic teaching on the sacrificial death of Christ. Allusions to the passage and appropriations of its phraseology are frequent, while from the majority of its verses direct citations have been borrowed. There are more or less direct citations from lii. 15; liii. 1, 4, 5, 7—9, 11, 12, some needing only to be pointed out, while others, as presenting peculiar difficulties, invite a more detailed inquiry. But before proceeding to consider the citations, it may be well to attempt by a retranslation of the passage to elucidate some points which in the Authorized Version are obscure; and in this retranslation it seems best to retain for the most part the familiar phraseology, even though it should appear that in some few cases another phrase might have been chosen with advantage, or another word have recommended itself as a more striking and exact representation of the original. It may be premised that some details which have no very obvious bearing on the question of citation have been passed by without discussion.

lii. 13. Lo, my servant shall deal prudently,

He shall rise, and be extolled, and be very high.