The attempts that have been made to trace these quotations to parts of the O. T. have only succeeded in showing how futile such attempts are. It is true that Matt. ii. 15 finds a parallel in Hos. xi. hut beyond a verbal correspondence the two passages have nothing in common. The subject of the one is entirely different from that of the other ; the one being the deliverance of the Israelites from their bondage in Egypt, the other being the return of our Saviour from his place of safety in Egypt. Nor does the language of the prophet bear the remotest semblance of a prediction, but on the contrary is entirely expostulatory and historical. And, in fine, if his words are to be viewed as containing a pre diction of Christ, they must mean, that though God loved him when a child and called him out of Egypt, yet when he grew up he ceased to please Jehovah and departed from him. This is plainly the state ment of the prophet, but who would by any means apply this to Christ ? Various attempts have been made to show that Matthew merely accommodated this passage to the case of our Saviour ; but this appears to be forbidden by the obviously argumen tative purpose for which he introduces it. Nearly akin to this is the opinion of those who argue that as Israel was a type of Christ, what was said of the one might be applied to the other ; for this after all just amounts to the assertion tl.at Matthew ac commodated what Hosea said of the literal Israel to what is supposed to have been the antitype of that people. Had the evangelist quoted the supposed type itself as fulfilled in the antitype, his reasoning would have been direct and free from any accom modation ; but to suppose him to affirm that Hosea foretold Christ's being carried into Egypt, because he referred to the fact of the deliverance of the type of Christ from Egypt, is only to affirm in a roundabout way that he accommodated the pro phet's words to suit his own purpose. Besides, how absurd to talk of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt being a type of our Saviour's being carried down to Egypt and back again by his parents ! One historical fact the type of another ! and that, when hardly any analogy subsists be tween them ! With regard to Matt. ii. 23 it is admitted that no such prophecy as that here cited occurs in the O. T. ; but, nevertheless, attempts have been made to trace it somehow to the written prophe cies. The favourite hypothesis appears to be that, since many prophets foretold the mean and de spised estate of the Messiah, and as 'Nazarene ' was a synonym with the Jews for a mean and des picable person, so the affixing of this name to our Lord was a fulfilment of these prophecies concern ing him. The assumption here made as to the use of the term Nazarene among the Jews is entirely without authority ; but, passing this by, let us see what this hypothesis involves. It would follow from it—zst, that the only way in which our Lord fulfilled these prophecies was by bearing the name of Nazarene ; for Matthew does not say that he thereby fulfilled part of what was spoken, but the whole: and 2dly, that Joseph was divinely directed to take up his abode in Nazareth, in order that our Lord might acquire a nickname for the fulfilment of prophecies which make no allusion to his bear ing such a name, and which would have been ful filled, whether he had borne that name or not ! It is amazing that a supposition fraught with such consequences should have found any quarter.
No less futile appears to be the hypothesis that Matthew here refers to Is. xi. T. The reasoning of those who support this opinion seems to be this—Nazareth was originally and properly called Nezer; but Isaiah in that passage calls the Messiah Nezer; therefore, when Jesus Christ was taken down to Nazareth and was called a Nazarene, this prediction was fulfilled. It may be allowed, for the reasons advanced by Hengstenberg (Christology, ii. sod ff., E. T.), that Nezer or Netser was pro bably the original name of Nazareth. But con ceding this, what follows ? It follows that what Matthew calls a fulfilment of prophecy, was really nothing better than a sort of play upon words. Isaiah said that the Messiah should be a Nezer, and in fulfilment of this, says Matthew, he was carried to Nezer that he might be called a Naza rene. Can we really suppose that this is the meaning of the sacred writer ? A recent learned and devout writer has advanced the opinion that the term Nazarene was applied to our Lord as a sort of aggregate of all that is said in the prophets concerning the Messiah that may fairly be expressed by the word Ncqiepaios ; and thus he proposes to include the "fn of Is. xi. i,
etc., the references to circumstances of humiliation under which the Messiah was to appear, and the general reproach attaching to the town of Naza reth (Ellicott, Life of our lord, p. 81, note). Now, if the learned prelate had proved that NaNpaios includes these ideas—the idea of -In a branch, and also the idea of humiliation and contumely, and had he shown in any articulate way how by be coming and being called a Nazarene our Lord fulfilled certain prophecies in the O. T. concern ing him, he would have done something of im portance towards establishing his hypothesis. As it is, he assumes the very things that require to be proved, and so leaves his hypothesis without a basis.
It has been alleged as a fatal objection to the hypothesis we have embraced that the phrase `by the prophets' in the N. T. refers exclusively to the canonical books of the O. T. (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, s. v. Nazarene.) To this it may be replied—(s.) That the phrase bib reev irpoOrcov, without any qualifying adjunct, occurs only once besides in the N. T.—viz., Rom. iii. 21—and even there it is so coupled with Tog v6a0v that its appli cation to the written prophecies is specially indicated ; (a.) So far is the phrase by itself from indicating properly the canonical prophets, that the apostle, when he wishes to specify these, finds it necessary to acid iv ypcupais Coylcur (Rom. i. s) ; (3.) The altogether equivalent phrase, by [or by the mouth of] his holy prophets,' occurs where others besides the canonical prophets are included (comp. Luke i. 70 ; Acts iii. 2s) ; (4-) The appellation at irpoOrat is used so as include many besides the canonical prophets (Matt. v. 12 ; xxiii. 37; Luke xi. 50 ; r Thess. ii. 15) ; and the mere addition of Sul cannot affect the meaning or application of the word ; (5.) Even supposing it proved that the phrase in question invariably elsewhere in the N. T. refers to the canonical prophets, this is ac counted for by the fact that they had no occasion to refer to any others, and can never be held to prove that a writer who had occasion to refer to others to whom it was equally applicable was thereby precluded from so using it.
On John vii. 38 it may suffice here to remark that perhaps the best solution of the difficulty is to regard our Lord as not making any direct quota tion from any part of the O. T., but as only re ferring in metaphorical language, suited to the strain of his previous address (comp. ver. 37), to a fact which in plainer style is unquestionably announced in the ancient prophecies—viz., the abundant possession of divine knowledge by those who should live under the Messiah's reign.
The passage James iv. 5 is beset with diffi culty. Not only is there doubt as to what Scrip ture' is cited, but much obscurity hangs over the meaning of the words themselves so adduced. We cannot enter into the details of the investigation. Referring for these to Huther's note on the passage in Meyer's Kommentar, Abt. 15, the substance of which is given by Dean Alford in his notes, we content ourselves here with saying, that some in terpreters understand rrveri,ua of the human spirit, and translate the spirit [temper, feeling of mind]. which dwells in us lusts to envy [covetousness] ;' while others understand it of the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit implanted in the soul by God, and trans late either, The Spirit which dwelleth in us lusts (desires, inclines) against envy ;' or, The Spirit which he [God] bath placed in us jealously de sireth [us for himself]. In neither case can the statement be referred to any single passage in the O. T. ; but, if the last rendering be adopted, the writer may be supposed to refer generally to those parts of the O. T. in which God is represented as. dwelling in his people (Num. xxxv. 34 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 27), and as desiring them with a jealous affection (Deut. xxxii. so, ff.) This is far from satisfactory, but it seems the best solution that has been offered.