is highest divine glory. The connection is seen
also in the indication of Bethlehem's natural littleness, as contrasted
with the greatness to be bestowed upon it by God. What could have
induced the prophet thus strongly to point out this circumstance, had
it not been that he considered Bethlehem as the type of the Jewish
people in their misery, described in the preceding verse, and the
miraculous elevation of the former, to be accomplished by divine
omnipotence, as the pledge of a like result for the whole people? There
is, moreover, a reference to the _beginning_ of the pretended episode.
In iv. 9, it was said: "There is no king in thee;" here, it is
announced that from Bethlehem there comes forth a glorious Ruler in
Israel. But, on the other hand, there is also a close connection with
ver. 8, as has been rightly perceived by Caspari. This connection and
reference are sufficiently indicated by the like form. The address to
Bethlehem here corresponds with the address to "the Tower of the flock"
there,--the "Ruler," [Hebrew: mvwl], here, with the "dominion,"
[Hebrew: mmwlh], there. There, the dominion returns to the house of
David; here, the august person is described by whom this return is
effected, after the events, described iv. 9-14, have come upon the
Covenant-people. That the Ruler here comes forth out of Bethlehem,
corresponds with iv. 8 in so far as there the dominion _returns_ to the
Tower of the flock, to the hill of the daughter of Zion, which implies
the overthrow of the Davidic kingdom, and the return of the family of
David to the condition in which it lived at Bethlehem before the time
of David,--which must necessarily precede its final glory.--According
to _Bachiene_ [Pg 481] ii. 2, S. 7 ff., Bethlehem and Ephratah are to
be distinguished, so that the former designates the town alone, and the
latter at the same time its whole environs,--so that Bethlehem Ephratah
would be equivalent to Bethlehem situated in Ephratah. But even if we
were to agree with this opinion, we must not, by any means, consider
the two words as standing in the _stat. constr._, any more than the
corresponding [Hebrew: bit-lHM ihvdh ] in Judges xvii. 9, xix. 1, 2,
18. For as a _Nomen proprium_ is equivalent to a noun with the article,
it can never stand in the _stat. constr._ with another noun. We
should thus be obliged to assume that, by way of brevity, common in
geographical designations, both appellations were placed unconnectedly
bes