Matthew 2

CHAPTER II

II

Christ’s Experience as a Child, Chapter 2

The Adoration of the Magi, 2:1–12

From the childhood of Jesus Matthew selects two highly contrasting and highly significant incidents: Gentiles adore him as the King of the Jews, and the king of the Jews attempts to murder him. While Matthew does not state this, both incidents are prophetic for the Messianic King and for his kingdom.

Matthew 2:1

1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod, the king, lo, magi from eastern parts arrived at Jerusalem. Here, as in 1:25, the birth of Jesus is mentioned only in a minor clause, intimating that it is not Matthew’s intention to furnish only history. He selects the historical events for a pragmatic purpose, so that each in its place and all combined may convey what lies back of the events themselves. Matthew thus reminds us of John, although each proceeds in his own way. The place and the time of the birth are not afterthoughts but pertain directly to the account now in hand. The readers will understand what follows when they are told that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, close to Jerusalem, and “of Judea” is added, not to distinguish this Bethlehem from another in Galilee, but to draw attention to the fact that Jesus, a descendant of Judah, was born in this country that was at one time allotted to the tribe of Judah; and also to bring this country into contrast with Egypt and then with Galilee, to which Joseph finally retired, again living in Nazareth.

Herod the Great still ruled the land, bearing the royal title of king which had been granted him by the Romans. His introduction into the account is not intended to date the birth of Jesus but to prepare for the action which follows. Luke records the date of the birth more exactly.

The surprising event now to be recorded is introduced by the interjection “lo.” The surprise is so great that the critics find the account concerning the magi incredible and reduce it to legend and myth. They indicate this when they translate μάγοι “magicians,” which to modern readers suggests charlatans. Matthew’s account pictures these men as being of an entirely different type. They were not sorcerers, conjurors, soothsayers, or the like. Their popular designation as “wise men” well defines what μάγοι really signifies. The narrative presents them as astronomers, and this helps to indicate the part of the east from which they came.

This cannot have been Arabia. Medo-Persia is also excluded, because the magi caste of this territory was not noted for its study of the stars. These magi hailed from Babylon, where since the most ancient times and far down into the Christian Era astronomy and astrology were sedulously pursued. The fact that these magi undertook the long journey to Jerusalem in order to discover the newborn “King of the Jews,” whose star they had seen, indicates that they were not Jews, but also that the great Messianic hope of the Jews, a hope in which they as Gentiles had place and part, had been communicated to them by Jews and had fascinated their hearts. This tallies with what we know of Daniel, who 600 years prior to this was made “chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon,” Dan. 2:48, “master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers,” Dan. 5:11. Those who think of later Jewish contacts may add them to what in Daniel’s case is history.

We must next add the remarkable conversion to Judaism of Helena, the queen of Adeabene, and of her son Izates, about 40–50 after the birth of Jesus. The queen supplied Jerusalem with grain during a great famine, Josephus, Antiquities, XX, 2, 1–5; 4, 3. The Mishna reports that the king and his mother sent costly gold vessels to the Temple in Jerusalem. The bones of both these royal persons were sent to Jerusalem for burial. To Matthew’s first readers it did not seem so incredible that a commission of magi should come to Jerusalem from Babylon.

In later times many fancies arose regarding these magi. We do not know whether they were three in number, which conclusion rests only on the three kinds of gifts they brought; and they were certainly not kings, a fancy which was satisfied only with the thought that kings should do homage to the King of the Jews. Their names, too, are only inventions. The verb παρεγένετο marks only their arrival in Jerusalem.

Matthew 2:2

2 Saying, Where is he that was born king of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east and came to worship him. The question assumes as fact that the birth has taken place; ὁτεχθείς, the aorist passive participle, denotes the past fact. The Greek is content with this, not indicating that the fact occurred quite recently. “King of the Jews” may recall to us the superscription on the cross, also Nathanael’s exclamation, “King of Israel,” John 1:49. “King” is one of the Old Testament Messianic titles, and the fact that the Messiah would reign was every Jew’s expectation. “King of the Jews” marks these Chaldeans or “wise men” as being Gentiles, though it indicates nothing regarding the source from which they drew this title. Rawlinson, The Cuneiform Inscriptions, 3, 51–64, reports regarding astrological tablets with formulas: when this or that occurs, a great king will arise in the west; then justice and righteousness, peace and joy will rule in all lands and bless all nations; and other similar expressions. Most naturally these men came to the Jewish capital to find this King or at least to learn of his whereabouts.

The ground on which the magi base their question is their observation of “his star” (αὐτοῦ forward for emphasis). They call this star “his” because they deem its appearance a sign that the expected King has also appeared. The singular in the phrase ἐντῇἀνατολῇ cannot be identical with the plural in v. 1 and denote the eastern country of Babylon whence the magi came. This phrase must denote the eastern heavens where the star was first observed by these astronomers. Effort has been made by searching ancient records, even Chinese astronomical tables, and noted astronomers like Kepler have joined it in order to determine something about this star. Some have thought of a comet, some of a constellation, some of a meteor, etc., but all to no purpose.

Nothing definite has been determined beyond what Matthew reports the magi themselves as saying. We must note what is said in v. 9, 10. It ought to be plain that this was not a star such as others that our astronomers observe and study. It appeared and then vanished; finally it reappeared, moved on before the magi, and then stood above where the child was in Bethlehem. No star such as we note in the distant skies could behave in this manner. What these magi saw was a startling phenomenon, shining brightly like a star but so low in the heavens that it could stand above a house and indicate it in distinction from other houses.

How high it stood when first seen, and how low it sank when it guided the magi to Joseph’s home is not stated. No wonder astronomers have been puzzled. This star is a miraculous phenomenon, vouchsafed to these magi by God in order to lead them to Jesus. First its mission is to start them on their journey; next its mission is to guide them to the very house where Jesus was to be found.

These men read the purpose of the star aright. How they connected it with the Messiah we shall never know. That they did so they themselves say. “We came,” they say, “to worship him,” προσκυνῆσαι, to prostrate ourselves before him in the Oriental manner of deepest obeisance as befits the humble subjects of a great Oriental monarch or the humble worshippers of God.

Matthew 2:3

3 Now when Herod, the king, heard it he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. This reads as though the magi did not at once go to Herod; in v. 7 he calls them to himself secretly. The news of the search of the magi became known in the city, and word was brought to Herod. He was troubled, ἐταράχθη, inwardly shaken and upset. “And all Jerusalem with him,” in company with him. Ἱεροσόλυμα is here considered a feminine singular like the indeclinable transliterated form, R. 253; see also 3:5. The reason why the city was troubled cannot have been the same as that which upset the king. To say that the city was devoted to the king and feared that its interests would suffer with those of the king is to misconceive the situation.

Herod understood well enough that the King referred to by the magi was the promised Messiah of the Jews. What he feared was a grand Jewish movement in favor of this royal Messiah, dethroning the alien house of Herod which had usurped the throne of David. The city readily guessed the true reason of Herod’s agitation and on its part feared the violent measures the bloody old despot might take in putting down any movement that might arise in favor of the Messiah King. The contrast is highly dramatic and significant: the Gentile magi come from distant lands to worship the newborn King, Herod and the Jewish capital are upset at the thought of such a King.

Matthew 2:4

4 Herod’s first move is to find out where the Messiah is to be born. Superstitious fear of the truth of the sign the magi have seen is combined with confidence in Scripture prophecies; and yet the wickedness in his heart imagines that he will be able to destroy this royal Babe. And having gathered all the high priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ is born. He calls a plenary session of the Sanhedrin. While this body was composed of three sets of members: the high priests, the scribes, and the elders, all three are not always mentioned when designating this body. “Of the people” may be construed with both preceding nouns. The scribes were the professional students of the law and the experts in its exposition; only the most prominent of them held membership in the Sanhedrin.

The plural “high priests” refers to the family of the ruling high priest. The office was no longer held for life but was transferred from one to another for political reasons. Former high priests still retained the title, which seems to have been accorded also to other relatives of the high priest who were members of the Sanhedrin. Either in person or through a representative the king demanded to know “where the Christ is born.” The question clearly indicates that Herod knows who is referred to by “the King of the Jews”; ὁΧριστός is, of course, appellative. The present tense may be considered a futuristic prophetic present, R. 866, or the timeless present in an abstract statement.

Matthew 2:5

5 But they said to him, In Bethlehem of Judea; for thus it has been written through the prophet:

And thou, Bethlehem, land of Judah,

By no means art least among the leaders of Judah;

For out of thee shall come forth one that leads,

Who shall shepherd my people Israel.

Herod may have known the answer to his question, for the Jews generally knew it as John 7:42 plainly shows. What Herod wanted was an official, authoritative declaration from the highest authority available. His wicked motive must not blind us to the good sense he showed by demanding an answer from the Sanhedrin. Yet we note the hand of God in the providence which has put the Sanhedrin of the Jews, its highest religious authority, back of the Scriptural finding that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem, and that the Old Testament so declares in Micah 5:2. The very great value of this providence Matthew felt when he wrote this Gospel for Jewish readers. Every Jew down to this day is faced by Micah 5:2 and the Sanhedrin’s answer to Herod.

The Messiah is an individual not the Jewish nation itself. His birth must occur in Bethlehem and nowhere else. If Jesus is not this Messiah, then let the Jew tell us what Micah 5:2 means and let him contradict both this prophet and his own Sanhedrin if he will.

Very properly the Sanhedrin quotes the Scripture passage from which its answer is drawn. From what other source could any true answer be drawn? Moreover, to this day all men are able to examine the answer and to see for themselves whether it is correct according to Micah’s word. It most certainly is. “In Bethlehem of Judea” must stand even as the Sanhedrin pronounced. The only alternative is to reject Micah and together with him the Old Testament as such. When this is done, all divine religious grounds have been removed.

The perfect tense γέγραπται must be noted as the constant formula for the written Word: once thus written, it stands forever. Note also διά, as in 1:22, “through the prophet,” he being the instrument, God the real agent; compare 1:22 on this mark of inspiration. Matthew’s Gospel is full of Old Testament quotations; but it is surely noteworthy that the first two quotations recorded by Matthew are adduced, not by him, but by others, by an angel and by the Sanhedrin. When, then, Matthew himself quotes the Old Testament, we see that he only follows these notable examples.

Matthew 2:6

6 The fact that the quotation is made by the Sanhedrin itself and not by Matthew is as clear as that the first quotation is made by the angel in 1:23. It is an unwarranted assumption, underlying so much of the comment on quotations, that all quotations must be exactly literal and reproduce the ipsissima verba of the original. The New Testament writers use the same freedom in quoting that we ourselves and others use. We dare not misquote, which means that we dare not change the true meaning of the original. Beyond that we are free. Part of this liberty is that we may quote interpretatively, which means that we may make such changes in the original as will bring out its true meaning for the situation or the case we may just have in hand.

The one point for which the Sanhedrin quotes Micah 5:2 is the name of the place of the birth of the Messiah. The deviations from the original intend to make the prophet’s meaning fully clear as to this point. Thus the ancient name “Ephratah” (“fruitful”) was not needed in addition to the current name “Bethlehem” (“house of bread”); and the Sanhedrists substituted “land of Judah” from 1 Sam. 17:12: “Beth-lehem-judah,” since the comparison of the prophet dealt with the section in which Bethlehem lay and the other sections of Judah.

The change from, “too little to be among the thousands of Judah” (thus literally), to, “by no means least,” etc., states the thought only in a little different way. Too little to have a place when the thousands were counted by no means puts this section down as the least among all the sections. This is really a fine litotes, for it means to say that this little section is really the greatest of all because it would be the birthplace of the Messiah. An ’eleph is a thousand, counting families and family heads, and ’alluph is Gauhaeuptling, the head or chief of a section having at least a thousand families. When the Sanhedrin thus used the plural of the latter instead of that of the former, so that Matthew wrote in Greek, ἐντοῖςἡγεμόσιν, it is altogether unnecessary to assume that the Sanhedrists had a Hebrew text that was different from ours, or that the supposed translator of Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel mistranslated; for each section in Judah naturally had a ἡγεμών, a leader or chief. Instead of naming “the thousands” (population) the Sanhedrists merely named “the leaders or chiefs” of the thousands.

They thus also secure a play on words between ἐντοῖςἡγεμόσιν and ἡγούμενος: “among the leaders” and “one that leads” (the Messiah). The many lead only their respective thousand, but this One leads all Israel. The wording of the Sanhedrists is thus decidedly to the point.

“Shall come forth” translates Micah’s verb quite exactly, as also the question to be answered deals with the birthplace of the Christ. The Sanhedrin so understood the prophet’s word. Their final words, “who shall shepherd my people Israel,” are nothing but an expansion of Micah’s words, “he that is to be ruler in Israel,” adapting 2 Sam. 5:2. Micah’s fourth line is omitted as not being pertinent to the answer desired by Herod. The figure of shepherding a people, ruling them with the wise and tender care of a shepherd, thus recalls the rule of David and brings in an expression often found in both Testaments.

Matthew 2:7

7 The wily king now knew the place; he needed to know another point: the time of the birth. In ὁτεχθείς (v. 2) the magi had stated only that the King “was born.” Then Herod, after secretly calling the magi, ascertained from them the time of the shining star. The inquiry addressed to the Sanhedrin was public and stated exactly and openly what Herod desired to know. His question had a natural air as being one prompted by the curiosity aroused by the arrival of the magi and as meeting their inquiry: where is this King? The meeting with the magi is secret for the reason that Herod wants to hide his interest in the matter of this King, lest Jerusalem become suspicious regarding this interest, and the populace be still more disturbed. In this secret audience the king also hides his intent.

He really wants to find out just when this King was born. But he says nothing about this King or his birth. He is curious only about the star, in particular about “the time” of the star, i.e., the length of time it shone. His real object is to find out just when it first appeared, for he thinks that will mark the date of this King’s conception or of his birth.

The present participle φαινομένου is generally regarded as an imperfect, since the imperfect has no participle and thus uses the present: “the time of the star that shone or appeared,” i.e., how long it shone. But it may also be used irrespective of time, since the point Herod was after was τὸνχρόνον, the extent of the time. The implication is that the star was now not visible. The magi could not point to it in Jerusalem; they did not again see it until the night they left for Bethlehem (v. 9). While it may be true that the first appearance of the star in Babylonia was coincident with the conception or with the birth of Jesus, just as Herod probably assumed, we do not know how long it shone, how soon after its appearance the magi realized what it signified, or when at last they started for Jerusalem. The two years and under in v. 16 only indicate that Herod meant to make sure that Jesus would be caught in the slaughter; in other words, he allowed his minions an ample margin. The exact date of Jesus’ birth cannot be determined from the present narrative.

Matthew 2:8

8 Herod learned what he wanted to know for his purpose without raising suspicion in the magi. In fact, he pretended the same religious interest in this King as that which animated the magi. And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, When you have gone, carefully search out about the young child. And when you find, report to me in order that I, too, may come and worship him. A lie such as this could hope to impress the magi, who knew neither Herod nor Jerusalem, only when it was offered to them in a secret conference. Unwittingly these Oriental admirers of the Messianic King are to become Herod’s tools for that king’s destruction.

The hellish net is most cunningly spread. The aorist participle πέμψας here expresses time that is simultaneous with that of the aorist main verb εἶπεν. We must use two finite verbs and thus lose the point that the sending is the minor action. Πορευθέντες, however, indicates action previous to that of ἐξετάσατε, hence: “when you have gone, search out,” etc. The same is true regarding the purpose clause: “that I, too, having come, may worship him.”

Matthew 2:9

9 Elated over the valuable information they had received and over the king’s holy sentiments, so perfectly in accord with their own, the magi left the audience and that very night departed for Bethlehem. And they, after hearing the king, went. And, lo, the star which they saw in the east was going before them until, having come, it stood above where the young child was. After the audience with the king the magi promptly left for Bethlehem. The aorist merely reports the fact. Significantly they left alone. No numerous delegation from Herod’s palace accompanied them to help in discovering the Child and to join in worship of the Messiah King. Were the magi struck by this significant circumstance? They went on alone.

The road to Bethlehem, a journey of only two hours, was direct and most easy to find; the magi needed no guide. Hence the surprise marked by “lo” at the appearance of the star. The tense in the expression “which they saw in the east” (see v. 2), implies: and not since then. At that time they saw it “in the east,” i.e., in that direction; now it “was going before them,” προῆγεν, the descriptive imperfect. But this imperfect, picturing the movement as going on, requires that we be told how it ended. So the clause with the aorist follows: “until, having come, it stood,” etc. The star moved as a guide; the star arrived (ἐλθών); the star stood (ἐστάθη). It is all perfectly plain, absolutely miraculous, unlike any star that ever existed.

We are, however, told that the star did not move, that the magi went only in the general direction of the star; it was “no guiding star”; the whole thing was merely an optical illusion and the star appeared to stand still only when the magi stood still. We are also told about stars in the heart, which act like the magnet pointing toward the pole. Finally, we are told that the star did not do what Matthew writes because this was impossible. All these views operate with a star high in the heavens like the other stars and forget that on a clear night literally hundreds of stars will twinkle above Bethlehem, and no new star among them could direct any man either on the way or to a certain house in the town, or, for that matter, in the open country. Unless Matthew is telling a fictional child’s story, this star hung so low, with a light brilliant to the eye, that it did just what he reports: move just above the road, move from north to south, and finally stand above the very house where the Child was, so low that it designated that house and no other. The idea that the magi inquired for a house where a boy had recently been born is not indicated in the text. God pointed out the house by means of his star.

Matthew 2:10

10 Now when they saw the star they rejoiced with joy exceedingly great. Evidently this took place when they again beheld the star after leaving Jerusalem. The participle, though used with a verb of emotion, is circumstantial, R. 1122, indicating the cause of the joy. Already the cognate accusative ἐχάρησανχαράν, “they rejoiced with joy,” means that they rejoiced greatly; but Matthew adds both an adjective and an adverb: “rejoiced with joy very great,” σφόδρα, one of Matthew’s favorite words. Luther thinks the magi felt sad before this, yet they seem to have been happy enough. But when the star appeared and moved as it did, their joy knew no bounds; for not only was God directing them miraculously, they also knew they would soon be in the presence of the King. That star has left a radiance of “joy exceedingly great” which has never grown dim.

Matthew 2:11

11 And having come into the house, they saw the young child together with Mary, his mother; and having fallen down, they worshipped him; and having opened their treasures, they offered him gifts: gold and frankincense and myrrh. Three circumstantial aorist participles to indicate the preliminary and minor actions, three aorist finite verbs to express the main actions, the three sentences constructed alike, and the whole most graphically told. “The house” = “where the young child was,” the house indicated by the star. This by no means has Matthew say that Jesus was born in this house. It is now some time after the birth. Joseph undoubtedly secured a house for his little family at the earliest possible moment after the birth. The mention of only Mary with the child is probably due to the fact that they found the child in her arms. No significance is to be attached to the omission of the mention of Joseph who must have admitted the magi at the door.

The great fact must ever be noted that the magi fell down and worshipped this child, born in this little village and not in Jerusalem; living in a house and in surroundings of the poorest kind; lying in the arms of a mother who was ranked among the lowliest of the land. And these were men who were often in the presence of the king of Babylon, themselves high, mighty, and wealthy. From the capital and King Herod they had come to this poor house. They treat it as the grandest of palaces and this little child as the most glorious king. How could they do this? Their hearts must have beheld what their eyes did not see.

The little pronoun αὐτῷ is noteworthy. Not to the child and to Mary but to the child alone they offer their worship and their gifts. What could the little child know about prostration and offerings? The only others present were Mary and Joseph, and surely the magi could not desire to impress two such humble people. The question is therefore rightly asked whether these magi thought only of an earthly king. Everything about them and their arrival in the presence of this Babe points to a religious understanding on their part. God would not lead men as he had led them if this child were only exceptional in this regard, that through some future providence Herod’s throne or some earthly realm like Babylon should become its possession. The verb προσήνεγκαν befits offerings made to God.

Their “treasures” are the receptacles in which their valuable gifts were kept. We do not read that they brought gifts to Herod even when they had their audience with them. The gifts they had carried many a mile from Babylon are for this little Child who is able to receive them only through his parents. And they are certainly royal gifts. To call them products of their land is probably a mistake. We know of no gold native to the territory of Babylon, and frankincense and myrrh of the finest quality came from India and, undoubtedly, were imported.

That gold should be an offering seems natural. If jewels and fine apparel had been added, these, too, would have been in order. But what was this child to do with the fine odor of frankincense which was burnt on altars, or with myrrh, an aromatic gum, or the perfume drawn from it? If these offerings, so lavishly proffered, have a religious motive they are more readily intelligible. If these magi see before them a divine child they are right in offering not only the gold with the thought of relieving his poverty but in carrying out their original intention and now not holding back the frankincense and the myrrh.

The moderns esteem these gifts too lightly when they call them merely royal. They often ask what this or that person had in mind when he said or did this or that, but such an inquiry does not seem to come to their minds when they read about the magi making these gifts. The ancients did better: gold, they thought, was intended for the child as being the King; frankincense for him as being God; and myrrh for him as destined to die. This interpretation is both the oldest and the most widely accepted. Devout minds of later times content themselves with allegorizing for devotional and homiletical purposes: the gold of faith, the frankincense of prayer, and the myrrh of patient suffering. This allegorizing is typically modern by letting the gifts reflect, not what the Child is (King, God, Sacrifice), but what we do (believe, pray, suffer).

The ancients were nearer the truth. The thought that the price these gifts brought assisted in the flight to Egypt is foreign to Matthew’s narrative.

Matthew 2:12

12 And having been divinely warned in a dream not to turn back to Herod, they withdrew by another road to their country. The verb χρηματίζω is used with regard to any divine communication; the idea that here it was in the form of a warning is derived from the situation alone. The verb does not always imply that God is first asked and then makes a reply. Just as God sent the star so he sent this communication. The entire journey of the magi thus appears as being under God’s immediate direction. On the phrase “in a dream,” and on the use of dreams in giving revelations, see 1:20.

The magi are not innocently and unwittingly to play into Herod’s murderous hands. God is guarding the holy Child. In ἀναχωρεῖν lies the idea of withdrawal from danger; the magi slipped away by taking the road to Jericho and across the Jordan and thus were beyond the power of Herod.

Matthew himself does not say that the coming of these Gentiles was a fulfillment of prophecy. Probably, when Matthew wrote his Gospel, this incident had not yet been made the subject of Jewish attack and thus for Jewish readers did not need to be fortified by references to prophecy. Yet Ps. 72:10; Isa. 60:6, and other prophecies are certainly in line with the present remarkable incident. Matthew, it seems, regards the adoration of the magi as itself being a factual prophecy of the future reception of the King of the Jews in the great Gentile world, even as he closes his Gospel with the commissioning of the church and the apostles to all nations. The great contrast between Jerusalem and the magi is significant to the highest degree. The magi come all the way from Babylon, Jerusalem has Bethlehem right at its door.

God condescends to use a strange star, a means adapted to the magi, for bringing them to the revelation in the Word (Micah) and thus to the Messiah, and these magi respond wholeheartedly; Jerusalem has had the Word for ages and, when it learns of Bethlehem through the magi, responds not at all. From Jerusalem comes only an attempt to murder the Messiah. The cold facts as here recorded are certainly damaging to the Jews. The news that their highest and holiest hopes are being realized leaves them under the dominance of the lowest motives. It has been well said: the apologist becomes a prosecutor.

The Sanhedrists are frequently represented as being orthodox, correct in doctrine but spiritually dead. Flings at teachers of sound theology are then based on this view. But the high priests were rank liberalists in doctrine, and the entire question in the present case was one of mere location with which doctrine is even now not concerned. Graver is the assault on Matthew’s use of the narrative concerning the magi, making history reflect an underlying idea. Zahn’s reply is to the point. “Is it, therefore, not to be history? Or is this name merited only by the brutal facts which torture the thoughtful and the godly observer of history because they leave his mind empty?”

The Slaughter of the Innocents, 2:13–25

Matthew 2:13

13 Now when they had withdrawn, Io, an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream, saying: Arise, take the young child and his mother and be fleeing into Egypt and be there until I shall tell thee. For Herod is about to seek the young child in order to destroy it. Matthew frequently uses the genitive absolute as a temporal clause: “they having withdrawn,” the participle being drawn from the verb used in v. 12, ἀναχωρεῖν, here “to evade danger.” Matthew’s entire account reads as though Joseph intended to remain in Bethlehem indefinitely had it not been for the intention of Herod. The Child must have been weeks old by the time the magi arrived. The impression their surprising visit made is at once followed by another with a surprise of the very opposite kind. If the magi left Jerusalem toward evening and arrived in Bethlehem an hour or so after dark, they, as well as Joseph, received the divine warning that same night, and both the magi and Joseph must have left Bethlehem that very night.

On “an angel of the Lord” and on the matter of divine communications in a dream, as well on κατά in the phrase employed, see 1:20. The interjection “lo” has its own peculiar significance in this instance because of the startling nature of the message. God honors Joseph as the legal father and also the foster-father of Jesus. The care of the Child is in his hands, and so the angel comes to him with directions.

The angel’s command is literally, “Having arisen, take possession of the young child,” etc. The accessory action is expressed by the aorist participle, the passive form with the active meaning. The main verb παράλαβε is identical with the one used in 1:20, the aorist tenses to indicate single acts. Joseph is to arise at once, bundle up the Child and Mary, and hurry from Bethlehem with them. The present imperative φεῦγε is durative to indicate the flight that will require days of travel. “To Egypt” Joseph is to move his little family, to a distant, foreign land, to which he had never expected to go. Yet many Jews lived also in Egypt; Joseph would find many countrymen and friends there.

The magi are warned in only the briefest way, just “not to turn back to Herod”; but Joseph, as in 1:20, etc., receives both full directions and adequate explanation. He is to stay in Egypt until the angel himself tells him when to come back, thus promising him another appearance at a future day. And now the reason for these astonishing directions is stated with great clearness. On their brief visit the magi may well have told how they had seen the star in Babylonia, and how Herod had directed them to Bethlehem, and how by the aid of the star they had found the very house in which the holy family lived. Now the perfidy of Herod is revealed to Joseph: “Herod is about to seek the young child in order to destroy it,” μέλλει with the present infinitive with τοῦ is constantly used to express purpose, and the aorist ἀπολέσαι indicates a brief, momentary act.

So close to adoration and offerings murder stalked. We may well imagine the consternation that followed when, shortly after the dream, Joseph awoke and also awakened Mary. Yet they felt safe under Jehovah’s protection, whose angel had brought them warning. We may ask just why Jehovah chose flight for the Child instead of using some other means to thwart Herod’s plans. Later we shall see Jesus repeatedly evading his murderous enemies. God knows how to use both supernatural and natural means, and in the present case both are combined.

Matthew 2:14

14 And he, having arisen, took the young child and his mother at night and withdrew to Egypt. The genitive νυκτός expresses time within which, “at night,” at some hour during the night. When morning came, the family had disappeared, and the magi had also disappeared. If a few people in Bethlehem had seen them the evening before, they must have been greatly perplexed the next morning when they as well as Joseph’s little family were gone. Observe the verb “withdrew,” the same verb used in verses 12 and 13. While Bethlehem was deep in sleep, Joseph and his charges fled. We cannot think that they told a soul that they were leaving or whither they were going, lest Herod should find out and overtake them; for, surely, they could not travel rapidly.

The way in which Matthew narrates these events is characteristic of him. He has details enough, but all his details are quite essential to his aim and purpose. Many details that we should like to have inserted in order to picture the events as they actually occurred are sternly omitted. Matthew’s eye is directed toward the Old Testament, where God drew the outlines of the coming Messiah, and these outlines Matthew fills in with the actual history of the Messiah who had come. This greater purpose is enough for him, and all that is less he leaves aside. We should like to know whether Joseph and Mary went afoot, or whether for Mary at least an ass was provided, as the painters love to picture the Flight. But Matthew has no answer to such questions. They fled at night—that is all.

Matthew 2:15

15 And he was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son. Nothing is as yet said about the return, only the duration of the stay in Egypt is stressed. And with this stay Matthew connects the second line of Hos. 11:1. The same formula of quotation is used as was used in 1:22, which see. “What was spoken by the Lord,” τὸῥηθέν, is what we now possess in writing. The neuter aorist participle states only the past fact of God’s speaking, while in the other regularly employed formula (v. 5) the perfect γέγραπται adds to the past fact of writing the present existence of that writing. By referring to the written Word as “what was spoken by the Lord,” Matthew marks each written statement of the Word as something that was spoken by the Lord. How this formula expresses inspiration, and that in the true Biblical sense, we have pointed out in 1:22.

Matthew naturally discards the LXX with its plural τὰτέκνα, which is well enough for general purposes but not nearly exact enough for what the prophet really says and what Matthew intends to use. So he himself translates the Hebrew: “Out of Egypt did I call my son.” In this first Old Testament quotation which Matthew introduces of his own accord he cites only the words he intends to use. And this is the real difference between the present quotation and that made by the Sanhedrin in v. 6, where the essential point was only the name of the birthplace, and all other words were of minor importance and could thus be rendered with any desired freedom if only their general sense remained. See the remarks on v. 6. Now Hos. 11:1 is really only a historical statement although it is made by Jehovah himself. The first line of the passage, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him,” shows that Jehovah is speaking of the childhood period of Israel when the young nation grew up in Egypt.

Matthew reads Hos. 11:1 in exactly that sense and changes nothing. And yet he says that this statement of the prophet found its fulfillment when the child Jesus dwelt in Egypt. In what sense does Matthew understand: “that it might be fulfilled”?

He certainly intends more than a mere coincident resemblance between the childhood of Israel as Jehovah’s son or chosen nation and the childhood of Jesus, the divine Son, both spending their early days in Egypt and thus both being called back from Egypt into the Holy Land. Mere accidental coincidences amount to little. Matthew sees far more here. Mere escape from Herod was not nearly all that God had in mind for Jesus. Then he might have arranged for the transfer of the holy family to Babylon by the aid of the magi. Abstractly considered it would have made no difference from what foreign land God would recall Jesus.

What Matthew points out is an inner and divinely intended connection between the two sojourns in Egypt. God brought about the first sojourn and made that first sojourn a factual prophecy of the second, which he also brought about. The first is thus a divinely intended type of the second. It is not accidental that the angel sent Joseph to Egypt and to no other land. In addition to the word-prophecies we must recognize the fact-rophecies. It is the nature of the latter that they can be recognized only by and through their fulfilment.

It is always the antitype which reveals the type as what it really is in God’s original intention. So here we see how the wickedness of Jacob’s sons brought Joseph to Egypt, and Herod’s wickedness did the same in the case of Jesus. Again, God caused this wickedness to lead to a refuge for the youthful people Israel in the shelter of Egypt, and then sheltered Jesus in Egypt in the same way. His wisdom and his love arranged it all.

But God did more. Into the type he laid the key for the future recognition of the antitype. Matthew does not refer merely to the fact of Israel’s early sojourn in Egypt. The fact itself contains no key. He takes Hosea’s inspired statement of the fact in which the child Israel is by Jehovah himself called “my son.” Read apart from the antitype, this designation had only its ordinary meaning, but read in conjunction with the antitype Jesus, “my son” becomes highly significant. Deut. 32:18 states that Israel was begotten as Jehovah’s son, and this is a fatherhood which exceeds that of Abraham and of Jacob (Isa. 63:16) and thus points to the miraculous begetting of the Son Jesus “of the Holy Spirit” (1:20; Luke 1:35).

We now see how Matthew connects “my son” in Hosea and Israel’s early sojourn in Egypt as a true type and a divinely intended prophecy of “my Son,” the Messiah, who likewise must sojourn in Egypt. Both had to leave the Holy Land, and all the Messianic hopes connected with them seemed to be utterly lost in far-off Egypt. Yet “did call out of Egypt” places the sure hand of God behind all these hopes. Israel returned from Egypt for its mission, and so did this greater Son, Jesus.

We have seen that Matthew connects Hosea’s word with the stay of Jesus in Egypt and not with the return from Egypt, which is not reported until v. 21. This rightly leads to the conclusion that something is connected with that stay. Back into the first century the Jewish slanders have been traced (Zahn, Matthaeus, 108) which prolonged the stay of Jesus in Egypt and made him there learn the magical arts, the formulas of which he etched into his skin and afterward practiced as miracles in the Holy Land. Matthew meets these slanders effectively. Israel itself lived in this same Egypt for a long time; only as a small child was Jesus in Egypt, for three years and six or seven months; and it was the Jewish king’s intent of murder that necessitated the stay in Egypt. The true facts remove the slanderous allegations.

Matthew 2:16

16 Now the narrative proceeds. Then Herod, when he saw that he was made a fool by the magi, was highly enraged, and, having sent, slew all the boys in Bethlehem and in all the borders thereof from two years old and under, according to the time which he ascertained from the magi. The magi had not come back as they had very likely promised to do when Herod gave them their directions. Since Bethlehem was only two hours distant, Herod must have looked for them the next day, at least the second day. Then, becoming suspicious, it was a matter of a few hours to discover that the magi had vanished. The rest follows blow upon blow.

Matthew has all the dramatic essentials, though, of course, as is his method, these alone. Herod saw “that he was made a fool by the magi,” ἐμπαίζω, einen zum Narren haben. The conviction flashed into this deceiver’s mind that the magi had seen through his cunning scheme and had left him waiting like a fool while they slipped away. He judged them by his own standard. At once he burst into violent rage, θυμόω, used only here, and passive, like our “was enraged.” This blinded his good sense; for if the magi had sensed his treachery, he might well conclude that they had warned the parents. In his blind rage Herod orders the killing of the baby boys in the whole neighborhood.

The subsidiary actions are neatly expressed by participles, so here ἀποστείλας, “having sent,” i.e., having given commission to some officers to have the bloody deed done; ἀνεῖλε (ἀναιρέω), “he made away with,” i.e., he murdered. The deed is Herod’s. How it was done Matthew does not record as being immaterial for his purpose. We may imagine that bands of soldiers were rushed into Bethlehem (others think of assassins with daggers) and searched every house.

We do not think that any secrecy was attempted or any cunning trick devised to get hold of the victims. The whole account presents brutal, ruthless action. The babes were snatched from their mothers and slashed to death before their eyes. Terror reigned. The age of the boys is specified: “from two years old and under,” and διετοῦς is an adjective in the genitive singular, construed ad sensum with no noun to be supplied; κατωτέρω, a comparative adverb, literally “more downward.” This age limit Herod arrived at on the basis of what he had quietly ascertained from the magi regarding the time of the star’s appearance in Babylon (see v. 7). We may take it that Herod set the limit sufficiently high so as to be sure to include Jesus. “From two years old” includes all that were not yet three years old and all below that age.

The number killed is not given and is estimated from the probable population and from the average number of baby boys in such a population. Yet statistical averages are not followed by all commentators. Some of them allow themselves to be influenced by the circumstance that Josephus, who records the great, bloody crimes of Herod, omits mention of this crime. Why he does so has not been ascertained although various hypotheses are offered. Some critics cite the silence of Josephus as proof for the unhistorical character of Matthew’s account, although the argumentum e silentio is never proof. In order to make the crime small enough so that Josephus neglected to record it, the number of boys is placed at six to eight; others go up to thirty.

These little babes are really the first Christian martyrs.

Matthew 2:17

17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken through Jeremiah, the prophet, saying:

A voice in Ramah was heard,

Weeping and mourning great,

Rachel sobbing for her children

And would not be comforted because they are not.

Here Matthew shows us how he wants us to regard Herod’s frightful act of murder. It was part of the calamities that Israel brought upon itself by its unbelief and wickedness; we may say that in the case of some it was the last of these calamities before the revelation of the Messiah. The idea is not merely superficial likeness: inconsolable weeping in Bethlehem. The inner cause of the two weepings is identical, and thus the one is poured into the other to make the vessel full. Israel’s sin caused the Assyrians to carry the ten tribes of the northern kingdom into an exile where they entirely disappeared: “they are not.” It is the same sin that placed a foreign monster, the Idumean Herod, on the Jewish throne at the time of the birth of the Messiah and thus enabled him to slay the children of Bethlehem, so that of them, too, it was true: “they were not.”

Yet Matthew does not write ἵνα as he does in the quotations in 1:22 and 2:15. In these latter two cases God’s intention and purpose ruled, not so in Herod’s act, for which he personally bears the sole responsibility. The fact that Matthew omits the phrase “by the Lord” is of no moment, since in Jer. 31:15 these words are introduced by, “thus saith the Lord.” The fact that Matthew mentions the name of the prophet whom he quotes may in this instance be due to the circumstance that Jeremiah is the prophet of sorrow and weeping. On the further points involved in the formulas of quotation see 1:22; 2:5, 15. There has been much discussion on Ramah and on a possible personal connection of Rachel with this town. Ramah is a town north of Jerusalem, and in Jeremiah it is mentioned by the Lord because the people who were carried into exile were assembled at Ramah.

Other places that have this name are out of the question; and the suppositions that Rachel was buried at Ramah, or that Matthew confused Ramah with Bethlehem, or mystically identified the two, or forgot that the Bethlehemites were descended from Lea through Judah and not from Rachel through Ephraim and Joseph—deserve little mention. Rachel is intended to represent the nation just as “the daughter of Zion” does. In her, as the favorite wife of Jacob who so greatly longed for children, “the voice of weeping and mourning great” for the exiles who are carried away is made concrete and realistically individual. Poetically she is pictured as still being alive and watching the deportation, not as being dead and weeping in her grave.

Matthew himself translates the Hebrew with very minor changes. “Rachel” is in apposition to “a voice in Ramah.” Of course, the voice referred to is that of Rachel; it is not some unknown voice sounding into Ramah from the outside. Ramah lies on the heights at the border of the two kingdoms; the voice of weeping could thus be heard in both lands. The imperfect ἤθελε describes the continuance of Rachel’s inconsolable condition, and yet this open tense points to an outcome of her sorrow, namely to the comfort pronounced by Jehovah in Jer. 31:16, 17. This comfort is not included in Matthew’s quotation; still we may here add that, when she is told by Jehovah that her children “shall come again from the land of the enemy,” this does not refer to a physical return of the lost ten tribes to Palestine during some millennium, but to the future conversion of the Gentiles, by whom the ten tribes were absorbed.

Matthew 2:19

19 Now when Herod was dead, lo, an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream in Egypt, saying: Arise, take the young child and his mother, and be going into Israel’s land; for they have died who were seeking the life of the young child. As in v. 1 and v. 13 a genitive absolute again marks the time, the aorist πελευτήσαντος merely noting the fact that Herod had come to his end. That is all that Matthew says about Herod, but read Josephus, Antiquities, 17, 6, 5, regarding that horrible end: entrails rotting, privy member putrified and producing worms, unbearable stench, convulsions, etc., prolonged, useless attempts at cures, bloody, murderous thoughts—the death of a moral monster. Matthew has the Hebrew style which repeats a chosen way of saying a thing, introducing scarcely any variation. So here compare 1:20 and 2:13: each after a genitive absolute has: “lo, an angel of the Lord appeared (appears) to him (to Joseph) in a dream, saying.” See the exposition of 1:20. As promised in 2:13, the angel returns to direct the further course of Joseph. In what locality of Egypt the family dwelt is unknown.

Matthew 2:20

20 The directions of the angel begin exactly as those in v. 13. But now the imperative is πορεύου, “be going,” befitting a leisurely return. And only the Holy Land in general is indicated in the phrase “to Israel’s land,” a designation used only in these closing verses, the genitive, however, using the ancient honorable and religious name “Israel” to designate the nation. As the phrase “to Egypt” in v. 13 leaves the choice of a specific locality to Joseph, so now again Joseph may choose just where in Israel’s land he would dwell.

Once more we note that the Lord adds the full explanation for the sake of Joseph: “for they have died‚” etc., the perfect tense with the strong present connotation, “and now are dead.” The plural subject perplexes the commentators. Some point to Exod. 4:19, but there the plural is altogether informal and is even made emphatic by the addition of “all,” while in the present case only Herod has been mentioned as seeking the life of the Child, and only his death has been mentioned in the genitive absolute at the head of the verse. This induces some to regard οἱζητοῦντες (a timeless present, R. 1111) as a plural of category, which is used when an individual is referred to, in order to make the thought general, that no danger of any kind now threatens the Child’s life, thus: “Herod and in him the entire class of mortal foes,” B.-D. 141. The majestic plural cannot be considered. R. 392, 406 thinks the plural is intended to conceal identity. Since ψυχή is commonly used as a designation for “life,” it is not necessary to refer to the “soul” and its connection with the blood shed by a violent death. To seek the life means to seek to kill.

Matthew 2:21

21 And he, having arisen, took the young child and his mother (the same wording as in v. 14) and went into Israel’s land. This reads as though, just as the angel had left the location open for future decision, so also Joseph left it open until something more would determine the choice.

Matthew 2:22

22 But after hearing that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he feared to go there; and having been divinely directed in a dream, withdrew into the parts of Galilee, and, having come, settled in a town called Nazareth, in order that what was spoken through the prophets might he fulfilled, for he shall be called a Nazarene. Not until Joseph reached the Holy Land did he hear of the accession of Archelaus to the throne of Judea. This son of Herod the Great received Judea, Samaria, and Idumea but had received only the title “ethnarch” and not “king” from Caesar Augustus. By a final change in his father’s will the oldest son Antipas (Antipater) received only Galilee and Perea. Philip I (whose wife Herodias and daughter Salome left him) received nothing. Philip II obtained Batanæa, Trachonitis, etc.

Josephus records the details, among them the bloody act with which Archelaus began his reign. One of Herod’s last acts was the slaying of Judas and Matthias for instigating the pulling down of the golden eagle Herod had placed above the Temple gate. At the time of the following Passover Archelaus, though not as yet confirmed as ruler by Caesar, found several people commiserating the martyrs. He ordered his calvary to surround the Tempel and slew 3, 000. The rest fled to the mountains, and everybody abandoned the Passover, “lest something worse should ensue.” This was the news that greeted Joseph in “Israel’s land” and filled him with dread.

From Luke we learn that at first Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth in Galilee and how it came about that they moved to Bethlehem. Matthew writes as though they intended to stay in Bethlehem indefinitely and were driven away only by Herod’s plot. And now that Herod was dead, all the implications of Matthew’s narrative are to the effect that Joseph would like to have settled in Bethlehem. The reason is not difficult to find. Galilee was despised by Jerusalem as “Galilee of the Gentiles,” inhabited by a mixed population, Matt. 4:15; Isa. 9:1; 1 Macc. 5:15. Whatever was done in Galilee was done, as it were, “in secret,” and only what was done in Jerusalem was considered as being done “to the world,” on the real Jewish world stage, John 7:3, 4.

In Jerusalem the Temple stood, and here was the vital center of the theocracy. According to Joseph’s thought the proper place for the young Messiah to grow up was the neighborhood of the Holy City and certainly not the half-Gentile Galilee. A comparison of Matthew and of Luke does not reveal a discrepancy or contradiction but only adds to our information. But Joseph found his fears too great to risk residence in Bethlehem or anywhere in Judea. The present tense βασιλεύει is due to indirect discourse; after a past tense the Greek does not need to change the tense. It is like the English “was reigning.” The verb does not necessarily mean, “to be king”; it is used generally with reference to rulers, “to reign” or govern.

In v. 12 χρηματίζω has the idea of warning because of the context. The verb itself in the passive means only to receive a divine communication, and this is the thought here. There is no implication in the verb that Joseph prayed to God and thus received an answer from above. The opposite is the case. In the midst of his fears God directed him as he had done twice before. The expression is exactly like that used in v. 12 regarding the divine directions given to the magi “in a dream.” In neither case is “an angel of the Lord” mentioned, and thus none should be introduced by us.

How these two communications were made we are not told. The scruples of Joseph about returning to Galilee were overcome. By taking Jesus to this country he would not be acting contrary to Jehovah’s will. With “the parts of Galilee” open to him, Joseph quite naturally selected Nazareth and settled in his former home where he and Mary had many friends.

Matthew 2:23

23 While God thus left the choice of the town to Joseph, and Joseph alone selected this place, the hand of providence was, nevertheless, in the selection thus made. This is made evident by the purpose clause: “in order that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, for he shall be called a Nazarene.” It is needless to go through the history of the exegesis of this passage which has certainly perplexed many. The use of ὅπως instead of ἵνα is immaterial, for both have the same meaning. But the plural “through the prophets” is important. It cannot refer to one prophet speaking for all. This plural evidently refers either to the prophetic books in general or to the entire Old Testament.

It also shows that no quotation is to follow which will introduce some word that was uttered by several prophets. This means that ὅτι is not recitativum, like our quotation marks, pointing to a direct quotation. No λέγων precedes ὅτι, which shuts out not only a direct quotation but also an indirect prophetic utterance. The prophets nowhere said even in substance “that he shall be called Ναζωραῖος.”

Two views are thus removed, both of which are based on a play on words. The first is that, growing up in Nazareth, Jesus would be called a Nazarite, one separated and dedicated by a special vow and thus living an ascetic life. But even the etymology is wrong, to say nothing of the fact that Jesus never lived the ascetic life nor bore the name of a Nazarite. The second is that his growing up in Nazareth tallies with Isa. 11:1, where the Messiah is called netzēr, “a shoot” or “branch.” This combination, which Jerome says he learned from Jewish Christians, has satisfied the more critical and has been entered in books of refence. Yet netzēr is only a figurative term, used only once by one prophet, and is only one of similar figures: choter, “reed” or sapling, also in Isa. 11:1 tzemach, “sprout,” in Jer. 23:5; 33:15. It is very well to point to the likeness: Nazareth, an insignificant place from which no one expected anything; Jesus, outwardly just as insignificant-looking. But “Netzēr,” whatever its etymological connection with “Nazareth,” is not the name applied to the Messiah by the prophets; in order to have more than the one prophet, the synonymous terms from entirely different roots cannot be brought in; and Jesus never bore the name “Netzēr” or “Nazarene” in the sense of “Shoot,” “Sprout,” or “Branch.”

This ὅτι means “for” or “because.” Jesus lived in Nazareth in order to fulfill the prophets; and the evidential reason, by which we ourselves can see that his living in Nazareth fulfilled the prophets, is that afterward, due to his having lived there, he was called “the Nazarene.” We may add that even his followers were called “Nazarenes.” Matthew writes nothing occult or difficult. A Nazarene is one who hails from Nazareth. Matthew counts on the ordinary intelligence of his readers, who will certainly know that the enemies of Jesus branded him the “Nazarene,” that this was the name that marked his Jewish rejection and would continue to do so among Jews. They put into it all the hate and odium possible, extending it, as stated, to his followers. And this is “what was spoken through the prophets.” One and all told how the Jews would despise the Messiah, Ps. 22:6; Isa. 49:7; 53:3; Dan. 9:26; every prophecy of the suffering Messiah, and every reference to those who would not hear him, like Deut. 18:18. The Talmud calls Jesus Yeshu Hannotzri (the Nazarene); Jerome reports the synagogue prayer in which the Christians are cursed as Nazarenes: “and the Notrim and the Minim may suddenly be destroyed; may they be blotted out of the book of life and not be written with the just.” Compare Acts 24:5, “sect of the Nazarene,” and Paul’s characterization.

If Jesus had been reared in Jerusalem, he could not have been vilified as the Nazarene. It was God who let him grow up in Nazareth and thus furnished the title of reproach to the Jews in fulfillment of all the reproach God had prophesied for the Messiah through the prophets.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner