Matthew 2
BolesMatthew 2:1-12
1 Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea. “Bethlehem” means “house of bread”; probably so named from the fertility of the surrounding territory. He was born in “Bethlehem of Judaea.” This distinguishes the place of his birth from the Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun. (Joshua 19:15.) Bethlehem Ephrath (Genesis 35:16; Genesis 35:19) was located in the tribe of Judah (Judges 17:9; Judges 19:1; 1 Samuel 17:12). Ephrath or Ephratah was the earliest name of Bethlehem; it was situated about six Roman miles to the south of Jerusalem, or it was about two hours’ walk from Jerusalem. This small town was the ancestral seat of the house of David. (Rth 1:1-2.) It was strongly fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:17), but it remained a place of no importance (Micah 5:2), and is not mentioned among the towns of Judah in Joshua or in Neh. 11 25. Luke records the fact that Joseph and Mary had resided in Nazareth of Galilee previous to the birth of Jesus, but that a decree of Augustus Caesar concerning the enrollment or taxation brought them to Bethlehem. (Luke 1:26-27; Luke 2:1-4.) Matthew omits these events and begins his account as if Bethlehem were the home of Joseph and Mary. Bethlehem, or “house of bread,” was the birthplace of him who called himself “the bread of life.” (John 6:35.) This connects the history of Jesus with the ancestry through Ruth, who became the wife of Boaz, and who was in the line of genealogy of David. Bethlehem is called the city of David because David was born there, and he was anointed king over Israel by Samuel there.
In the days of Herod the king.—This is Matthew’s nearest approach to giving the date of the birth of Jesus. Herod is called “the king.” This is the first mention that we have of Herod in the New Testament. He was an Idumean by birth; that is, he was a descendant of the family of Esau. The Edomites were also called Idumeans. This was Herod the Great; he was a son of Antipater, whom Caesar had appointed as procurator of Judea. Herod was talented, unscrupulous, energetic; he managed to ingratiate himself into the favor of Augustus and came into possession of a kingdom which included Judea, Samaria, Galilee, and Perea, east of the Jordan, as well as Idumea.
He became by profession a Jew in religion, although he was in no sense a Jew at heart. He hated the Jews and sought every opportunity to destroy them; he made and unmade priests according to his own whim; to please the Jews and to gain honor for himself, he rebuilt the temple. His list of heartless murders includes Hyrcanus, the venerable grandfather of his wife, Mariamne; he also murdered his oldest son; he invited a number of Jewish nobles into his palace and gave secret orders that upon his decease they should be put to death, that the people, who might otherwise rejoice at his death, should have at least some occasion for general mourning. He took possession of his kingdom 40 or 37 B.C. The Idumeans, the race of Herod the Great, had been for more than one hundred years Jewish in religion; the Maccabee Hyrcanus had compelled them to submit to circumcision.
An error in time.—It is well to note here the error that has crept into our calendar and has been perpetuated. The Christian era should properly begin with the year Jesus was born; by the “Christian Era” is meant the system upon which calendars are constructed, and by which historical events are now dated in practically all the civilized world. The intention of the one who originated the system was to have it begin with the year of the birth of Jesus. The originator of our present system made an error as to the year in which Jesus was born. He fixed the year A.D. 1 four years too late; in other words, Jesus was four years old in the year A.D. 1.
This error was made by Dionysius Exiguus. The scheme of beginning dates with the birth of Jesus was not invented until A.D. 532; the inventor, Dionysius Exiguus, was a monk. At that time the system of dates in common use began from the era of the emperor Diocletian, A.D. 284. Dionysius Exiguus was not willing to connect his system of dates with the name of that infamous tyrant and persecutor; so he conceived the idea of connecting his sytem with, and dating all its events from, the birth of Jesus. He wrote to Bishop Petronius the following: “To the end that the commencement of our hope might be better known to us, and that the cause of man’s restoration, namely, our Redeemer’s passion, might appear with clearer evidence.” In this way he expressed his wish to change the system of reckoning dates.
In order to carry out his plan, it was necessary to fix the date of the birth of Jesus in the terms of the chronological system than in use. The Romans dated the beginning of their history from the supposed date of the founding of the city of Rome. Dionysius Exiguus calculated that the year of Jesus’ birth was 753 from the founding of Rome. He made his equivalence of dates from Luke 3:1, “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” At this time Jesus was thirty years of age according to Luke 3:23; but it was ascertained later that a mistake of four years had been made for it clearly appeared from Matthew’s record that Jesus was born before the death of Herod, who died in the year 849 from the founding of Rome. Tiberius succeeded Augustus August 19, in the year 767 from the founding of Rome; hence, his fifteenth year would be 779 from the founding of Rome; and from those facts Dionysius Exiguus was right in his calculation. However, it was discovered in later years that Tiberius began to reign as colleague with Augustus four years before the latter died; hence, the fifteenth year mentioned by Luke was four years earlier than was supposed by Dionysius Exiguus, and consequently the birth of Jesus was that many years earlier than the date selected by Dionysius Exiguus.
After the error was discovered, no correction was made in Dionysius Exiguus’ scheme, and the error has been perpetuated in our calendar. This must be considered in any computation of dates which involves events which happened before the birth of Jesus, and also in the dates of events which have occurred since the birth of Jesus.
Wisemen from the east came to Jerusalem.—Much has been written about the “wisemen from the east”; it is not necessary to detail here all the conjectures which have been made in answer to this question. “The east” may mean either Arabia, Persia, Chaldea, or Parthia and the provinces adjacent to Palestine. It seems clear from verse two that it was some land not very near Judea. They are also called Magi; there is no ground for supposing the Magi to have been three in number; there is no way to determine how many “Wisemen from the east” came at this time. There was a priestly caste among the Persians and Medes, which occupied itself principally with the secrets of nature, astrology, and medicine. Daniel was made president of this order in Babylon. (Daniel 2:48.) Jeremiah spoke of this class among the Babylonians. (Jeremiah 39:3.) The name Magi became familiar to people of that age, and it was transferred, without distinction of country, to all those who had devoted themselves to the study of medicine, astrology, and the secrets of nature. There was an indefinite reference to “eastern lands.” (Matthew 8:11; Matthew 24:27; Luke 13:29; Revelation 21:13.) Some have thought that these Magi were kings and that there were three of them to represent the three families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, but this assumption is to be disregarded with all the other traditions and guesses that have been made. There was a sect of philosophers and religionists who wore the name Magi; some think that these men were from a caste of religion; at least, they were men of some eminence and learning; these sages, or wise men, had learned of this event and were looking out for some intimations of its taking place.
These wise men came to Jerusalem; this was the capital of the country, and these inquirers would naturally come to Jerusalem as they could most readily obtain information concerning the newborn king here. The temple of Jerusalem was known all over the east; the Jews at this time had already spread over the known world, and they had made some proselytes or converts among the most intellectual and earnest inquirers of all countries. (John 12:20.) The ten tribes of Israel that were scattered were largely in Parthia, though their ideas and hopes of the promised Messiah were not very clear and as well defined as those of their brethren in Palestine. Jerusalem was the center of the Jewish religion and the political center for that province. It is natural that these wise men would come to Jerusalem for further information.
- Where is he that is born King of the Jews?—The wise men from the east came to Jerusalem to inquire where the lately born King of the Jews might be. How they had learned that Jesus was “King of the Jews” we are not told; neither are we told to whom in particular they addressed their inquiry. It may be they assumed that all men intelligent in religious matters among the Jews must know; especially in Jerusalem the intelligent worshipers according to the law ought to have been well acquainted with the event and able to direct these inquirers to the place of him who was “born” to be “King of the Jews.” When Pilate later asked Jesus while he was on trial “Art thou a king then?” Jesus promptly answered Pilate, “To this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.” (John 18:37.) Jesus was to be a King; Matthew throughout his record of the life of Jesus puts emphasis on the kingly feature of Jesus. He came to earth to establish a kingdom and to reign over that kingdom as its King.
His star in the east.—Much speculation, guesses, and superstitions have been recorded by man as to the meaning of the “star in the east.” It is designated by these wise men as “his star in the east.” “The east” literally means “the rising”; some have preferred to translate this “at its rising,” or “when it rose.” A kindred verb occurs in Matthew 4:16, which is translated “did light spring up.” The same word is translated “dayspring,” or “dawn.” (Luke 1:78.) It is a question which has not been settled as to whether the expression of the Magi, “we saw his star,” indicates a miraculous appearance or whether it was an ordinary observance in the course of their watching the heavens, and by some means they were informed that a certain star or constellation of stars indicated some great event which had just taken place. Whether some supernatural agency is asserted here by these wise men we shall never be able to determine; there is no use to conjecture on this point. We are honestly endeavoring to ascertain the sense of the record as given by Matthew without regard to any preconceived opinion or system, and fearlessly express this sense in simple terms; hence no conjecture is to be included as a part of the divine will. In some way God had indicated to the Magi through a star that his Son had been born so we will not conjecture whether God indicated this to them by miraculous agency or by a natural appearance of the star. It is a fact which Matthew records when these men left Jerusalem, that “the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.” (Verse 9.) The question has been raised as to whether this was “a real star”; it is difficult for us to think that a real star moved before these men and stood over a particular house so as to distinguish it from other houses. Did others see this star?
Would others follow it? Would not such a miraculous manifestation of a star attract multitudes?
This would make the whole affair a stupendous miracle, but this is not necessarily implied, even if the words of the text be taken in their most literal sense. Travel in the east was done largely at night, and especially by such as these wise men. It would not be necessary for a heavenly body which is larger than all Palestine to move forward and guide these men from Jerusalem to Bethlehem and then stand over the particular house where the babe of Bethlehem was; such a heavenly body would be over all the houses in Bethlehem and not over any particular one. Whatever the “star” was, it guided these men and indicated the particular house where they could find the child. The supernatural is admitted here, since there were so many miracles connected with Jesus’ birth, and the visit of the Magi was an event of great spiritual significance, fit to be the occasion of a miracle. If these men were astrologers, it is natural for divine impressions to be made upon them in terms of a “star”; God led the thoughts of these wise men first to notice and to interpret “his star in the east”; next they take this long journey of some months to connect this wondrous birth with the star; then they come to Jerusalem and make inquiry as to the place of his birth.
Come to worship him.—The purpose of the coming of the wise men was to “worship him”; they went to Jerusalem to inquire where he was that they might worship him. They came to do homage or give honor to him. There is no reason expressed by Matthew to believe that they regarded this newborn king as in any sense a divine being, though they apparently expected his reign to influence other nations. The whole scene was a signal honor to the infant King. The word in the Greek from which we translate “worship” means veneration, homage, submission, by prostration of the face to the ground. (Genesis 19:1; Genesis 43:6.) The word here, however, is to be taken as meaning adoration in the more general sense. Some think that it refers merely to religious, not to political, homage.
It is to be noted that Matthew records these Gentiles as the first to know that Jesus was “born King of the Jews.” All these events emphasize the fact that Jesus, as “King of the Jews,” must have a mission; they originated not with man, but with God. Matthew’s record means that God’s hand was behind all these movements and that God was responsible for all of the testimony. The visit of the Magi and the similar visit of the shepherds. (Luke 2:8-20) are utterly incompatible with the theory of the mere humanity of Jesus; they prove his divine Sonship, and admit no other explanation; they honor the infant Jesus, not as one who had name and fame to earn, but as one who brought it with him by his very birth.
3 He was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.—When these Magi came to Jerusalem and made inquiry concerning the place of the birth of the “King of the Jews,” Herod in some way heard of their inquiry. It may be that someone reported to Herod, as the Magi did not go directly to Herod, for “when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled.” He was troubled about the idea of a rival. Herod, as a foreigner and usurper, feared one who was “born King of the Jews”; this was near the close of Herod’s reign, and naturally he was anxious concerning the succession of one to the throne; he could not hear with any degree of satisfaction that the founder of a rival dynasty had been born or that his successor would be a Jew. He had ambitions that one of his own family would succeed him as ruler. Herod disliked the thought of his throne being overthrown.
Any disturbance with the rulers of Judea would disturb “all Jerusalem with him.” All the people would be disturbed at the same time for fear of new tyrannies and cruelties as the effect of Herod’s jealous fears. The people were not disturbed so much on account of the times of misfortune which were expected to precede the Messiah, but in keeping with their special circumstances they dreaded the adoption by the tyrrant in his maintaining his authority over them. The people had witnessed so many of Herod’s cruelties that when a competitor was suspected they seemed to have dreaded new scenes of confusion and bloodshed; they were troubled at that event which should have given them the greatest joy.
- And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people.–When Herod heard of the inquiry of the “Wisemen from the east,” he was disturbed; he did not know the prophecies concerning the Messiah, so he quickly assembled “the chief priests and scribes.” The Sanhedrin was composed of chief priests, scribes, and elders; it is not known whether this was an assembly of the Sanhedrin or whether it was an extraordinary convocation of all the chief priests and learned men. The “chief priests” were probably the heads of the twenty-four courses or classes; David had divided the priests into twenty-four classes, and had appointed a head of each class; this head was called a “chief priest.” (1 Chronicles 24:6;
2 Chronicles 36:14.) Some think that these “chief priests” were not of the twenty-four classes, but were those who had served as high priests. Herod and the Romans had made frequent changes in the high priests; however, this view does not seem to be the correct one; others think that the ex-high priests and the heads of the twenty-four classes are included in “chief priests.” The high priest who was in office at the time was probably included in this number.
The “scribes” were learned men; the scribes formed a separate class in the Sanhedrin, though only a portion of them were members of it. These scribes were lawyers and theologians; they obtained their name probably from the work which they originally did; after synagogues were established, copies of the law were required for distribution to the different synagogues; this called for a class of learned men who could transcribe the law. “Scribe” was also applied to one who was well educated; probably not all of the scribes in the days of our Lord were scribes in the sense of copying the law, but were learned men or doctors of the law. (Ezra 7:6; Matthew 23:35; Luke 10:25; Acts 5:34.) “The elders” are not mentioned here, and some think that this is positive proof that the assembly was not the regular Sanhedrin.
He inquired of them where the Christ should be born.—After assembling those who were supposed to know, Herod made inquiry of them as to “where the Christ should be born.” The only point that Herod had in assembling this group of learned men was to make inquiry as to the specific place where the Christ would be born; this was the inquiry that the wise men from the east had made. Their inquiry aroused Herod’s interest, and he is now anxious to know just where the scriptures taught that Jesus should be born. Surely if any one among the Jews knew, these men would know; Herod summoned together the religious teachers of the nation because the question pertained to religion. These learned men were to tell him what they knew concerning the birthplace of the Messiah; by this question Herod leaves it undetermined whether the birth had already taken place, or was still to come he is indefinite on this point, but specific in his demand as to the place that he should be born.
Here the inquiry is “where the Christ should be born.” “Christ” means the anointed one evidently Herod understood that this newborn King was to be anointed. Herod was very old at this time, and he was much concerned about who should succeed him; he neither understood the spiritual nature of the Messiah’s kingdom nor did he consider that a newborn infant was not likely to disturb him. “Christ” is the Greek form of the Hebrew word “Messiah.” We are not told whether Herod wanted to use this information in a righteous purpose, but the context clearly shows that he intended to use this information to direct the wise men where to find him, and probably have him put to death.
5, 6 They said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea.—Herod became thoroughly aroused when he heard of the inquiry the wise men had made and determined to ascertain the place of the birth of this infant King; he called together the religious leaders of Jerusalem and demanded of them this information. The chief priests and scribes promptly answered and said, “In Bethlehem of Judaea”; it was the Bethlehem that was within the bounds of the tribe of Judah; this distinguished it from the Bethlehem that was in the tribe of Zebulun. (Joshua 19:15.) They did not hesitate, neither did they have to take time to search; they were familiar with the place where the Messiah should be born. Had they been as definite about other things pertaining to Jesus, they would have appreciated him as a Savior more.
In support of their answer they quoted from the prophet Micah. They answered Herod, “thus it is written through the prophet”; they had no theory about the place of the birth of Jesus, no assumption was made, no guess was offered, no speculation presented; they answered directly and specifically what the prophet said. They should have been as ready to take what was written concerning him by other prophets as they were to take what Micah said concerning the place. The passage is freely quoted from Micah by Matthew. In Micah the place is called “Bethlehem Ephrathah.” Matthew substitutes for “Ephrathah” “land of Judah”; hence, the passage, as these learned men quote it, differs slightly from the Septuagint; yet on the point in question its testimony is very conclusive.
Out of thee shall come forth a governor.—Micah says, “Out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel”; Matthew substitutes “governor” for “ruler.” Quoting further from the prophet, this governor is further described as one “who shall be shepherd of my people Israel.” The word translated here as “shepherd” is correct; it involves the whole office of the shepherd, as guiding, guarding, folding, and feeding the flock. In ancient Greece the kings were called “the shepherds of the people.” The people said to David, “Jehovah said to thee, Thou shalt be shepherd of my people Israel.” (2 Samuel 5:2; Psalms 78:70-72.) The meaning of Mic 5:2 seems to be that, although Bethlehem was the least among the princes of Judah, from it would come the Messiah; though Bethlehem is one of the smallest cities of Judah, it will be one of the greatest in celebrity, as the birthplace of the Messiah; hence, this Messiah should “shepherd” God’s people. God is often called a shepherd. (Genesis 48:15; Psalms 23:1; Psalms 77:20; Psalms 80:1; I sa. 40:1 1; Ezekiel 34:11-31.) Jesus called himself “the good shepherd” (John 10:11); Peter was commanded to shepherd God’s people (John 21:16); he called Jesus the shepherd of our souls (1 Peter 2:25), and the “chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4). In Hebrews, Jesus is called “the great shepherd of the sheep.” (Hebrews 13:20.) Again Jesus is referred to “The Lamb that is in the midst of the throne shall be their shepherd.” (Revelation 7:17.) This means that Jesus was the one who would go before, or lead the way for salvation of the human race. “He calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. . . . He goeth before them, and the sheep follow him.” (John 10:3-4.) The government of a good king was similar to the care a good shepherd has of his flock, hence both shepherd and king are used here. This would be a wide contrast between the conduct of Herod as ruler and the newborn King.
7 Then Herod privily called the Wisemen.—It is characteristic of Herod to be cunning; he called “the Wisemen” privately. In public Herod doubtless affected unconcern; but he was deeply concerned about this place; if his inquiries should become known, the parties affected might learn of his intention and escape. It was characteristic of Herod’s political life to do things in secret; he evidently shared the mistake of the wise men that the birth of the child coincided with the first appearance of the star, and that the child was then in its second year. He artfully called the wise men to his aid and made further inquiry of them “and learned of them exactly what time the star appeared.” He was anxious to know the precise time when the star first appeared in order to get his age approximately. Herod wanted to know just when this child who was predicted to be a King was born, which event marked the first appearance of the star. Some think that when these wise men first came he had inquired why they believed the star to signify that a King of the Jews was born; this was important to him in order to carry out his evil intentions.
He learned accurately from the chief priests and scribes the place, and now he wants to know definitely the time when this child was born. Of course, he asked them the time of the appearing of the star; how long has it been since you first saw the star in the east? At what time did it appear? These are questions that were in Herod’s heart and which he no doubt propounded to the Magi.
8 And he sent them to Bethlehem.—After gaining the desired information from the chief priests and elders, and then ascertaining the exact time when the star first appeared to the Magi, he lost no time in sending them to Bethlehem. He said to them, “Go and search out exactly concerning the young child.” They were to search diligently until they found the exact location of the child; he now knows the town, but he does not know the exact location of the child. He did not know that the star which had brought them to Jerusalem would also locate specifically the child; he wanted to know the home where the young child was; he wanted to know definitely so that he could carry out his evil intentions.
When ye have found him, bring me word.—Herod gives his command as one in authority; he expects these men to obey him. When they have located the child in Bethlehem, he demands that they return to him and give him the exact location of the child. He gives as his motive for wanting to know the exact location “that I also may come and worship him.” This hypocrisy was characteristic of Herod; he had no intention of worshiping the child should he find him. He knew that the wise men had come to worship him, and he identifies his own purpose with theirs; he is not sincere in making his purpose coincide with their purpose. By such treachery Herod hoped to find the child and murder him. Herod’s perfidy is manifest; he did not send any of his courtiers with the wise men; this would have excited some suspicion.
He wanted the wise men to find Jesus and return to him and make a report, thinking that they would go on to their own country, and he could then carry out his treacherous and diabolical motives. Herod was a man who never left any stone unturned when he wanted to carry out his base intentions.
9, 10 And they, having heard the king, went their way.— They listened attentively and courteously to the demands of King Herod; no doubt they intended to obey his command. The Magi were not well acquainted with Herod’s character and appear not to have suspected his real design; they left him to carry out his directions. When they left Herod in Jerusalem, “lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.” They rejoiced to see the same star again, and to be guided by it to the very spot where the young child was. God had instructed them by his star that the “King of the Jews” had been born, and now he guides them by the star to the child; the point was too delicate and vital to be left indefinite. There were other children in Bethlehem, and the particular child must be pointed out to them. All liability to mistake must be precluded; nothing indefinite about this affair must occur.
The star “went before them,” that is, literally, the star led them forward. The star led them to Bethlehem as the place where Jesus was born , hence the star confirmed the prophecy of Micah.
Some have conjectured that this all occurred at night, as the star would not have been visible in the daytime; the text as recorded by Matthew lends no encouragement to this; Jehovah could guide them with a star in daylight as well as at night. Some think that this star was a simple luminous meteor in a starlight form, and at a very short distance from the ground, otherwise they could not have ascertained the place where the star lay. It seems that the star which they saw in the east had disappeared before they reached Jerusalem, but now it reappeared and guided them to Bethlehem. This star enabled them to find the child without making inquiries in Bethlehem that would have directed public attention to him and would have interfered with his escape from danger. God in his wisdom and power was protecting the child, and such means are used as will aid him in protecting the child with Joseph and Mary. The Magi rejoiced with exceeding great joy when they saw the star; they could rely now upon Jehovah to lead them to the exact place.
And they fell down and worshipped him.—The wise men had been directed to the very place where the babe was; Joseph and Mary evidently had moved the babe from the stable and manger into some house, probably that of a friend of the family, for “they came into the house and saw the young child with Mary his mother.” The Magi did not arrive at Bethlehem until some time after the birth of Jesus; we do not know just how old the babe was at this time. Joseph’s name is not mentioned here by Matthew as the Magi “saw the young child with Mary his mother.” We are not to think that this house was the place in which the shepherds had found the child on the morning after his birth. (Luke 2:16.) Very probably it had been some time since the child was born; some think that the visit of the Magi to Bethlehem was after the presentation in the temple of the child, which was forty days after his birth. (Leviticus 12:1-4; Luke 2:22.) This point is further strengthened by the fact that the flight into Egypt followed immediately after the visit of the Magi. Some even think that there had possibly been a journey to Nazareth (Luke 2:39), and that Joseph was now making Bethlehem his home.
When the wise men saw the babe and Mary, “they fell down and worshipped him.” They did homage to him; we do not know how much they knew about the divinity of Jesus, but we are led to believe that the homage which they paid to the babe was something more than that which is usually paid to royalty; the miraculous manner in which they had been guided to the house must have impressed them that the child was more than the ordinary. These Magi were Gentiles, and they are the first to pay homage to Jesus as King. The worship which they gave to the child expresses their thankfulness for the guidance that they had received in coming to Bethlehem. Their worship is an expression of gratitude to God and homage to the child.
And opening their treasures they offered unto him gifts.— The bags or boxes which contained their treasures had been brought with them to Bethlehem. It was an oriental custom for one to bring a present or offering when that one entered into the presence of royalty; it is another way of paying homage to the person who is honored. Their gifts were “gold and frankincense and myrrh.” Some have interpreted these three gifts as being emblematic of the divinity, regal office, and manhood of Jesus; however, there is nothing in the text to indicate this. The gold which they presented to the child was a providential supply for the expenses to Egypt and to live upon while there. “Frankincense” was a whitish, resinous substance, having an acrid taste and a strong, fragrant odor; it was made from the gum or sap of a tree which grew in Arabia and in India. “Myrrh” was a precious gum, having a strong but not disagreeable odor and a bitter taste; it also was made from a tree which grew in Arabia, Egypt, and Persia; it was much used as a perfume. Frankincense was used chiefly in sacrifices and in the services of the temple. Myrrh was used for fumigation and for improving the taste of wine, and especially as an ingredient for a very precious ointment. These gifts were all in keeping with the oriental custom of paying homage to a notable person.
12 And being warned of God in a dream.—Herod had given specific instructions to the Magi that when they found the babe they should return and inform him of the exact location of the child. Probably they had no other thought in mind but to do as Herod had commanded them; at least, they had no intentions of insulting the king or incurring his displeasure by refusing to obey his orders; but they were “warned of God” not to return to Jerusalem and to Herod. “Of God” is not in the original, though it is implied as in verse twentytwo. We have no indication that they were suspicious of Herod. The fact that God warned them not to return to Herod seems to indicate that it was their intention to return to Herod, or else God would not have gone to the trouble of warning them in a dream not to obey his command. It is probable that the direct way home would have led by Jerusalem. The Greek verb which is translated “warned” means to give a response to one who asks or consults; in the passive voice as used here it means to receive an answer; this would indicate that the wise men had sought counsel of God, and while asleep in a dream God answered them and told them not to return by way of Jerusalem or return to Herod.
The Lord took care that these wise men should not become unwittingly a party to the murderous schemes of Herod; hence, God told them to go to their eastern home by another route than through Jerusalem, and leave Herod none the wiser for what they had learned. These wise men were obedient to God as “they departed into their own country another way.”
Matthew 2:13-15
- THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT
13 An angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream.— When the wise men from the east had departed and were returning home, but not by way of Jerusalem as Herod had requested, “an angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream.” It seems that immediately after the departure of the Magi the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream; though the wise men had withdrawn from the influence of Herod, the child was still in danger. The coming of Jesus into the world was attended by angels; angels sang to the shepherds peace on earth and good will to men when Jesus was born; an angel had announced to Mary that she would have a son; an angel had told Joseph to take Mary to wife; and now an angel is guarding the safety of the child. Herod is fighting against God; he is fighting a losing fight; God will take care of the child that is to be the Savior of the world. It does not mean that Joseph dreamed that an angel appeared to him, but that an angel actually presented himself to Joseph while he was asleep.
Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt.—Joseph is given specific instruction by the angel; God always speaks to man so that man can understand. He is to “take the young child . . . and flee into Egypt”; the mother is to be taken with the child. Mary is as important now in caring for the child Jesus as she was in bringing him into the world; this was a very precious task imposed upon Joseph. The angel gave him a most precious charge when he told him to take care of the child and his mother; he also was exposed to great danger; he was to protect the child and his mother. God’s providence is exercised over the child; he would take care of the child, but this does not exclude Joseph; it rather places a responsibility on him, as God is to take care of the child through Joseph.
Egypt was at this time a Roman province and was well governed; its jurisdiction was beyond Herod’s authority; the family would be safe from the threatened destruction of Herod. The journey was probably seventyfive miles southwest from Bethlehem to the border, and a hundred miles more would take him into the heart of the country. Egypt was easy of access, and in earlier days it had been a place of refuge for fugitives from Judea. (1 Kings 11:40; Jeremiah 43:7.) There were many Jews in Egypt at this time. Alexander the Great, in building the city of Alexandria, had assigned a place to the Jews, granting them equal privileges with the Macedonians. In Egypt was made the greater part, probably the whole, of the famous translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek, which we have learned to call the Septuagint. Philo, in a treatise written about A.D. 40, says that the Jews in Egypt numbered about a million.
It is probable that the gifts of the Magi aided in the support of Joseph and Mary as they journeyed to Egypt. Joseph received the instructions from the angel; everything was to be done under divine direction, and then it would be done simply and successfully. It was not necessary for Joseph to know the times and seasons, but he should obey God in going into Egypt.
Joseph was to remain in Egypt with the child and his mother until he received further instruction as to what he should do. Joseph is to commit himself and his ways unto God. God will direct him at the appointed time to come out of Egypt. We do not know to what town or village Joseph went in Egypt; it is not necessary to guess at the town. Some think that he went to Matareeh, a few miles northwest of Cairo. This was about 4 B.C., when Jesus was a few weeks old.
Augustus Caesar was emperor of Rome; Herod the Great was king of Judea. Joseph was prompt in obeying God as he departed that night. The arrival of the Magi, their departure, and the flight of Joseph and Mary into Egypt were not known to the people of Bethlehem; all were done under the direction of Jehovah without any publicity. There were different roads that led through the desert into Egypt, but we are not told which route Joseph followed.
For Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.—Joseph was told specifically why he should take the young child and his mother into Egypt; he was under the jurisdiction of Herod while in Bethlehem, and Herod could do what he willed while Joseph was under his authority; so Joseph is to take the child and his mother and get out from under Herod’s jurisdiction; this place was Egypt. When we think of the cruelty of Herod and his abominable character, we can realize the danger that Joseph and Mary were in. We read of deaths by strangulation, deaths by burning, deaths by getting cleft asunder, deaths by secret assassination, confessions forced by unutterable torture, acts of insolent and inhuman lust, all these mark the annals of the reign of Herod; we are not surprised that a Jewish writer would say of conditions that “the survivors during his lifetime were even more miserable than the sufferers.” Another has written of Herod that “it would he better to be his sow than to be his son.” Such presents a vivid picture of the bloodthirsty Herod who sought the life of the young child.
14 He arose and took the young child and his mother by night.—It seems that Joseph left the same night that the angel visited him in a dream; he was prompt and faithful in his obedience, for he trusted fully in God. He probably left the same night, for there was need of great haste; Herod would not delay his vengeance when he learned that the wise men had returned another way. Mary and Joseph would not want to wait in the midst of such danger after such a warning. It was customary in the east, when one had to make a long journey, to start early in the morning, hours before daybreak. They could leave suddenly and unexpectedly in the night without danger of Herod’s discovering where they had gone, or even the fact of their leaving. Joseph and Mary begin to see that the high honor of being the earthly parent and protector of the child is freighted with great danger; every God-given honor is attended with great responsibility, sacrifice, and sorrow.
And departed into Egypt.—Egypt was an available place of refuge; it was far enough away to be out from under Herod’s jurisdiction; it was the nearest place of safe refuge; good roads led through the desert to their destination; they would find other Jews there with whom to associate. This flight to Egypt would have three purposes: the security of the child from his enemies; the showing of divine care and valuation of the holy child; and the making of his childhood’s suffering an antitype to the history of chosen Israel. God had imposed upon Mary and Joseph the task of protecting and rearing at all hazards this child; they promptly and cheerfully assumed the task to which God had called them and faithfully fulfilled their mission. Joseph and Mary are now in Egypt where the rage of Herod cannot pursue them.
And was there until the death of Herod.—We do not know how long Joseph and Mary remained in Egypt; it was until after the death of Herod; it is uncertain as to the time that they remained in Egypt. The death of Herod is supposed to have occurred on April 1, 4 B.C.; his death occurred at Jericho; he was nearly seventy years old; it was recorded that he was buried with great pomp at Herodium, which is close to Bethlehem in Judea. Archelaus, his son, was greeted as king, April 2. It is recorded that there was a riot and massacre of the Jews in the temple at the preparation of the Passover on April 10.
Out of Egypt did I call my son.—The prophet Hosea is quoted here, and it is applied by Matthew to Jesus. In Hosea the language is, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1.) In Joseph’s taking Mary and the child into Egypt at the command of God, and in his returning from Egypt at the command of God, this scripture was fulfilled. Joseph did not take the family into Egypt in order to fulfill the prophecy; neither can we say that God sent him into Egypt and called him out in order to fulfill this prophecy; but these incidents which occurred with the child Jesus, Matthew by inspiration says, fulfilled this prophecy. Joseph and the holy family going into Egypt and his returning with the family from Egypt were the antitypes of Israel’s entrance into Egypt and the departure from Egyptian bondage. It seems that Hosea referred to Israel’s exodus from the bondage of Egypt, not as a prophecy, but as a historical fact that took place many centuries before, and recounted there as proof of God’s love for Israel; but the record of Israel’s going into Egypt and returning from Egypt became a prophecy concerning the movement of the child Jesus. Both Israel and Joseph with his family went into Egypt at the command of God;both came out of Egypt at the command of God.
Israel was figuratively called God’s son (Exodus 4:22), and was considered by the Jews a type of the Messiah. As Israel in the childhood of the nation was called out of Egypt, so was Jesus. We may cite other resemblances in minute detail; his temptation of forty days in the desert resembles Israel’s temptation of forty years in the desert, which itself corresponded to the forty days spent by the spies. (Numbers 14:34.) In this way we can see how the historical statement of Hosea concerning Israel may also have been a prediction concerning the Messiah, as Matthew here declares it to be.
Matthew 2:16-18
- OF THE
16 Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the Wisemen, was exceeding wroth.—The wise men received from Herod the information they needed, and then went back home another way without bringing the information he required of them; they had been warned of God not to return by way of Jerusalem; of course, Herod did not know this. He thought that he had been “mocked” by the Magi; this word in the original means to trifle with, to treat as children treat their fellows. He became very angry; a despotic ruler easily comes to regard the slightest neglect to do his bidding as a gross insult; he had wicked intents to carry out, and was enraged when he thought that others were interfering with his plans; such a neglect or disobedience on the part of the Magi infuriated Herod. If his evil plans were not carried out, or even if they were delayed, he became incensed, and in his blind rage he became more determined to execute his wicked plan. He “was exceeding wroth.” He was outwitted, and his rage knew no bounds. While in such a frame of mind, he would naturally magnify the danger which seemed to threaten his dynasty.
And slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem.— Herod was determined not to be outwitted; he did not learn the exact location of the child, so he commanded an act that would include the babe Jesus; he commanded that all the male children “from two years old and under” should be killed. Excessively enraged, he thought still to accomplish his purpose by destroying the male children in Bethlehem within the estimated age of the child Jesus as he inferred it from the wise men. It was not Herod’s nature to take the least account of the cruelty or the guilt which his command involved; some translators have put it “all the children,” but a better translation is “all the male children,” as the original word determines the gender, which is masculine. He did not stop with the destruction of the male children “that were in Bethlehem,” but his command included those “in all the borders thereof”; this included the male children in the houses and hamlets which belonged to the territory of Bethlehem. It was a male child that he feared as his rival to his dynasty, hence he was not interested in destroying the female infants. We see a good reason why both the visit of the wise men to Bethlehem and the flight of Joseph and Mary to Egypt had been kept a secret; if these events had been known in Bethlehem, the people could have saved their children by informing Herod that the particular male child that he wanted to destroy had been taken to Egypt.
The New Testament record of this atrocious deed of Herod is the only record that we have of it; for this reason some have doubted the New Testament record. Josephus, a Jewish writer and historian, makes no reference to this foul deed of Herod. It is not known how many children perished; we have no way of determining the population of Bethlehem at that time, neither any way of estimating the number of male children that were there at that time. Commentators have varied in their estimation of the number from one thousand down to twenty; evidently the number could not have been very large. Since no great number of children perished in so small a place as Bethlehem and its neighborhood, it would not make much impression on any historian. Herod had marked the way to his throne with blood; he had murdered his wife and three sons; he had committed many crimes against the Jews; it was likely enough that in his blind fury he would make such a savage law or command as the destruction of the babes in Bethlehem.
There is no wonder that the affair is not noticed by Josephus as it was of small importance when compared to the other wicked deeds of Herod. This massacre of the children was not done openly, but was done in a secret at Herod’s official act, hence no record of it would be preserved. Herod made sure that he had included the baby Jesus; his plan of destroying all the male children “from two years old and under” gave him a margin on both sides; that is, to include children of such an age that if the star appeared either a few months after or a few months before the birth of Jesus, he would be included in the number that was slain.
17, 18 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet.—“Then was fulfilled” is the way Matthew introduces his quotation from Jeremiah; the prediction is found in Jeremiah 31:15. In other places Matthew introduces the prophecy by saying “that it might be fulfilled.” This is another fulfillment of a typical prophecy and not a literal prophecy. Jeremiah referred to the deportation of the Jews to Babylon; Rachel, the ancestress of Benjamin, was buried near Bethlehem; she is represented as bewailing from the grave the captivity of her children , the sound of her lamentations reaches northward beyond Jerusalem, and is heard at Ramah, a fortress of Israel on the frontier toward Judah where the captives were collected. It means that the grief caused by the carrying away of the kingdom of Judah into Babylonian captivity caused such lamentation of the female captives that it was heard even by Rachel in her tomb. Jeremiah used figurative language to express the deep sorrow of the exiled mothers of the kingdom of Judah. In the massacre of the infants of Bethlehem the calamity of the mothers of Judah was not only renewed, but its description verified in the fullest and most tragic manner. Rachel represents the mothers of Bethlehem lamenting over their children.
Matthew gives three quotations from the prophets in this chapter. (Verses 6, 15, 18.) These three quotations from the prophets illustrate three different classes of quotations which are found in the New Testament. The first quotation is concerning the birthplace of Jesus, and it is strictly a prediction as it refers directly to that event. The next class refers to the call of Jesus out of Egypt and illustrates an example of a prophecy which has a double reference, a primary and a secondary fulfillment; these are sometimes called typical, because they are originally spoken concerning a type and find another fulfillment in the antitype. The third class refers to the weeping at Bethlehem by the mothers of the babes that were slain; this is an example in which the event fulfills the meaning of the words used by a prophet, though the words had originally no reference at all to this event; it is a verbal fulfillment, and not a real fulfillment, as is found in the other two classes.
The care that was taken over the infant King helps to establish his later claim as King; God emphasized the prediction that he was to be a king by his miraculously guiding the Magi to him; his protection of him from the slaughter is another proof of the divinity of Jesus. All of the prophecies concerning Jesus up to this point have been fulfilled, and we may expect all others to be as minutely fulfilled as were those pertaining to the birth and infancy of Jesus.
Matthew 2:19-23
- THE RETURN TO
19 But when Herod was dead.—Herod died a few weeks after the flight into Egypt; we have no way of knowing just when Joseph and Mary took the babe to Egypt, hence no way of knowing how long they remained there before the death of Herod. Herod died at Jericho just before the Passover in the year 750 after the building of Rome, four years before the date from which we reckon our time. It has been calculated that the Passover occurred on April 12 that year and that Herod died seven to fourteen days before the Passover. He was buried within the bounds of Bethlehem, where he had murdered the innocent children.
An angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt.—This is the third time that the angel of the Lord has appeared to Joseph according to Matthew’s record; the angel in a dream told him to take Mary to be his wife; the angel told him to take Mary and the child and flee into Egypt; and now the angel appears again to him and tells him to return from Egypt. Herod had died in his seventieth year, and now the child was safe, hence the angel instructs Joseph to return to his native land. God, ever mindful of his own, now apprizes Joseph by a dream that he may safely return to the land of Israel, for Herod is dead.
20 Arise and take the young child and his mother.—This time Joseph is to arise and take the child and his mother and “go”; in going down into Egypt Joseph was told to take the young child and his mother and “flee into Egypt.” Joseph patiently and faithfully obeys all orders; he proves himself to be a worthy guardian of the young child and his mother. He is to “go into the land of Israel.” This is indefinite as to the exact location; it was definite enough for Joseph while in Egypt; he is to go out of Egypt and go to “the land of Israel.”
They are dead that sought the young child’s life.—“They” may include Herod and his wicked son Antipater; Antipater was killed five days before his father Herod died; “they” may also include the government officers of Herod who would pass out of office with the death of Herod. We infer from this that there were more than Herod involved in seeking the death of the young child. The angel informed Joseph that all who were seeking the child’s life were dead. Some think that only the death of Herod is referred to here; others think that Herod had enlisted the sympathy and services of others in seeking to destroy the young child. If Antipater is included in the statement, we may assume that he had shared his father’s hostility to the child.
21 He arose and took the young child and his mother.—We are impressed with the promptness with which Joseph obeyed the orders which he had received. God is pleased with such prompt obedience. Joseph is guided by the direction of God in going into Egypt and in returning from Egypt; he is as prompt in his obedience in returning from Egypt, when all dangers have passed, as he was in going down into Egypt when the dangers were numerous; Joseph is an example of prompt obedience to God under all circumstances. Joseph came into the land of Israel and it seems that he intended to return to Bethlehem of Judea. Some think that it was the intention of Joseph to rear the infant King in the city of his birth until the time should come when they would expect him to occupy Jerusalem, “the city of the great King.” Joseph would naturally come to Judea first in returning from Egypt as Judea was in the southern part of “the land of Israel.”
22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea.—After the death of Herod, his kingdom was divided among his three sons by Augustus Caesar. Archelaus was given Judea, Idumea, and Samaria; Herod Antipas obtained. Galilee and Perea; while Philip received Badanea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis. Herod and Philip received the title of “tetrarch, but Archelaus received the title of “ethnarch.” The title of king was conferred later on Archelaus. The title of king was to be conferred on Archelaus provided he proved himself worthy; however, nine years after he received his portion he was banished by Augustus Caesar. Upon the death of Herod, Archelaus was proclaimed king by the army, but it was not confirmed by Augustus Caesar. Archelaus was a wicked ruler; his reputation was no better than that of his father.
When Joseph learned that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in Herod’s place, “he was afraid to go thither.” He probably knew the reputation of Archelaus, and thought that he would take vengeance on him and his family. He knew that Archelaus was wicked enough to destroy the young child, and he did not know but that he had it in mind to do so. Joseph was surprised and disappointed at learning that Archelaus was reigning over Judea. He was afraid to remain in Judea with the holy child. If Joseph went to Bethlehem, that would remind Archelaus of him who was “born King of the Jews,” while if Joseph carried his family to a distance, Archelaus would still imagine that the child was dead.
Being warned of God in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee.—He turned aside and did not go to his intended destination; it is possible that he took another road when he heard of Archelaus reigning over Judea and went to Galilee. This is the fourth revelation that Joseph has received concerning the child and his care over it; it implies a high tone of spirituality of Joseph. The watchfulness of Joseph for the safety of the child serves as the natural groundwork for divine communication, and the repeated revelations to him in dreams emphasize divine guidance in caring for the child. These four dreams occurred at considerable intervals of time. While Joseph was afraid to dwell in Judea under the authority of Archelaus, he did not make a move until God warned him in another dream to go into Galilee.
Galilee was the northern division or portion of “the land of Israel.” At this time Palestine was divided into three divisions—Judea in the southern part, Samaria occupied the central portion, and Galilee composed the northern division. Joseph turned aside “into the parts of Galilee,” Archelaus had no authority over Galilee. Herod Antipas was the ruler over this country. He was a different man and governed with more leniency than did his brother Archelaus. Herod Antipas and Archelaus were at enmity with each other at this time; this was a most favorable circumstance for Joseph and his family.
23 And came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth.—Nazareth was Joseph’s former home; it was a small town or a large village. It was “called Nazareth”; “Nazareth” means a shoot, or branch, or protectress; it was about twenty miles east of the Mediterranean Sea and sixteen miles west of the Sea of Galilee. And so it came to pass that Jesus was brought up in Nazareth. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament; very few towns and events are recorded of the northern territory of Palestine. At this time this town had a mean reputation. Later Nathanael asked, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46.) Nathanael lived in “Cana in Galilee” (John 21:2), which was only a few miles distance from Nazareth.
Nazareth had no reputation at that time. It was situated about fifty-five miles north of Jerusalem in an elevated basin such as is frequently found in Samaria and Galilee. This basin is about a mile long and is less than a half mile wide; it opens southward by a narrow and winding pass into the great plain of Esdraelon; on the western side of the valley of Nazareth lies the modern town that bears that name. Higher up the slope is a limestone cliff thirty or forty feet high, which may well have been the “brow of the hill whereon their city was built,” from which the mob proposed to cast Jesus when they had rejected him as their prophet. (Luke 4:29.) It was here that the righteous Joseph and the meek Mary lived and where Jesus “advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” (Luke 2:52.) Here lived the child, the boy, the youth, and the man who was in due time to come forth from this obscure village as the Redeemer and Savior of the world. It was here that Jesus wrought (Mark 6:3) at the humble calling of the carpenter’s trade; it was at Nazareth that he worshiped on the Sabbath in the synagogue of the Jews.
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets.—Notice that the plural is used here of “the prophets”; no particular prophet had spoken of Jesus dwelling in Nazareth. It is thought that Matthew quotes the general sentiment of the prophets, that he is giving the equivalent of their language and not their exact language. Many of the prophets had predicted the humble life of Jesus , this is expressed in the proverbial statement that he should be “called a Nazarene.” “A Nazarene” is a term of contempt. (John 1 46; 7:52.) The very name of Nazareth suggested insignificance; in the Hebrew it meant to sprout or shoot. This name is prophetically given to the Messiah. (Isaiah 11:1.) The figure of the tree is continued by Isaiah and is applied to the Jewish state. As David sprang from the humble family of Jesse, so the Messiah, the second David, shall arise out of great humiliation. The fact that Jesus grew up at Nazareth was sufficient reason for his being despised; he was not a lofty branch on the summit of a stately tree; not a recognized and honored son of the royal house of David, now fallen, but an insignificant “sprout” from the roots of Jesse; a Nazarene, of an insignificant village.
The chronological order of the events as recorded by Matthew seem to be as follows: Soon after the birth of Christ the wise men arrived from the east; their visit was soon followed by the flight into Egypt and the sojourn there for a short time, which must have been very brief, as Herod’s death occurred soon afterward; the return from Egypt to the land of Israel, and then to the parts of Galilee and to Nazareth, where Jesus resided for about thirty years. Luke records the presentation in the temple which must have taken place some time before the flight into Egypt. By living in Nazareth Jesus came to be known as the Nazarene, and this name fulfilled the idea expressed by the prophet as belonging to the Messiah. Jesus was “the Branch,” “the Shoot,” and by his Nazareth name fulfilled the prediction that, though of lowly origin, the small, despised shoot would become a great tree. Some prefer to take the meaning of Nazareth to be one who protects or saves; the name Nazarene then would have reference to Jesus’ work as a Savior.