Matthew 2

Spirit who “worketh all in all?’ See (1 Corinthians 12:6).)
Chap. II. Ver. 1—12. The wise men of the east led by a star to Bethlehem, to worship Jesus.—There is abundant evidence of a general expectation, both in Judea and the surrounding countries, that about this time some illustrious person should be born there, and obtain the government of the world. Lardner cites on this subject Josephus, Tacitus, and Celsus in Origen. The first two, like time-serving historians, apply the oracle (as they call it) to the government of Vespasian, the Roman emperor; though he had no claim to this distinction, but by the judgments he inflicted on the Jews. Celsus tells us, that “he who is to come is great, and a prince, and Lord of ‘all the earth, and of all nations, and of armies.’’ See also (John 4:25-26). With respect to the “wise men,’ or Magi, here referred to, there are different opinions, as well as of the country from which they came. The learned Rosenmüller says, ‘‘That the Magi mentioned by the Evangelist, came from Arabia, is an opinion which arose in the first ages of Christianity, and is rendered probable by the fact that…. gold, frankincense, and myrrh (ver. 11.) were productions of southern Arabia. This was also the country of Job, who was the greatest man of all the East, (see note on (Job 1:3).,) and lay south-east of Jerusalem and Judea. The original Magi were the priests and philosophers of Persia; but in process of time, the term was applied to the priests and philosophers of other countries, and particularly of Arabia, (so that Arabi and Magi became terms synonymous,) and as things degenerated, the name was degraded to mean Magicians, or those who practised necromancy, and other forbidden [arts]. These men of the East saw an extraordinary star, or meteor, not in the east to them, but in the north, or it could not have guided them to Jerusalem, or to Bethlehem, which lay about six miles south of the metropolis.

‘The presents which these Magi brought to the young Messiah were an acknowledgment of devotion from the Gentiles, and the gold, while it evinced, that they were persons of some consequence, (perhaps Arabian princes, (Psalms 72:10).) might, at the same time, be of essential service to the holy family, in their flight into Egypt. It was undoubtedly by a peculiar providence that the star led them first to Jerusalem, in order to excite the public attention; and that, possibly at one of the great feasts, when the whole nation was there assembled. As to Herod, it is plain that he acted a part as hypocritical as cruel. ‘‘There is no villany so great (says Bp. Hall) but it will mask itself under a show of piety.

Herod will also worship the babe! The courtesy of a false tyrant is death. A crafty hypocrite never means so ill as when he speaks the fairest.’ Herod, no doubt, designed to murder the holy infant from the first. The inquiries of Herod produced from the chief priests and scribes this testimony, that, according to ancient prophecy, Christ was to be born in Bethlehem, where these pious philosophers afterwards found and worshipped him. It has been thought strange, that neither priests nor scribes accompanied the Magi in their way to Bethlehem; but it seems clear that Herod wished to keep the matter as private as possible, for when he heard of it, he inquired of these wise men privately; and probably as privately dismissed them on their errand, thinking from his rank and authority, he could depend on their return.

The star which guided them to Jerusalem had got without the city, and lowering its elevated course, took its station over the very house where the child lay, till the pious strangers came within, and worshipped, and then finally disappeared. Herod had enjoined upon them, that when they found the infant, they should immediately bring him word, which probably they would have done, had they not been warned in a dream to return another way, whereby Herod was disappointed of his object, which was doubtless to destroy ‘the holy child, Jesus.’ Thus the Providence of God overrules the wickedness of man.
Ver. 13—23. The escape of the holy family, and Herod’s massacre of the infants.—As the divine providence had, in a dream, admonished the Magi to return home another way, whereby they escaped the rage of Herod; so, by the same means, Joseph is warned no longer to remain in Bethlehem, but to fly immediately into Egypt, where many thousands of Jews resided, some of whose hearts the Lord probably opened to receive them.

The admonitions given to the Magi, by way of dream, and to Joseph himself in three several instances, and that, in all probability, by the vision of angels in their sleep, seem to indicate a temporary return of the patriarchal dispensation, when angels were the usual messengers of the divine will to men: but this, we may observe, was on the approach of that period of which it was predicted, “Your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” ((Acts 2:17).) Indeed, the ministry of angels, if we can believe the New Testament, was evidently continued to the close of the sacred canon. From that period we have a more sure word of Prophecy, and should be extremely cautious of trusting to visionary appearances; at the same time, we have no authority to conclude that the Almighty has deprived himself of any means formerly employed, of communicating his will to men, when he shall see an occasion worthy of his interference.

Angels are still ministering spirits to the church. ((Hebrews 1:14).) That Herod should feel indignant, mortified, enraged, by this conduct of the eastern strangers, is not to be wondered at; and the means he took to avenge himself were in perfect consistency with his former character, in which pride and cruelty were predominating qualities. The measure of his vengeance, however, furnishes us with a note of time, relative to our Saviour’s age at this period. Herod was by no means tender of human life; and as, when the decree came to be executed, mothers would be tempted to represent their children as older than they really were, in order to save their lives; it is natural to suppose that he might extend the age prescribed to at least double the age of the infant whose life he sought: we cannot therefore consider the Holy infant at this time as more than a year old, perhaps not more than half so much, when he was visited by the eastern sages.

And as it does not appear that he was certain as to the infant’s age, we may rather wonder that he did not extend the murderous decree farther, than that it should extend so far. The scene here delineated is sufficiently cruel, without exaggeration. On the passage quoted from Micah, (ch. v. 2,) we

Ver. 13. Flee into Egypt.—Bethlehem was in that part of Judea nearest and with few inhabitants; it therefore, probably, did not contain more than about fifty male infants; this was, however, a scene of sufficient horror to excite the pathetic lamentation here made. Rachel lay buried near this spot. On a former occasion, when her children were about to go into captivity, she is poetically represented as rising from her tomb to wail over them; but these innocents were gone to “that country from whose bourn no traveller returns.”

The manner of lamentation among the eastern women was also most violent, of which we shall give the following example, quoted by the late Editor of Calmet, from M. Le Bruyn’s Voyage in Syria. That celebrated traveller says, ‘When I was at Rama, (near Lydda; not this Rama near [Elchanan]) I saw a great company of these weeping women, (namely, those who go to weep over the graves of their relations,) who went out of the town. I followed them, and after having observed the place they visited, adjacent to their sepulchres, I seated myself on an elevated spot….. They first placed themselves on the sepulchres, and wept there; after having remained there about half an hour, some of them rose up, and formed a ring, holding each other by the hands…..

Quickly two of them quitted the others, and placed themselves in the centre of the ring, where they made so much noise, in screaming and clapping the hands, as, together with their various contortions, might have subjected them to the suspicion of madness. After that, they returned and seated themselves to weep again, till they gradually withdrew to their homes.’ (See (Jeremiah 31:15), apse of 31, and note on ver. 18. below.) But it may be remarked, that this, and two or three other passages quoted in this chapter, seem cited in a sense that appears to have little or no connexion with the original import; though it is expressly said, that these things happened that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.

On this subject we beg leave to introduce a very candid and judicious remark of J. P. Smith; “It is admitted, (he observes,) that the Apostles and Evangelists have sometimes cited sentences and phrases from the Old Testament, in the way of accommodation to subjects not contemplated in the original meaning of those passages. To deny this, would be to refuse them that liberty of observing striking coincidences, and of making useful applications, which writers of all ages have exercised; and the scriptural books were almost the only literature of the Jews. We should, however, be slow and cautious to admit this solution; and well consider the probability that, in such cases, there may be a ground of appropriation, the inobservance of which is solely owing to our ignorance of some circumstance, in the original intent of the passage.”

On the principles just mentioned, we should be far from saying, that any of the passages cited in this chapter are quoted in a sense foreign to their original design. The first passage above quoted is applied to Messiah by the Jewish Sanhedrim, and to this certainly no Christian can object; but the others appear to us quoted rather by way of illustration than argument. If God called Israel his son, when he brought them out of Egypt, it might be a typical allusion to his own Son being brought from the same country. If Rachel wept for her children when carried into captivity, much more might she mourn her slaughtered innocents on the occasion here named.

Nor will the common expression, “that it might be fulfilled,” prove it any thing more than an allusion, since the highest critical authorities admit that it must not be taken literally. Hammond renders it, “So it was accomplished;’—Campbell, “So it was verified;’—Newcome, ‘Then was fulfilled,” &c.—Doddridge, though he preserves the common translation, with the expletive anew, in his note on ver. 15, says, “I choose to take them, as Grotius, Heinsius, and many of the best critics do, for a mere allusion; and the rather, as I am fully convinced that the next quotation (ver. 17) must necessarily be taken in this sense.” And even, as Newcome remarks, where there is a direct prophecy in the Old Testament, the event did not take place for the mere purpose of fulfilling it; but God predetermined a fit event, and foretold it by his [prophecy]. As to the last prediction cited in this chapter, it is remarkable that no single prophecy is referred to, but a popular tradition, perhaps, that it had been foretold by different prophets, that the Messiah should reside at Nazareth.

So Dr. John Edwards; but others think, that the predictions of his being poor, despised, and reproached, were tantamount to saying that he should be of Nazareth. ((John 1:46).) So Wesley.

Notes on the verses

Ver. 20. In a dream.—In the times of inspiration, this was one medium of communicating the will of God to man: as, for instance, the dreams of Joseph and Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel; but when a written revelation was [made], such means became less necessary, and were gradually with-
Ver. 21. Thou shalt call his name Jesus.—It was one mark of divine favour, when God added a letter from his own name to that of any of his servants. Jah, it is well known, is an epitome of Jehovah, and when the son of Nun was taken into the service of Moses, with a view, no doubt, of being ultimately his successor, this name was prefixed to his former name of Osea, and made it Jehoshua, or Joshua, which in Greek is Jesus; and means Jah, or “Jehovah the Saviour.”

Ver. 22. That it might be fulfilled;—or, as Bootfroy’d, ‘So that it was fulfilled.” The Greek term (ina) often expressing, not the cause, but the consequent event. See (Luke 11:50). (John 5:20); xii. 38, &c.—Spoken of the Lord.—That is, of Christ: or “spoken (apo) from the Lord;” that is, by inspiration. Many have supposed this passage quoted merely by way of accommodation, as some texts confessedly are; but Bp. Chandler, at great length, and with much ability, contends that it is decidedly a typical prophecy of Messiah. Dr. John [Fuespundits?] adopts nearly the same hypothesis, and defends it with no less [ability].
Ver. 24. When he was raised.—Hammond, “Being risen.”
Ver. 25. Her first-born son.—Doddridge, “Her son, the first-born.”

See (Romans 8:29).
Chap. II. Ver. 1. Bethlehem—i.e. House of bread.—A town about six miles S. by W. of Jerusalem. The birth place also of David, and hence called the city of David. It still retains its ancient name, and contains about 200 houses, inhabited by Christians and Turks.
Wise men (Gr. Magi) from the east.—But the country here meant is much disputed; Chaldea and Persia have both been named; but we follow Grotius and Doddridge, in fixing on Arabia.—King Herod—That is, ‘‘Herod the Great,” called Great by reason of his crimes.
Ver. 2. We have seen his star in the east;—or, ‘‘We (while) in the east, have seen his star;” i.e. an extraordinary meteor which they thought indicated the birth of King Messiah.

The star seen by these Magi, must evidently have been a meteor, at no great height in the atmosphere, or it could not have marked a particular house, or even town. So we call those meteors frequently shooting through our atmosphere, falling stars.—To worship him.—Literally, “To fall prostrate before him.”
Ver. 3. He was troubled.—It was natural for Herod to be alarmed for the safety of his throne; but why should all Israel be troubled? Meteors have always been alarming to the superstitious and ignorant. Indeed, Justin Martyr supposed this to be a comet, which it probably resembled in form.
Ver. 4. The chief priests.—‘‘Not only the high priest and his deputy, with all who formerly had borne that office, but also the heads of the twenty-four courses, as well as any other persons of peculiar eminence in the priesthood.”

“Josephus uses the word.”—Doddridge.
And scribes.—See note on (Matthew 5:20).
Ver. 7. Inquired of them diligently—or exactly. Doddridge reads, “Having got exact information from them.”
Ver. 8. I may come and worship him also.—Herod would cover his malice with a cloak of religion. Hypocrisy is double wickedness.
Ver. 11. Presented unto him gifts.—In the East, no visits are made to persons of rank without a present.
Ver. 12. Another way—Literally, “they turned back their course” to Arabia, without going again to Jerusalem, as Herod had desired.
Ver. 15. Out of Egypt, &c.—Whitby and others consider this as a typical [passage].
Ver. 16. All the children—Doddridge and Campbell, “male children.” At present, Dr.

Richardson says, Bethlehem contains but about 300 inhabitants, and perhaps never contained many more; out of these it is probable the male infants might not exceed 50, though Voltaire puts them down at 14,000! Richardson was shown a small chamber, excavated from a rock, in which they were all said to be entombed.
See Ver. 18. Rama—A city in the tribe of Benjamin, situated a few miles north of Jerusalem, between Gibeah and Bethel.—In Rama was there a voice heard—i.e. a cry was heard even to Ramah; quoted from (Jeremiah 31:15), where the language which Matthew in a similar manner introduces her as bemoaning the fate of the children slain in Bethlehem. Robinson’s Wahl.
Ver. 20. They as [are], Herod and his son Antipater, who was usually cruel with his father.
Ver. 22. Archelaus—another son, also rivalled the cruelties of his father, massacring 3,000 Jews in the temple, near the beginning of his government.
Ver. 23. A Nazarene—i.e. an inhabitant of Nazareth. The names of places are sometimes used reproachfully. Nazarene, among the Jews at Jerusalem, was a term of contempt. The words here apparently quoted are not found in the Old Testament. The sense is, there was a fulfilment of what the prophets foretold, ((Psalms 22:6), &c. (Isaiah 53)) that it should be treated with reproach or contempt. Robinson’s Wahl 1007