Matthew · Chapter 2

V. 1. Bethlehem of Judea-There was another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulon.

In the days of Herod-commonly called Herod the Great, born at Ascalon. The sceptre was now on the point of departing from Judah. Among his sons were Archelaus, mentioned Matthew 2:22; Herod Antipas, mentioned Matthew 14:1; &c., and Philip, mentioned Luke 3:19. Herod Agrippa, mentioned Acts 12:1; &c., was his grandson. Wise men-The first fruits of the Gentiles. Probably they were Gentile philosophers, who, through the Divine assistance, had improved their knowledge of nature, as a means of leading to the knowledge of the one true God. Nor is it unreasonable to suppose, that God had favoured them with some extraordinary revelations of himself, as he did Melchisedec, Job, and several others, who were not of the family of Abraham; to which he never intended absolutely to confine his favours. The title given them in the original was anciently given to all philosophers, or men of learning; those particularly who were curious in examining the works of nature, and observing the motions of the heavenly bodies.

From the east-So Arabia is frequently called in Scripture. It lay to the east of Judea, and was famous for gold, frankincense, and myrrh. We have seen his star-Undoubtedly they had before heard Balaam's prophecy. And probably when they saw this unusual star, it was revealed to them that this prophecy was fulfilled.

In the east-That is, while we were in the east.

Verse 1. Bethlehem of Judea] This city is mentioned in Judges 17:7, and must be distinguished from another of the same name in the tribe of Zebulon, Joshua 19:15. It is likewise called Ephrath, Genesis 48:7, or Ephratah, Micah 5:2, and its inhabitants Ephrathites, Ruth 1:2; 1 Samuel 17:12. It is situated on the declivity of a hill, about six miles from Jerusalem. לחם בית Beth-lechem, in Hebrew, signifies the house of bread. And the name may be considered as very properly applied to that place where Jesus, the Messiah, the true bread that came down from heaven, was manifested, to give life to the world. But לחם lehem also signifies flesh, and is applied to that part of the sacrifice which was burnt upon the altar. See Leviticus 3:11-16; 21:6. The word is also used to signify a carcass, Zephaniah 1:17. The Arabic version has [Arabic] Beet lehem, and the Persic [Persic] Beet allehem: but [Arabic] lehem, in Arabic, never signifies bread, but always means flesh. Hence it is more proper to consider the name as signifying the house of flesh, or, as some might suppose, the house of the incarnation, i.e. the place where God was manifested in the flesh for the salvation of a lost world.

In the days of Herod the king] This was HEROD, improperly denominated the GREAT, the son of Antipater, an Idumean: he reigned 37 years in Judea, reckoning from the-time he was created-king of that country by the Romans. Our blessed Lord was born in the last year of his reign; and, at this time, the sceptre had literally departed from Judah, a foreigner being now upon the throne.

As there are several princes of this name mentioned in the New Testament, it may be well to give a list of them here, together with their genealogy. Herod, the Great, married ten wives, by whom he had several children, Euseb. l. i. c. 9. p. 27. The first was Doris, thought to be an Idumean, whom he married when but a private individual; by her he had Antipater, the eldest of all his sons, whom he caused to be executed five days before his own death.

His second wife was Mariamne, daughter to Hircanus, the sole surviving person of the Asmonean, or Maccabean, race. Herod put her to death. She was the mother of Alexander and Aristobulus, whom Herod had executed at Sebastia, (Joseph. Antiq. l. xvi. c. 13.-Deuteronomy Bello, l. i. c. 17,) on an accusation of having entered into a conspiracy against him. Aristobulus left three children, whom I shall notice hereafter.

His third wife was Mariamne, the daughter of Simon, a person of some note in Jerusalem, whom Herod made high priest, in order to obtain his daughter. She was the mother of Herod Philippus, or Herod Philip, and Salome. Herod or Philip married Herodias, mother to Salome, the famous dancer, who demanded the head of John the Baptist, Mark 6:22. Salome had been placed, in the will of Herod the Great, as second heir after Antipater; but her name was erased, when it was discovered that Mariamne, her mother, was an accomplice in the crimes of Antipater, son of Herod the Great. Joseph de Bello, lib. i. c. 18,19,20. His fourth wife was Malthake, a Samaritan, whose sons were Archelaus and Philip. The first enjoyed half his father’s kingdom under the name of tetrarch, viz. Idumea, Judea, and Samaria: Joseph. Antiq. l. xvii. c. 11. He reigned nine years; but, being accused and arraigned before the Emperor Augustus, he was banished to Vienna, where he died: Joseph. Antiq. l. xvii. c. 15. This is the Archelaus mentioned in Matthew 2:22. His brother Philip married Salome, the famous dancer, the daughter of Herodias; he died without children, and she was afterwards married to Aristobulus.

The fifth wife of Herod the Great was Cleopatra of Jerusalem. She was the mother of Herod surnamed Antipas, who married Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, while he was still living. Being reproved for this act by John the Baptist, Matthew 14:3; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19, and having imprisoned this holy man, he caused him to be beheaded, agreeable to the promise he had rashly made to the daughter of his wife Herodias, who had pleased him with her dancing. He attempted to seize the person of Jesus Christ, and to put him to death. It was to this prince that Pilate sent our Lord, Luke 13:31, 32. He was banished to Lyons, and then to Spain, where both he and his wife Herodias died. Joseph. Antiq. l. xv. c. 14.-Deuteronomy Bello, l. ii. c. 8.

The sixth wife of Herod the Great was Pallas, by whom he had Phasaelus: his history is no ways connected with the New Testament. The seventh was named Phoedra, the mother of Roxana, who married the son of Pheroras.

The eighth was Elpida, mother of Salome, who married another son of Pheroras.

With the names of two other wives of Herod we are not acquainted; but they are not connected with our history, any more than are Pallas, Phoedra, and Elpida, whose names I merely notice to avoid the accusation of inaccuracy.

ARISTOBULUS, the son of Herod the Great by Mariamne, a descendant of the Asmoneans, left two sons and a daughter, viz. Agrippa, Herod, and Herodias, so famous for her incestuous marriage with Antipas, in the life-time of his brother Philip.

AGRIPPA, otherwise named Herod, who was imprisoned by Tiberius for something he had inconsiderately said against him, was released from prison by Caligula, who made him king of Judea: Joseph. Antiq. l. xviii. c.

8. It was this prince who put St. James to death, and imprisoned Peter, as mentioned in xii. of Acts. He died at Cæsarea, in the way mentioned in the Acts, as well as by Josephus, Antiq. l. xix. c. 7. He left a son named Agrippa, who is mentioned below.

HEROD, the second son of Aristobulus, was king of Chalcis, and, after the death of his brother, obtained permission of the emperor to keep the ornaments belonging to the high priest, and to nominate whom he pleased to that office: Joseph. Antiq. l. xx. c. 1. He had a son named Aristobulus, to whom Nero gave Armenia the lesser, and who married Salome, the famous dancer, daughter to Herodias.

AGRIPPA, son of Herod Agrippa, king of Judea, and grandson to Aristobulus and Mariamne; he was at first king of Chalcis, and afterwards tetrarch of Galilee, in the room of his uncle Philip: Joseph. Antiq. l. xx. c.

5. It was before him, his sister Berenice, and Felix, who had married Drusilla, Agrippa’s second daughter, that St. Paul pleaded his cause, as mentioned Acts 26.

HERODIAS, the daughter of Mariamne and Aristobulus, is the person of whom we have already spoken, who married successively the two brothers Philip and Antipas, her uncles, and who occasioned the death of John the Baptist. By her first husband she had Salome, the dancer, who was married to Philip, tetrarch of the Trachonitis, the son of Herod the Great. Salome having had no children by him, she was married to Aristobulus, her cousin-german, son of Herod, king of Chalcis, and brother to Agrippa and Herodias: she had by this husband several children.

This is nearly all that is necessary to be known relative to the race of the Herods, in order to distinguish the particular persons of this family mentioned in the New Testament. See Basnage, Calmet, and Josephus. There came wise men from the east] Or, Magi came from the eastern countries. “The Jews believed that there were prophets in the kingdom of Saba and Arabia, who were of the posterity of Abraham by Keturah; and that they taught in the name of God, what they had received in tradition from the mouth of Abraham.”-WHITBY. That many Jews were mixed with this people there is little doubt; and that these eastern magi, or philosophers, astrologers, or whatever else they were, might have been originally of that class, there is room to believe. These, knowing the promise of the Messiah, were now, probably, like other believing Jews, waiting for the consolation of Israel. The Persic translator renders the Greek magoi by [Persic] mejooseean, which properly signifies a worshipper of fire; and from which we have our word magician. It is very probable that the ancient Persians, who were considered as worshippers of fire, only honoured it as the symbolical representation of the Deity; and, seeing this unusual appearance, might consider it as a sign that the God they worshipped was about to manifest himself among men. Therefore they say, We have seen his star-and are come to worship him; but it is most likely that the Greeks made their magoi magi, which we translate wise men, from the Persian [Persian] mogh, and [Persian] moghan, which the Kushuf ul Loghat, a very eminent Persian lexicon, explains by [Persian] atush perest, a worshipper of fire; which the Persians suppose all the inhabitants of Ur in Chaldea were, among whom the Prophet Abraham was brought up. The Mohammedans apply this title by way of derision to Christian monks in their associate capacity; and by a yet stronger catachresis, they apply it to a tavern, and the people that frequent it. Also, to ridicule in the most forcible manner the Christian priesthood, they call the tavern-keeper [Arabic], peeri Mughan, the priest, or chief of the idolaters. It is very probable that the persons mentioned by the evangelist were a sort of astrologers, probably of Jewish extraction, that they lived in Arabia-Felix, and, for the reasons above given, came to worship their new-born sovereign. It is worthy of remark, that the Anglo-saxon translates the word magoi by [Anglo-Saxon], which signifies astrologers, from [Anglo-Saxon] a star or planet, and [Anglo-Saxon], to know or understand.

Verse 1. Now when Jesus was born — It is matter of great doubt when the following remarkable occurrence happened. The received time of celebrating the Epiphany imports that it was within thirteen days of the birth of Christ. But as it is not likely that the star made its appearance till he was born, so it does not seem at all probable that the wise men could have prepared for and accomplished so long a journey in so short a space of time, especially as they tarried some days, at the least, at Jerusalem, on their way to Bethlehem. Add to this that immediately after their departure, (verse 13,) Joseph, with his wife and the child, are sent away into Egypt, which could not have been before the end of the forty days of Mary’s purification. But although this visit of the wise men did not happen so soon after the birth of Christ as the calendar supposes, it might happen before Jesus was presented in the temple. For it is certain, when they came to Bethlehem they found Jesus and his mother there; but according to Luke 2:22, when the days of Mary’s purification were ended, they brought the child Jesus to present him to the Lord; and we never read of their returning with him to Bethlehem. On the contrary, we are told, when they had performed all things according to the law, they returned together to their own city Nazareth. According to this hypothesis, Jesus was brought to Jerusalem while Herod was waiting for the return of the wise men, and the angel appeared to Joseph there to command him to flee into Egypt with the young child and his mother, which they might do the very night after Jesus was presented in the temple.

In Bethlehem of Judea — Judea here means the district so named from the tribe of Judah, under which, however, the tribe of Benjamin was comprehended; and it is distinguished from Samaria, Peræa, Trachonitis, and both Galilees. It must be observed, there was another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zabulon, in the lower Galilee. In the days of Herod the king — Viz., Herod the Great, the son of Antipater, born at Ascalon, about 70 years before Christ. According to some, he was a native Jew; according to others, an Idumean by the father’s side, and by the mother’s an Arabian. The most probable opinion is, that he was originally an Idumean; but that his ancestors had, for some ages, been proselytes to the Jewish religion. The Jews being at that time in subjection to the Romans, he was made king of Judea by the Roman senate. At his death, which happened soon after this, he divided his dominions by his last will among his sons, appointing Archelaus, mentioned verse 22, to succeed him as king of Judea; Herod Antipas, mentioned chap. 14., to be tetrarch of Galilee and Peræa; and Philip, mentioned Luke 3., to be tetrarch of Trachonitis and the neighbouring countries. Herod Agrippa, mentioned Acts 12., was his grandson. It is to be observed, that the history of the New Testament begins with Herod the Great, and ends with Agrippa, the last king of the Jews. Behold! The evangelist calls our attention by this word to the following very memorable occurrence. There came wise men — Probably Chaldean or Arabian astronomers, who, by divine grace, had been led from the knowledge of nature, to that of nature’s God. Although they are termed in the original, magoi, magi, we must not imagine that they were what we call magicians, or sorcerers; for the appellation was by no means appropriated in ancient times to such as practised wicked arts, but was frequently given to philosophers, or men of learning, particularly those that were curious in examining the works of nature, and observing the motions of the heavenly bodies. Came from the east — It is impossible to determine absolutely from what part of the East they came; although it is probable it was from Arabia, rather than Chaldea, for it lay east of Judea, and is mentioned by Tacitus as its boundary eastward, and certainly was famous for gold, frankincense, and myrrh, commodities which (see verse 11) they brought with them. Myrrh, according to Grotius, is not produced save in Arabia, where, if we may believe Pliny, it is found in such abundance, with other spices, that no other kinds of wood are in use, not even to make fires of, but such as are odoriferous. Neither is frankincense found save among the Sabæans, a part of Arabia. And as to gold, another commodity which they brought, this is well known to be produced in such great abundance in Arabia Felix, that the furniture of the whole nation shines with it. David and Solomon, to whom the promise of the land of Canaan was fully made good, extended their dominions over those countries, even to the Euphrates, and the inhabitants of them were chiefly the seed of Abraham. Now it is more likely that these first fruits of the Gentiles should be brought to do homage to the King of the Jews, from a country that had done as much to David and Solomon, the types of Christ, than from a foreign and more remote nation; and that they should be of the seed of Abraham rather than of another race. Add to this, that Arabia abounded with magi, and was anciently so famous for wisdom, that, according to Porphyry, Pythagoras himself travelled thither to acquire it. Nay, if we may credit the learned Dr. Alix, the Jews were of opinion that there were prophets in the kingdoms of Saba and Arabia, and that they prophesied or taught successively, in the name of God, what they had received by tradition from the mouth of Abraham, of whose posterity they were, by Keturah. In the Old Testament it is frequently called the East, as Judges 6:3; Job 1:3; whereas Chaldea lay not so properly to the east as to the north of Judea, and is often spoken of in Scripture in that light. See Jeremiah 1:14, 15; 6:22; Joel 2:20. Had these wise men been, as some have supposed, a deputation from all the magi in Persia, Media, Arabia, and Chaldea; or had they been kings, as the papists fancy; so grand a circumstance as either of these would, in all probability, have been expressly recorded. To Jerusalem — The capital of the kingdom, and the seat of learning. For it seems these wise men did not suppose that so illustrious a king would be born in an ignoble village, but that he must be sought for in the royal city, in the palace itself, and in the family which then reigned. It was, however, no doubt, by the divine providence that they were directed to Jerusalem, as well that the Jews might be left without excuse, as that the birth of Christ the King might be announced by the Gentiles before he was acknowledged by the Jews, lest the testimony of the Jews concerning their own King should come under suspicion.

Verse 1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as is illustrated in Micah 5:2. In the days of Herod the king, the son of Antipater, and father of Archelaus, who succeeded him on the throne. Herod, who was an Idumean, or an alien, is named here to indicate the time of our Saviour’s birth, and to show that the sceptre was departed from Judah, and from the Asmonæn family, who were often rulers, and honoured as descendants of David’s house.

Behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. Magi, philosophers, learned in astronomy, and in all the sciences as then taught in the schools. The word is Persic.

But Chalcidius, as cited by Clarius, a philosopher of the Platonic school, says, they were Chaldeans, who believed that the appearance of some new star did not indicate pestilence, and diseases; but the descent of some venerable god, on a mission of grace for the preservation of the human kind.

§ 13. — COMING OF THE MAGI, 1-10.

1. In Bethlehem of Judea — Called in the Old Testament Bethlehem-Judah, to distinguish it from Bethlehem of the tribe of Zebulun. The name Bethlehem anciently signified the town or house of bread; in modern Arabic it seems to signify the house or place of flesh.

Bethlehem was noted as the scene of the Book of Ruth; and at this day, as then, the fields of wheat abound, and the reaper is accustomed to leave a remnant for the gleaner, who is often a maiden like Ruth. It was still more noted as the birthplace of David, who here spent his boyhood, and from hunting the bear and the lion in the neighbouring caves and gorges, grew up to be a warrior against wicked men. But its chief note arises from its being the birthplace of David’s illustrious descendant, the Lord Jesus, whose birth the evangelist is now narrating.

Bethlehem is situated upon the summit of the hill country of Judea, from which it commands an extensive prospect eastward toward Jordan, and westward toward the Mediterranean. It is about six miles south of Jerusalem, on the road toward Hebron. It contains at the present time about 4,000 inhabitants, chiefly Christians of the Greek Church, who obtain much of their subsistence from the sale of relics to pilgrims and visitors. A cave is shown as the place in which the birth of the Saviour occurred. But there is little reason to suppose from the sacred narratives that the birthplace was a cave. The Church of the Nativity, which marks the traditional spot, is a venerable piece of architecture, built probably by the Empress Helena.

Judea — Palestine, as lying between the Mediterranean on the west, and Jordan, with its lakes or seas, upon the east, was divided into three provinces, Galilee, Samaria, and Judea. Of these three, Judea was the most southerly. It lay mainly between the Dead Sea and Mediterranean. The name Judea is derived from the patriarch Judah, to whose tribe a large share of the territory belonged. It is the scene of the most important events of old Jewish history. Most of our Saviour’s ministry transpired in Galilee. But points of intense interest in his ministry, as well as the solemn close of his earthly mission, took place at the celebrated capital of Judea, Jerusalem. The surface of Judea is distinguished into hill-country, valley, and plain. The mountain, or hill-country of Judea, was that broad back of mountains which cuts the centre of the country from Hebron northward to beyond Jerusalem. The plain was the low country extending toward the coast of the Mediterranean. The vale is defined as extending from Engedi to Jericho, and appears to have included such parts of the Ghor, or great plain of the Jordan, as lay within the territory of Judea. That which is called the wilderness of Judea was the wild and inhospitable region lying eastward of Jerusalem, in the direction of the Jordan and Dead Sea.

Herod the king — In our note on Matthew 1:17, we slightly traced the history of the last fourteen generations of the Jewish nation to the time of Herod, called, or rather miscalled the Great, in the closing part of whose reign the Messiah was born. This Herod was the son of Antipater, a distinguished Idumean general, who, by his own bravery and the favour of the Romans, had obtained supreme power over his native Idumea, and great authority in Judea. At the early age of fifteen, Herod was placed in command in Galilee, where he distinguished himself by his bravery, talent, and personal popularity. By these same qualities and the favour of the Romans he became king of Judea, a term which embraced all Palestine. As he advanced in age he became suspicious, cruel, and extremely bloodthirsty. He put to death his beautiful wife, the celebrated Mariamne, the illustrious descendant of the line of Maccabean princes. His two sons also by Mariamne, the innocent and accomplished favourites of the nation, he sent to execution. His last son, Antipater, he ordered to be slain five days before his own death. As he saw his end approaching, he ordered a large number of the most illustrious citizens to be executed as soon as he had breathed his last, in order, as he said, that there might be mourning at his death. But the commands of a dead tyrant possess little authority, and this ferocious order was never executed. Amid the wholesale murders committed by this bloody despot, the slaughter of a few infants in Bethlehem would be but a drop in the ocean, too slight for general history to mention.

Herod married ten wives, by five of whom there was posterity, including persons mentioned in the New Testament. The careless reader finds the name of Herod repeated in the Scriptures, and is apt to imagine that it is always the same person. He forgets that the first Herod died during the infancy of Jesus. The following diagram will show, so far as is necessary for our purpose, how they were connected with Herod the Great, and with each other:

Wise men — In the original, Magi. The Magi, according to the best accounts, were, in a very early antiquity, a tribe among the ancient Medes, similar to the Levites among the Hebrews. That is, they were a priestly tribe, or learned class in the nation. The word is derived by some from the old Pehlvic term mog, which signifies priest. The word probably forms the root of our words magnates, magistrate, master, and even mister. It is found in the Latin, magnus, and the Greek, megav. After the union of the Median and Persian empire, the Magian class obtained great ascendancy in Persia. Subsequently they appear in great power in Babylon. The chief Magian is mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3, under the title of Rab-Mag. The prophet Daniel probably filled the office of chief Magian in his day. It may be thence inferred that the true religion, with greater or less purity, may have existed with at least a part of this class. Hence we need not wonder that from this class there should come a number to Jerusalem, under divine inspiration and guidance, to seek the new-born Messiah.

After the time of Christ, Magianism, like the religions of Greece and Rome, waned and sunk into discredit. In this condition of decay we find Simon Magus, or Simon the Magian. From the word Magi is derived the word magic; and thus in process of time this illustrious class sunk to the rank of magicians, sorcerers, and wandering fortune-tellers. Their mode of divination was by astrology, dream interpretation, and soothsaying with cups. The books of sorcery burned at Ephesus by the converted Christians, as related in the Acts of the Apostles, doubtless contained the false science of these pretenders.

From the east — It is very probable that Matthew was not informed from what particular country the Magi came. The event was early in the history of our Lord, and great as was the excitement produced by their coming, the common people would but vaguely know from what region in the East they came; and when the transaction passed off, and seemed to come to nothing, it would be very much forgotten. The Jewish writers use the phrase the East very extensively and vaguely. Thus, “unto the sons of the concubines which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.” Genesis 25:6. Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country. It seems probable that the wise men came from Persia. the primitive land of the Magi. We know that the Persian Magi believed in a Messiah or future Saviour, (whom they called Sosiosch,) who should in the latter day appear and renew the world in righteousness. These views they may have directly derived from the primitive promise in Eden by their own tradition; or they may have had original revelations from God; or they may have learned much from the Jews in the captivity. Who knows how much of a real, acceptable faith and piety there was among them?

Jerusalem — This is the first occurrence of the name of the Holy City in the New Testament. Jerusalem is not only one of the most celebrated, but one of the most ancient cities in the world. It is first mentioned in Genesis, under the name of Salem, with Melchisedek for its king, a type of the future Messiah. It was to this same spot that Abraham brought Isaac to be sacrificed, namely, upon the very mountain where Christ, the antitype of Isaac, was sacrificed ages afterward. When the land of Canaan was invaded under Joshua, the Jebusites held possession of Mount Zion in spite of every effort to dislodge them. David, however, at a later time, conquered Mount Zion from the Jebusites, and it became the City of David, the place of his palace, the abode of the Tabernacle, the capital of the monarchy. From that time it underwent the various fortunes of the Jewish state until the time of Christ. Here Christ was nationally rejected, and, according to prophecy, was put to death. About forty years afterward the city was taken after one of the severest struggles in history; the inhabitants were slaughtered, and the city destroyed. The Jewish state was overthrown; the sacrifices were abolished; the tribes were scattered, and still remain in dispersion among the various nations of the world. But, though scattered, they are not destroyed. Like the bush of Moses, they are burned, but not consumed. Other nations rise and perish, but Israel seems indestructible. He is reserved through ages, for purposes known to God alone.

1 The wise men out of the east are directed to Christ by a star. 11 They worship him, and offer their presents. 14 Joseph fleeth into Egypt, with Jesus and his mother. 16 Herod slayeth the children: 20 Himself dieth. 23 Christ is brought back again into Galilee to Nazareth.

CHAPTER 2. Verse 1. Bethlehem of Judea, &c. — About six miles from Jerusalem, and so called to distinguish it from another Bethlehem, in the tribe of Zebulon.

In the days of Herod the king. — The mention of Herod renders it necessary to connect his history with that of the Jews after their return from captivity in Babylon. This took place five hundred and thirty-five years before the birth of Christ. The Jews continued under the protection of the kings of Persia for two hundred years; in the early part of which period they were ruled by governors of their own nation, appointed by the Persian court; and in the latter the high priests were deputed to that office. The Persian empire was subverted by Alexander the Great, on whose death the Seleucidæ reigned in Syria, and the Ptolemies in Egypt. The provinces of Cœlo-Syria and Palestine were wrested from the Ptolemies by Antiochus the Great, king of Syria. His son, Antiochus Epiphanes, conquered Egypt, and then made a furious attack upon the Jews, 170 years before Christ, plundered Jerusalem, polluted the temple, destroyed forty thousand of the inhabitants, and a short time afterward renewed his atrocities, and, being a bitter persecuting pagan, he abolished, as far as he was able, the worship of God, and consecrated the temple to Jupiter Olympus. These acts of outrage and cruelty called forth the pious patriotism of the celebrated family of the Maccabees, who, after the most severe and noble struggles, in which they were well supported by the devoted heroism of the Jews, succeeded in expelling the Syrians. This was the rise of the Asmonean family, as the Maccabees were also called, from an ancestor of the name of Asmoneus; and Judas Maccabæus, who united the high priesthood with the supreme government, formed an alliance with the Romans, the better to defend the new commonwealth which his valour had founded. The successors of Judas were Jonathan, Simon, John Hyrcanus, who subdued the Idumæans, Aristobulus, who assumed the title of king, Alexander Janæus, Alexandra his widow, Aristobulus the younger son, deposed by Pompey, who restored Hyrcanus the elder son, but forbade the use of the diadem, and made the nation tributary to the Romans. The prime minister of this Hyrcanus, the last of the Asmonean family, was Antipater, an Idumæan or Edomite, who, having ingratiated himself with the Romans, obtained from them for his son Herod, afterward called the Great, the government of Galilee; and Herod having married Mariamne, the granddaughter of Hyrcanus, with much opposition and violence, and by the favour of Mark Antony, took possession of the kingdom of Judea, and reigned thirty-four years. He died within two years after the real time of the birth of Christ, and soon after the slaughter of the innocents at Bethlehem. The distribution of his kingdom by his will was confirmed by Augustus Cesar. Archelaus had Judea; Herod Antipas the tetrarchy of Iturea and Trachonitis. Herod Philip appears to have been left in a private station. The names of these princes appear in the gospels. Archelaus was reigning when Joseph and Mary returned from Egypt. Herod Antipas the tetrarch, or, by courtesy, the king of Galilee, is several times mentioned, Matthew 14:1, 3, 6; Mark 6:14; Luke 3:1, 19; and to him our Lord was sent by Pilate. Philip is mentioned Luke 3:1. Herodias was the wife of Herod Philip, and was married to Herod Antipas during the lifetime of her husband; which proved the occasion of the murder of John the Baptist, Matthew 14:3-10. The Herod Agrippa mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles was a grandson of Herod the Great, and brother of Herodias. The Emperor Caligula made him tetrarch of Trachonitis and Abilene, to which Claudius added the kingdom of Judea. He it was that put James the apostle to death, Acts 12:1, 2; and was mortally smitten of God, in the height of his pride, at Cesarea, Acts 12:20. On his death, a Roman governor was again appointed to Judea. His son, Agrippa the second, succeeded to the tetrarchies of Trachonitis and Abilene. Before this Agrippa St. Paul delivered his reasons for becoming a Christian.

Wise men from the east. — Magoi apo anatolwn, magi from the east; which word, as being descriptive of a certain class of eastern sages, ought to have been retained in the translation. It was the title given by the ancient Persians to their philosophers. They chiefly cultivated theology and politics according to Aristotle; but Philo describes them also as diligent inquirers into nature, and given up to contemplation. They anciently admitted the dualistic system, or the doctrine of two principles, one the author of good, the other of evil, which were represented by light and darkness. They abhorred images, but adored fire as emblematical of the beneficent Deity. Many of them, or of those who passed under that name, were greatly addicted also to astrology and divination. During the captivity of the Jews in Babylon, the Persian sages who came into that country with Cyrus probably became acquainted with the sacred books of the Hebrews, and, under the influence of Zoroaster, it is supposed that the Magian religion was greatly reformed, and brought nearer to the Jewish. The Zendavesta, their sacred book, is full of passages from the writings of Moses. The term magi was, however, at length generally used, not only in Persia, but in Chaldea, Armenia, Arabia, and different parts of Asia, to distinguish philosophers; and their religious system, no doubt, greatly varied in all these countries, and at different periods. Attempts have been made to fix the country from which the magi mentioned in the text came, from the kind of gifts they presented; but this affords no satisfactory illustration, as the precious gums, though natives of Arabia, were used throughout the east, as presents of honour to distinguished personages. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, think that they came from Arabia, which is called “the east,” in Judges 6:3; Job 1:3; whereas Chaldea, the country assigned to them by others is somewhat to the north of Judea. Of whatever country they were, they are injured by being supposed to be astrologers. They were manifestly holy men and worshippers of the true God, and favoured with special revelations from him. That the east was celebrated for wisdom in ancient times, appears from Solomon’s wisdom being said to excel “the wisdom of the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt,” 1 Kings 4:30.

V. 2. To do him homage-To pay him that honour, by bowing to the earth before him, which the eastern nations used to pay to their monarchs.

Verse 2. We have seen his star] Having discovered an unusual luminous appearance or meteor in the heavens, supposing these persons to have been Jews, and knowing the prophecies relative to the redemption of Israel, they probably considered this to be the star mentioned by Balaam, Numbers 24:17. See the note there.

In the east] en th anatolh, At its rise. anatolh and dushn are used in the New Testament for east and west.

To worship him.] Or, To do him homage; proskunhsai autw. The word proskunew, which is compounded of prov, to, and kuwn, a dog, signifies to crouch and fawn like a dog at his master’s feet. It means, to prostrate oneself to another, according to the eastern custom, which is still in use. In this act, the person kneels, and puts his head between his knees, his forehead at the same time touching the ground. It was used to express both civil and religious reverence. In Hindostan, religious homage is paid by prostrating the body at full length, so that the two knees, the two hands, forehead, nose, and cheeks all touch the earth at the same time. This kind of homage is paid also to great men. AYEEN AKBERY, vol. iii. p. 227. As to what is here called a star, some make it a meteor, others a luminous appearance like an Aurora Borealis; others a comet! There is no doubt, the appearance was very striking: but it seems to have been a simple meteor provided for the occasion. See Clarke on “Matthew 2:9”.

Verse 2. Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews — That is, their lawful and hereditary sovereign, Herod not being such. The wise men are under no kind of doubts in their inquiry; but being fully persuaded that he was born, and believing that this was known to all there, they only inquire where he was born. By this inquiry the birth of Christ was more publicly declared to the Jews, and more fully attested; the coming of these grave and understanding persons from a distant country in consequence of what they believed to be supernatural direction, being a very extraordinary occurrence. It is to be observed, that, according to Tacitus and Suetonius, historians of undoubted credit, it was expected through the whole East that about that time a king was to arise in Judea who should rule all the world. What gave birth to that expectation might be this: From the time of the Babylonish captivity, the Jews were dispersed through all the provinces of the Persian monarchy: and that in such numbers, that they were able to gather together and defend themselves against their enemies in those provinces. See Esther 3:8; 8:17; 9:2, 16; and many of the people of the land became Jews. After their return into their own land they increased so mightily that they were soon dispersed over Asia, Africa, and many parts of Europe, and, as Josephus assures us, wherever they came they made proselytes to their religion. Now it was one principal article of their faith, and branch of their religion, to believe in and expect the appearance of the promised Messiah. Wherever they came, therefore, they would spread this faith and expectation; so that it is no wonder it became so general. Now these wise men, living at no very great distance from Judea, the seat of this prophecy, and conversing with the Jews among them, who were everywhere expecting the completion of it at that time; being also skilled in astronomy, and seeing this star or light appearing in Judea, might reasonably conjecture that it signified the completion of that celebrated prophecy touching the king of the Jews, over the centre of whose land, they, being in the east, saw it hang. For it is not at all probable that this star appeared to the eastward of them, in which case it would have denoted something among the Indians, or other eastern nations, rather than among the Jews; but that it was seen to the west of themselves, and over the very place where the king was to be born.

We have seen his star — Which points him out, and is the token of his nativity. These wise men, learned in astronomy, and curious in marking the rising and setting and other phenomena of the heavenly bodies, observed at this time a star which they had never seen before, and were amazed at it as at a new, portentous appearance which did certainly forebode something of great consequence to the world, and the Jews in particular, over whose country it seemed to hang. But how could they know that this was his star, or that it signified the birth of a king? Many of the ancient fathers answer, that they learned this from the words of Balaam, Numbers 24:17, There shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre, &c. And though, it is certain, these words properly speak not of a star that should arise at any prince’s birth, but of a king who should be glorious and resplendent in his dominions, as stars are in the firmament, and should vanquish and possess these nations; yet considering that, according to the hieroglyphics of the East, and the figurative language of prophecy, stars are emblems of princes, it was very natural for them to consider the rising of a new star as foretelling the rise of a new king. And as Balaam’s prophecy signified that the king should arise in Judea, and the new and extraordinary star they had seen appeared over that country, it was quite natural for them to conclude, that the king whose rise was foretold, was now born there. And though we know of no record in which this prophecy was preserved but the books of Moses, yet are we not sure there was no other; nor is it certain the books of Moses were unknown in Arabia. It seems more probable, considering its bordering upon Judea, and David and Solomon’s extending their dominions over, at least, a part of it, as well as from the intercourse the Arabians had with the Jews, certainly greater than the Ethiopians had with them, to whom, nevertheless, it appears from Acts 8:26, &c. that the Old Testament was not unknown; it seems likely, from these considerations, that they were not unacquainted with the divine Oracles, and particularly with this delivered by one of their own country. But if, after all, this should seem improbable, then we need make no scruple at all of believing that they were favoured by a divine revelation touching this matter, by which it is plain they were guided in their return. To worship him — Or to do him homage by prostrating ourselves before him, an honour which the Eastern nations were accustomed to pay their monarchs.

Ver. 2. Where is he that is born king of the jews. This roused Herod’s fears. He said in himself, this infant king will excite great wars, seize my crown, and drive my family from the throne. Under these impressions he had recourse to unexampled crimes, instead of seeking defence from the Lord.

We have seen his star in the east. Balaam had said a star shall come out of Jacob. The Romans had an adage to the same effect. Ecce Dionæi processit Cæsasaris astrum. This star is thought to be a collection of light in the heavens which for two years hovered in the higher region of the air, and could be seen at the Euphrates. It illuminated all the country on the night of our Saviour’s birth. Luke 2:9.

2. King of the Jews — If these Magi were indeed Gentiles, they were fully indoctrinated into the understanding that the future Saviour was to be a Jew, and a king of the Jews. They came in quest of a Jewish Messiah. Have seen his star in the east — A close inspection of the words will, perhaps, disperse some gratuitous impressions: 1. The star did not stand over Jerusalem. Otherwise it would have been as visible to the Jews as to them; and they would not have said, “We have seen his star in the east;” that is, we in the east saw his star; but they would have said, “Yonder is his star in the firmament.” The star very plainly was not at that moment visible to the Magi, and for that reason they were inquiring his place. 2. There is no proof that the star guided them on their way from their own country to Jerusalem. At Jerusalem they only affirm that they saw his star when they were in the east, before they started; not that they were guided on the way, or see it now. 3. It is plain that this star is no ordinary member of the firmament. It is his star, and not a star that existed independently of him. Now we are not informed how they learned the star was his. At any rate, some divine revelation must have been given with the star. The angels who appeared to the shepherds explained themselves verbally; the Divine giver of his star no doubt explained it by words, or by prophetic impulse, to be his.

And now what was the star? To this some have answered that it was a conjunction of planets, which astronomy shows to have taken place at that time; and which, to the eye, would appear as one very luminous star. The Magi saw this, and, influenced by the expectation derived from prophecy, then widely existing through the East, that Messiah was soon to be born, they started for Jerusalem to make inquiry. No commentator states this theory more plausibly than Alford. But it fails to meet the facts. How could such a star reappear (see comment on ver. 9, 10) on their way toward Bethlehem, go before them, and indicate the very “house” (ver. 11) where the young child was?

There is then left us but one plain view of this star. It was a luminous orb, divinely and specially given, and divinely explained, as a signal of the Saviour’s birth. It is called a star from its visible form. Just as the angels are called men, because they were men by form though not by nature, so this orb is called a star, because though not so by nature, it is by form. The submission of the Jews to Jesus was typified by the shepherds; the submission of the Gentiles by the Magi. The former were informed by angels; the latter by a star.

This was perhaps the star seen in prophetic vision by the Gentile Balaam, as being far distant from himself in time: “I shall see him, but not now; I shall behold him, but not nigh; there shall come a STAR out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel.” Numbers 24:17. And by the coming of the Magi was fulfiled in type, “the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.” Isaiah 60:3. These Magi were as the ambassadors of the Gentile nations. To worship him — As king and Saviour.

Verse 2. His star in the east. — Many conjectures have been offered as to this appearance; as, that it was the glory of the Shechinah; the Holy Spirit; an angel; a new star in the heavens; or a comet. It appears to have been a meteor, bearing the appearance of a bright star, and was manifestly supernatural, and connected as to its import with some revelation shade to them of the birth of the Messiah. How otherwise should it have guided them to the very house where “the young child was?” and how, without a revelation, should they have known its significancy as indicating the birth of “the king of the Jews?” The sign was, however, appropriate, as among the ancients the appearance of a star was considered the forerunner of the birth of great princes. By them, also, bright meteors, having a stellar appearance, were denominated stars. So Homer uses the word astera in Illiad D 75, and Virgil stella, Æneid. 2. 693.

Verse 3. When Herod-heard these things, he was troubled] Herod’s consternation was probably occasioned by the agreement of the account of the magi, with an opinion predominant throughout the east, and particularly in Judea, that some great personage would soon make his appearance, for the deliverance of Israel from their enemies; and would take upon himself universal empire.

SUETONIUS and TACITUS, two Roman historians, mention this. Their words are very remarkable:-

Percrebuerat Oriente toto, vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo tempore Judaea profecti rerum potirentur. Id de imperatare Romano, quantum eventu postea predictum patuit, Judaei ad se trahentes, rebellarunt. SUETON. VESP.

“An ancient and settled persuasion prevailed throughout the east, that the fates had decreed some to proceed from Judea, who should attain universal empire. This persuasion, which the event proved to respect the Roman emperor, the Jews applied to themselves, and therefore rebelled.”

The words of Tacitus are nearly similar:-

Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret Oriens, profectique Judæa rerum potirentur. Quæ ambages Vespasianum ac Titum prædixerant. “Many were persuaded, that it was contained in the ancient books of their priests, that at that very time the east should prevail: and that some should proceed from Judea and possess the dominion. It was Vespasian and Titus that these ambiguous prophecies predicted.” Histor. v.

Verse 3. When Herod heard, &c. — he was troubled — Or, alarmed, as Dr. Waterland renders etaracqh. The word properly signifies a great emotion of mind, whatever the cause thereof be. Being a prince of a very suspicious temper, and his cruelties having rendered him obnoxious to his subjects, he feared losing his kingdom, especially as he had taken Jerusalem by force, and was settled on his throne by the aid of the Romans. Hence it is no wonder that he was concerned to hear of the birth of one that was to be king, and especially to have such an extraordinary confirmation of it, as that of persons coming from a far country, directed by an extraordinary impulse upon the sight of a new star, which pointed to Judea as the seat of his empire. And all Jerusalem with him — Fearing he should make it an occasion of renewing some of those tyrannical actions which had lately filled them with so much horror, as is related at large by Josephus. They dreaded likewise, it seems, a change of government, as knowing it does not usually happen without bloodshed, and that the Romans had great power, and would oppose any change in their affairs.

3. Herod… was troubled — It was a bold and alarming question put by these new comers. It would have been treason to the reigning king if there were not some superhuman authority in it. No wonder the reigning house is troubled by the rise of another king, armed with an omnipotent authority! All Jerusalem — It was strange that while the Messiah was born not six miles off, Jerusalem gets her first news from strangers coming from, perhaps, a thousand miles distance! And no wonder the city is excited through all its depths.

Verse 3. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled. — Herod was not only by nature a suspicious man, but he knew that he was abhorred of the Jews as a foreigner; and was therefore moved with strong apprehension lest this recently born child, thus publicly announced as the king of the Jews and the heir of David’s throne, should excite a sedition which might deprive him of his kingdom. And all Jerusalem with him, as knowing his fierce and cruel temper, and fearing that his rage might break forth as it had done on several former occasions, in acts of indiscriminate cruelty.

The chief priests and scribes. — He convenes a solemn assembly of the chief priests, including the high priest, his deputy, and the heads of the twenty-four courses of priests. The Hebrew word for scribe, rps, is derived from a root which signifies to number, from which probably comes our word cypher. The rendering in Greek is grammateuv, from gramma, a letter so that the scribes were employed in writings, numbers, accounts, and in transcribing and interpreting the books of the law; and the word is used both for those who were employed about any kind of civil writings or records, or those whose business it was to transcribe, study, and explain the Scriptures. The scribes mentioned in the New Testament were all of the latter class, and are the same as the nomikoi, “lawyers,” sometimes also mentioned. They were students and teachers of the law, and were particularly skilled in the traditions which at that time were held in such reverence. (See note on Matthew 5:20.) The assembly convened by Herod was therefore one of the greatest authority; and Divine Providence so ordered it, that they should give the opinion of the Jewish Church as to the sense of that important prophecy in Micah, which they adduce in answer to Herod’s inquiry, where the Christ should be born. It follows from Herod’s question and the answer of the council, that it was at that time received among the Jews, that the Christ should not make his appearance among them by a descent from heaven, but be born of woman; which they were probably led the more fully to expect, from the prophecy of Isaiah above noticed.

V. 4. The chief priests-That is, not only the high priest and his deputy, with those who formerly had borne that office: but also the chief man in each of those twenty-four courses, into which the body of priests were divided, 1 Chronicles 24:6-19. The scribes were those whose peculiar business it was to explain the Scriptures to the people. They were the public preachers, or expounders of the law of Moses. Whence the chief of them were called doctors of the law.

Verse 4. The chief priests] Not only the high priest for the time being, called הראש כהנ cohen ha-rosh, 2 Kings 25:18, and his deputy, called hnvm כהנ cohen mishneh, with those who had formerly borne the high priest’s office; but also, the chiefs or heads of the twenty four sacerdotal families, which David distributed into so many courses, 1 Chronicles 24. These latter are styled הכהנים yrc sarey ha-cohanim, chief of the priests, 2 Chronicles 36:14; Ezra 8:24; and הכהנים ראשי roshey ha-cohanim, heads of the priests, Nehemiah 12:7. Josephus calls them by the same name as the writers of the New Testament. In his Life, sect. 8, he mentions pollouv&twn arcierewn, MANY of the chief priests. The word is used in the singular in this last sense, for a chief of the priests, Acts 19:14.

Scribes] The word grammateuv, in the Septuagint, is used for a political officer, whose business it was to assist kings and civil magistrates, and to keep an account in writing of public acts and occurrences. Such an officer is called in Hebrew Ëlmh rps seper hamelech, o grammateuv tou basilewv, the king’s scribe, or secretary. See LXX. 2 Kings 12:10. The word is often used by the LXX. for a man of learning, especially for one skilled in the Mosaic law: and, in the same sense, it is used by the New Testament writers. grammateuv is therefore to be understood as always implying a man of letters, or learning, capable of instructing the people. The derivation of the names proves this to be the genuine meaning of the word gramma: a letter, or character, in writing: or grammata, letters, learning, erudition, and especially that gained from books. The Hebrew rpc or rpwc sopher, from saphar, to tell, count, cypher, signifies both a book, volume, roll, &c., and a notary, recorder, or historian; and always signifies a man of learning. We often term such a person a man of letters. The word is used Acts 19:35, for a civil magistrate at Ephesus, probably such a one as we would term recorder. It appears that Herod at this time gathered the whole Sanhedrin, in order to get the fullest information on a subject by which all his jealous fears had been alarmed.

Verse 4. And when he had gathered all the chief priests — This expression must be intended to comprehend not only the high priest for the time being, and his deputy, with those who had formerly borne that office, but also the heads of the twenty-four courses, as well as any other persons of peculiar eminence in the priesthood, in which sense Josephus uses the word, Antiq. lib. 20. cap. 8. (al. 6,) § 8, p. 973. The scribes of the people — It would seem, from Ezra 7:11, 12; 1 Chronicles 24:6; 2 Chronicles 34:13, that they were of the tribe of Levi only, and so were either priests or Levites. As their office was to transcribe and prepare fair copies of the law of Moses, and other parts of the Old Testament, (a very necessary work before printing was invented,) they became, of course, well acquainted with the Scriptures, and were ordinarily employed in explaining them to the people: whence the chief of them were called doctors of the law. They, or at least some of them, together with the chief priests and elders, constituted the sanhedrim, or great council of the nation. But in this place, when no public business was to be done, but only the predictions of the ancient prophets were to be searched into by those who were thought to excel others in the knowledge of them, it does not appear that any fixed and legal council was summoned; but only that an extraordinary meeting of learned men was called by the king, that they might judge of the question of the wise men. He demanded of them where Christ, i.e, the promised Messiah, was to be born. The wise men had said nothing about Christ, or the Messiah, but only about a king, or, the king of the Jews. But Herod presently conceived that this king of the Jews that was born must be the Messiah promised Psalm 2.; Daniel 9.; and therefore desired to know of them the place of his birth, according to their received traditions, and sense of the prophecies of Scripture. But it is to be well observed, that we must understand Herod as inquiring, not concerning an event considered by him as already come to pass, but concerning a matter yet future and uncertain. For although he understood from the wise men that the birth of the Messiah had even now taken place, yet he concealed his knowledge of this, and his whole design, from the Jews. It is easy to observe how strongly all this story implies that a general expectation of the Messiah now prevailed: and it is plain Herod, in a sense, both believed the Jewish Scriptures, and that the birth of the Messiah was foretold in them. And yet, which discovered the height of madness, as well as of impiety and cruelty, he was contriving to destroy him! to destroy him whose birth, and reign, and glory, God in his word, he believed, had infallibly foretold!

4. All the chief priests and scribes — The deep alarm of Herod is manifested by the greatness of the convocation he calls. The chief priest was properly but one; but the title is extended to include his deputy and the heads of the twenty-four courses. Scribes — The word scribe signifies a writer, and was originally used to designate one of the class in the tribe of Levi who performed the office of secretary, recorder, roll-keeper, or transcriber. Seraiah was scribe or secretary to King David. 2 Samuel 8:17. Elihoreph and Ahiah were secretaries to King Solomon. 1 Kings 4:3. Under Uzziah, king of Judah, Jeil, the scribe, kept the muster-roll of the army. 2 Chronicles 26:11. So Ezra was a ready scribe in the law of Moses. Ezra 7:6.

The scribes of the New Testament belonged to the class of which Ezra was the model. They were transcribers of the text of the Mosaic law, and students and doctors of its principles. They were the same as the lawyers. A select number of these scribes, as well as of the Pharisees, was associated with the high priests to constitute the Sanhedrim, or supreme legislative body of the Jewish nation.

Where Christ should be born — By Christ here is meant not a proper name, but a title — the Christ or the Messiah. See note on Matthew 1:1. It is a profound, theological question, therefore, which King Herod puts to his spiritual advisers: Where, according to the prophecies of the Old Testament, is the Messiah to be born? In the answer then given by this illustrious body, we have the decision of the Jewish nation on this point. Hence Tacitus, the celebrated Pagan historian, says: “With the masses the opinion was prevalent that it was predicted IN THE BOOKS OF THE PRIESTS, that the East should at that time grow strong.” Which Suetonius, another Pagan Roman, confirms and makes even more pointed: “Through all the East there prevailed an ancient and constant opinion that it was contained in the fates that at that time those arising from Judea should become masters of human things.”

These testimonies prove, 1. That the expectations of an arising prodigy from Judea were then prevailing through the East. 2. That these expectations were founded on prophecy in the sacred books. 3. That the time for his coming was believed to be nigh at hand, the prophetic period being about accomplished. Finally, Herod, through his great Sanhedrim, has immediate access to these very sacred books which predict the very village where the Christ was to be born; just where our Jesus was born, in Bethlehem of Judea.

As a singular illustration of this whole subject, we quote the following: “So vivid was their (the Chinese’s) expectation of the Messiah — ‘the Great Saint who,’ as Confucius says, ‘was to appear in the West’ — so fully sensible were they not only of the place of his birth, but of the TIME of his coming, that about sixty years after the birth of our Saviour they sent their envoys to hail the expected Redeemer. These envoys encountered on their way the missionaries of Boodhism coming from India — the latter announcing an incarnate God were taken to be the disciples of the true Christ, and were presented as such to their countrymen by the deluded ambassadors. Thus was this religion introduced into China.” (Schlegel’s Philosophy of History, 1:176.)

Verse 5. In Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the prophet] As there have been several confused notions among the Jews, relative not only to the Messiah, and his character, but also to the time of his birth, it may be necessary to add, to what has already been said on this subject, the following extracts from the Talmudists and Gemarists, quoted by LIGHTFOOT. At the close of a long dissertation on the year of our Lord’s birth, (which he places in the 35th of the reign of Herod, not the last or 37th as above,) he says: “It will not be improper here to produce the Gemarists themselves openly confessing that the Messias had been born, a good while ago before their times. For so they write: After this the children of Israel shall be converted, and shall inquire after the Lord their God, and David their king: Hosea 3:5. Our rabbins say, That is King Messias, If he be among the living, his name is David, or if dead, David is his name. R. Tanchum said, Thus I prove it: He showeth mercy to David his Messiah. (Psalm 18:50.) R. Joshua ben Levi saith, His name is jmx tsemach, a Branch. (Zechariah 3:8.) R. Juban bar Arbu saith, His name is Menahem. (That is, paraklhtov, the Comforter.) ‘And that which happened to a certain Jew, as he was ploughing, agreeth with this business. A certain Arabian travelling, and hearing the ox bellow, said to the Jew at plough, O Jew, loose thy oxen, and loose thy ploughs, for behold! The temple is laid waste. The ox belloweth the second time; the Arabian saith to him, O Jew, Jew, yoke thy oxen, and fit thy ploughs: ajyvm aklm ryly ahw For behold! King Messiah is born. But, saith the Jew, What is his name? Menahem, saith he (i.e. the Comforter.) And what is the name of his Father? Hezekiah, saith the Arabian. To whom the Jew, But whence is He? The other answered, From the palace of the king of Bethlehem Judah. Away he went, and sold his oxen and his ploughs, and became a seller of infants’ swaddling clothes, going about from town to town. When he came to that city, (Bethlehem,) all the women bought of him, but the mother of Menahem bought nothing. He heard the voice of the women saying, O thou mother of Menahem, thou mother of Menahem, carry thy son the things that are here sold. But she replied, May the enemies of Israel be strangled, because on the day that he was born, the temple was laid waste. To whom he said, But we hoped, that as it was laid waste at his feet, so at his feet it would be built again. She saith, I have no money. To whom he replied, But why should this be prejudicial to him? Carry him what you buy here, and if you have no money today, after some days I will come back and receive it. After some days, he returned to that city, and saith to her, How does the little infant? And she said, From the time you saw me last, spirits and tempests came, and snatched him away out of my hands. R. Bon saith, What need have we to learn from an Arabian? Is it not plainly written, And Lebanon shall fall before the powerful one? (Isaiah 10:34.) And what follows after? A branch shall come out of the root of Jesse. (Isaiah 11:1.)

“The Babylonian doctors yield us a confession not very unlike the former. R. Charinah saith: After four hundred years are passed from the destruction of the temple, if any one shall say to you, Take to thyself for one penny a field worth a thousand pence, do not take it. And again, After four thousand two hundred thirty and one years from the creation of the world, if any shall say to you, Take for a penny a field worth a thousand pence, take it not. The gloss is, For that is the time of redemption, and you shall be brought back to the holy mountain, to the inheritance of your fathers; why, therefore, should you misspend your penny?

“You may fetch the reason of this calculation, if you have leisure, out of the tract Sanhedrin. The tradition of the school of Elias, the world is to last six thousand years, &c. And a little after, Elias said to Rabh Judah, The world shall last not less than eighty-five jubilees: and in the last jubilee shall the Son of David come. He saith to him, Whether in the beginning of it, or in the end? He answered him, I know not. Whether is this whole time to be finished first, or not? He answered him, I know not. But Rabh Asher asserted, that he answered thus, Until then, expect him not, but from thence expect him. Hear your own countrymen, O Jew! How many centuries of years are passed by and gone from the eighty-fifth jubilee of the world, that is, the year MMMMCCL, and yet the Messias of your expectation is not yet come!

“Daniel’s weeks had so clearly defined the time of the true Messias, his coming, that the minds of the whole nation were raised into the expectation of him. Hence, it was doubted of the Baptist, whether he were not the Messias, Luke 3:15. Hence it was, that the Jews are gathered together from all countries unto Jerusalem, Acts 2:, expecting and coming to see, because at that time the term of revealing the Messias, that had been prefixed by Daniel, was come. Hence it was that there was so great a number of false Christs, Matthew 24:5, &c., taking the occasion of their impostures hence, that now the time of that great expectation was at hand, and fulfilled: and in one word, They thought the kingdom of God should presently appear, Luke 19:11.

“But when those times of expectation were past, nor did such a Messias appear as they expected, (for when they saw the true Messias, they would not see him,) they first broke out into various, and those wild, conjectures of the time; and at length, all those conjectures coming to nothing, all ended in this curse (the just cause of their eternal blindness) רותנ הפת ˆyxq ykvtm lv, May their soul be confounded who compute the times!” They were fully aware that the time foretold by the prophets must be long since fulfilled; and that their obstinacy must be confounded by their own history, and the chronology of their own Scriptures; and therefore they have pronounced an anathema on those who shall attempt to examine, by chronological computations, the prophecies that predict his coming. Who can conceive a state of wilful blindness or determined obstinacy superior to this!

Ver. 5. In Bethlehem of Judea. Micah had foretold that the great Shepherd should be born there, who should rule and feed his flock; and his office is copiously described in Zechariah 11. Ezekiel 34. and John 10. St. Matthew uses the word rule, which agrees with Zechariah’s staves of beauty and bands. This Shepherd had power to break the covenant with Israel, which none of the kings of Judah ever had.

§ 13. — COMING OF THE MAGI, 1-10.

1. In Bethlehem of Judea — Called in the Old Testament Bethlehem-Judah, to distinguish it from Bethlehem of the tribe of Zebulun. The name Bethlehem anciently signified the town or house of bread; in modern Arabic it seems to signify the house or place of flesh.

Bethlehem was noted as the scene of the Book of Ruth; and at this day, as then, the fields of wheat abound, and the reaper is accustomed to leave a remnant for the gleaner, who is often a maiden like Ruth. It was still more noted as the birthplace of David, who here spent his boyhood, and from hunting the bear and the lion in the neighbouring caves and gorges, grew up to be a warrior against wicked men. But its chief note arises from its being the birthplace of David’s illustrious descendant, the Lord Jesus, whose birth the evangelist is now narrating.

Bethlehem is situated upon the summit of the hill country of Judea, from which it commands an extensive prospect eastward toward Jordan, and westward toward the Mediterranean. It is about six miles south of Jerusalem, on the road toward Hebron. It contains at the present time about 4,000 inhabitants, chiefly Christians of the Greek Church, who obtain much of their subsistence from the sale of relics to pilgrims and visitors. A cave is shown as the place in which the birth of the Saviour occurred. But there is little reason to suppose from the sacred narratives that the birthplace was a cave. The Church of the Nativity, which marks the traditional spot, is a venerable piece of architecture, built probably by the Empress Helena.

Judea — Palestine, as lying between the Mediterranean on the west, and Jordan, with its lakes or seas, upon the east, was divided into three provinces, Galilee, Samaria, and Judea. Of these three, Judea was the most southerly. It lay mainly between the Dead Sea and Mediterranean. The name Judea is derived from the patriarch Judah, to whose tribe a large share of the territory belonged. It is the scene of the most important events of old Jewish history. Most of our Saviour’s ministry transpired in Galilee. But points of intense interest in his ministry, as well as the solemn close of his earthly mission, took place at the celebrated capital of Judea, Jerusalem. The surface of Judea is distinguished into hill-country, valley, and plain. The mountain, or hill-country of Judea, was that broad back of mountains which cuts the centre of the country from Hebron northward to beyond Jerusalem. The plain was the low country extending toward the coast of the Mediterranean. The vale is defined as extending from Engedi to Jericho, and appears to have included such parts of the Ghor, or great plain of the Jordan, as lay within the territory of Judea. That which is called the wilderness of Judea was the wild and inhospitable region lying eastward of Jerusalem, in the direction of the Jordan and Dead Sea.

Herod the king — In our note on Matthew 1:17, we slightly traced the history of the last fourteen generations of the Jewish nation to the time of Herod, called, or rather miscalled the Great, in the closing part of whose reign the Messiah was born. This Herod was the son of Antipater, a distinguished Idumean general, who, by his own bravery and the favour of the Romans, had obtained supreme power over his native Idumea, and great authority in Judea. At the early age of fifteen, Herod was placed in command in Galilee, where he distinguished himself by his bravery, talent, and personal popularity. By these same qualities and the favour of the Romans he became king of Judea, a term which embraced all Palestine. As he advanced in age he became suspicious, cruel, and extremely bloodthirsty. He put to death his beautiful wife, the celebrated Mariamne, the illustrious descendant of the line of Maccabean princes. His two sons also by Mariamne, the innocent and accomplished favourites of the nation, he sent to execution. His last son, Antipater, he ordered to be slain five days before his own death. As he saw his end approaching, he ordered a large number of the most illustrious citizens to be executed as soon as he had breathed his last, in order, as he said, that there might be mourning at his death. But the commands of a dead tyrant possess little authority, and this ferocious order was never executed. Amid the wholesale murders committed by this bloody despot, the slaughter of a few infants in Bethlehem would be but a drop in the ocean, too slight for general history to mention.

Herod married ten wives, by five of whom there was posterity, including persons mentioned in the New Testament. The careless reader finds the name of Herod repeated in the Scriptures, and is apt to imagine that it is always the same person. He forgets that the first Herod died during the infancy of Jesus. The following diagram will show, so far as is necessary for our purpose, how they were connected with Herod the Great, and with each other:

Wise men — In the original, Magi. The Magi, according to the best accounts, were, in a very early antiquity, a tribe among the ancient Medes, similar to the Levites among the Hebrews. That is, they were a priestly tribe, or learned class in the nation. The word is derived by some from the old Pehlvic term mog, which signifies priest. The word probably forms the root of our words magnates, magistrate, master, and even mister. It is found in the Latin, magnus, and the Greek, megav. After the union of the Median and Persian empire, the Magian class obtained great ascendancy in Persia. Subsequently they appear in great power in Babylon. The chief Magian is mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3, under the title of Rab-Mag. The prophet Daniel probably filled the office of chief Magian in his day. It may be thence inferred that the true religion, with greater or less purity, may have existed with at least a part of this class. Hence we need not wonder that from this class there should come a number to Jerusalem, under divine inspiration and guidance, to seek the new-born Messiah.

After the time of Christ, Magianism, like the religions of Greece and Rome, waned and sunk into discredit. In this condition of decay we find Simon Magus, or Simon the Magian. From the word Magi is derived the word magic; and thus in process of time this illustrious class sunk to the rank of magicians, sorcerers, and wandering fortune-tellers. Their mode of divination was by astrology, dream interpretation, and soothsaying with cups. The books of sorcery burned at Ephesus by the converted Christians, as related in the Acts of the Apostles, doubtless contained the false science of these pretenders.

From the east — It is very probable that Matthew was not informed from what particular country the Magi came. The event was early in the history of our Lord, and great as was the excitement produced by their coming, the common people would but vaguely know from what region in the East they came; and when the transaction passed off, and seemed to come to nothing, it would be very much forgotten. The Jewish writers use the phrase the East very extensively and vaguely. Thus, “unto the sons of the concubines which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.” Genesis 25:6. Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country. It seems probable that the wise men came from Persia. the primitive land of the Magi. We know that the Persian Magi believed in a Messiah or future Saviour, (whom they called Sosiosch,) who should in the latter day appear and renew the world in righteousness. These views they may have directly derived from the primitive promise in Eden by their own tradition; or they may have had original revelations from God; or they may have learned much from the Jews in the captivity. Who knows how much of a real, acceptable faith and piety there was among them?

Jerusalem — This is the first occurrence of the name of the Holy City in the New Testament. Jerusalem is not only one of the most celebrated, but one of the most ancient cities in the world. It is first mentioned in Genesis, under the name of Salem, with Melchisedek for its king, a type of the future Messiah. It was to this same spot that Abraham brought Isaac to be sacrificed, namely, upon the very mountain where Christ, the antitype of Isaac, was sacrificed ages afterward. When the land of Canaan was invaded under Joshua, the Jebusites held possession of Mount Zion in spite of every effort to dislodge them. David, however, at a later time, conquered Mount Zion from the Jebusites, and it became the City of David, the place of his palace, the abode of the Tabernacle, the capital of the monarchy. From that time it underwent the various fortunes of the Jewish state until the time of Christ. Here Christ was nationally rejected, and, according to prophecy, was put to death. About forty years afterward the city was taken after one of the severest struggles in history; the inhabitants were slaughtered, and the city destroyed. The Jewish state was overthrown; the sacrifices were abolished; the tribes were scattered, and still remain in dispersion among the various nations of the world. But, though scattered, they are not destroyed. Like the bush of Moses, they are burned, but not consumed. Other nations rise and perish, but Israel seems indestructible. He is reserved through ages, for purposes known to God alone.

Verse 5. In Bethlehem of Judea. — The residence of Joseph was at Nazareth, more than fifty miles distant; and Mary being far advanced in pregnancy, nothing was more unlikely than that our Lord should be born at Bethlehem, and especially as no private business called them thither. This event was brought about through means over which they had no control. The Emperor Augustus ordered a census of his empire to be taken, including such nominally independent states as Judea; and this laid Joseph and Mary under the necessity of repairing without delay to Bethlehem, because they were both “of the house and lineage of David,” and the enrolments of Judea were made of every one according to his tribe, and city, and family. So remarkably does God accomplish his purposes, without interference with the free agency of man; and so strikingly does this, and many similar events, display the depth of that wisdom of God which “sweetly ordereth all things.” Events work at greater distances from each other than human knowledge can discern; and although no human power can establish a connection between them; yet they infallibly co-operate to accomplish the purposes of God.

V. 6. Thou art in nowise the least among the princes of Judah-That is, among the cities belonging to the princes or heads of thousands in Judah. When this and several other quotations from the Old Testament are compared with the original, it plainly appears, the apostles did not always think it necessary exactly to transcribe the passages they cited, but contented themselves with giving the general sense, though with some diversity of language. The words of Micah, which we render, Though thou be little, may be rendered, Art thou little? And then the difference which seems to be here between the prophet and the evangelist vanishes away. Micah 5:2.

Verse 6. And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda] To distinguish it from Bethlehem, in the tribe of Zebulon. Joshua 19:15. See Clarke on “Matthew 2:1”.

Art not the least] In Micah 5:2, it is read, Though thou be little-twyhl ry[x tsair lehayoth, little to be. Houbigant, struck with the oddness of the construction of the Hebrew, by dividing the last word, and making a small change in two of the letters, makes the prophet agree with the evangelist, tyyh al ry[x tsair lo hayita, thou art not the least. Several learned men are of opinion, that the copy from which St. Matthew quoted, had the text in this way. However, some MSS. of very good note, among which is the Codex Bezae, have mh elacisth ei, for oudamwv elacisth ei, Art thou not the least? This reconciles the prophet and evangelist without farther trouble. See the authorities for this reading in Griesbach and Wetstein.

Among the princes of Juda] In Micah 5:2, it is, the thousands of Judah. There is much reason to believe that each tribe was divided into small portions called thousands, as in England certain small divisions of counties are called hundreds. For the proof of the first, the reader is referred to Judges 6:15, where, instead of my FAMILY is poor in Manasseh, the Hebrew is, my THOUSAND (ypla) is the meanest in Manasseh: and to 1 Samuel 10:19, Present yourselves before the Lord by your TRIBES and by your THOUSANDS: and to 1 Chronicles 12:20, Captains of the THOUSANDS of Manasseh. Now these THOUSANDS being petty governments, Matthew renders them by the word hgemosiv, because the word princes or governors was more intelligible in the Greek tongue than thousands, though, in this case, they both signify the same. See Wakefield.

That shall rule my people Israel.] ostiv poimanei, Who shall FEED my people. That is as a shepherd feeds his flock. Among the Greeks, kings are called, by Homer, lawn poimenev, shepherds of the people. This appellation probably originated from the pastoral employment, which kings and patriarchs did not blush to exercise in the times of primitive simplicity; and it might particularly refer to the case of David, the great type of Christ, who was a keeper of his father’s sheep, before he was raised to the throne of Israel. As the government of a good king was similar to the care a good shepherd has of his flock, hence poimhn signified both shepherd and king; and poimainw, to feed and to rule among the ancient Greeks.

Verse 6. Thou Bethlehem, &c., art not the least among the princes of Juda — It is justly observed by Dr. Doddridge, after Erasmus, here, that “when this and several other quotations from the Old Testament, which we find in the New, come to be compared with the original, and even with the Septuagint, it plainly appears that the apostles did not always think it necessary to transcribe the passages they cited, but sometimes contented themselves with giving the general sense in some little diversity of language.” The words of Micah, which we render, Though thou be little, may be rendered, Art thou little? And his expression, thousands of Judah; and that of the evangelist here, princes, or governors of Judah, are in sense the same, the word thousands being used by the prophet, in allusion to the first division of the tribes of Israel into thousands, hundreds, and other subordinate divisions, over every one of which thousands was a prince or chief. But for a full explanation of both passages the reader is referred to the note on Micah 5:2.

Ver. 6. Thou Bethlehem in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda, or rulers, as in the Latin versions. The rabbins are severe on the evangelists on the subject of quotations, and allege “That they are either erroneous, or mutilated, or the meaning is distorted, or not derived from authentic books, but often from memory, which is fallacious.” In Micah 5:2, the Hebrew word is thousands; whereas Matthew says princes; and he had authority for so doing, as giving an improved reading. The Hebrews numbered the nation by thousands. Gideon a prince said to the angel, My family is poor in Manasseh. Judges 6:15. Here the Hebrew reads, My thousand is the meanest in Manasseh. As Christ was the King of kings, and as every thousand had its prince, so Matthew makes the quotation in an enlivened form. St. Paul, with the justest propriety, paraphrases the words of David in Psalm 40:6. “Mine ears hast thou opened; a body hast thou prepared me.”

6. And thou Bethlehem — The New Testament quotations will often be found to vary from the passage in the Old. New Testament writers sometimes quoted the words of the Hebrew precisely; sometimes quoted the Septuagint or Greek translation, which was commonly read by the Jews of their day; and sometimes quoted substantially, with such variations as rendered the passage more clear, without misrepresenting the original divine mind in the passage.

This passage in the Old Testament reads thus: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel. Micah 5:2. The evangelist leaves out Ephratah as a name now little known, and substitutes land of Judah as expressing the same limitation of the site of Bethlehem. Though thou be little, in the Hebrew, the evangelist changes to art not the least; for the smallness of the external size is mentioned by the Hebrew to imply its not being small in divine favour, as expressed by the evangelist. Matthew puts princes, or rulers of a thousand apiece, for the thousands themselves, which amounts to the same thing. This is a most signal passage of prophecy, for many reasons, among which are the following:

1. It was the uniform practice of the ancient Jews, agreeing with Herod’s Sanhedrim, to apply it to the Messiah. “All the Jewish interpreters,” says Hengstenberg, “with the Chaldee at their head, (who paraphrase the closing part of the passage, ‘from thee shall the Messiah go forth to me, before me,’) maintain the application to the Messiah.” But so fatal to their own cause has this proved that the modern Jews have been obliged to abandon their ancient interpretation!

2. This prophecy brings to a point a whole series of converging prophecies. First we have the Edenic prediction of the seed of the woman; it is narrowed to the line of Shem; next to the line of Abraham, to that of Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, and finally to the city of David, Bethlehem.

3. This pointing to Bethlehem made more conspicuous the fact that Jesus was of the royal line of David. It pointed to the place where David spent his boyhood; and to the place where the record of the pedigree of Jesus was to be found, so completing the evidence presented in Matthew’s genealogy. Moreover, of the two cities of David, Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the latter is selected as the starting place of both David and Jesus, each from a humble origin, the latter from the decayed line of the former.

4. And those who complain that the whole account of the Messiah’s birth seems an obscure and humble matter, in a narrow corner of the world, unlike what an incarnation should be, should take into consideration how clear are the predictions that God would fling the vail over that transaction. See note on verse 23.

5. The predicted birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, of the line of David, and so of the tribe of Judah, settles the point that the Messiah has come. Not only was it predicted that Messiah should appear during the second temple, (which is now no more,) but the tribeship of Judah and the lineage of David are lost. All traces of the royal line disappeared at the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of their race.

6. Finally, no infidel can say these prophecies were forged by Christians, or were made to suit the event, for the records are preserved by our opponents, the Jews. The Hebrews keep our library of proofs. Judaism furnishes the prophecy; Christianity furnishes the fulfilment; and how will infidelity explain the agreement?

Verse 6. And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, &c. — This quotation agrees neither with the Hebrew, nor the Septuagint; for which difference, it has been remarked, the council of priests and not the evangelist was responsible. If indeed the quotation was given by St. Matthew in these exact words, this view is sufficiently satisfactory; and as they no doubt rendered the passage from the Hebrew to Herod, either in Greek or the Palestinian dialect; it is to be regarded as their extemporaneous translation, and gives the sense of the Hebrew with sufficient accuracy. But if St. Matthew quotes the passage from the prophet his variations stand on the same ground, as all others which occur in his gospel, and in those of the following evangelists. With respect to these variations, they are not always important; for it may be generally observed, says Bishop Randolph, that, on comparing them, “it will appear how nearly the citations in the New Testament agree with the original Hebrew, though they sometimes quote from the Septuagint, and perhaps other translations or paraphrases.” The passage, as it stands in Micah 5:2, is, “But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel.” For “Bethlehem Ephratah” St. Matthew has, “Bethlehem in the land of Juda,” which is but another designation of the same town. In the Old Testament it has the name of Bethlehem Judah; Judges 17:7. The principal variation is in the negative, oudamwv, “by no means the least,” whereas our translation makes the Prophet Micah to say, “Though thou be little.” Though, however, is not in the Hebrew, which may be read interrogatively, “Art thou little?” Thus, in the Syriac translation, we have, “num parva es?” while the Arabic uses the negative, “neguaquam es minima,” and so agrees with the sense of the Hebrew, which manifestly is, that Bethlehem, although an obscure town, was to be dignified by the birth of Messiah. “The thousands of Judah,” is rendered in Matthew the princes of Judah, which is only another mode of expressing the same thing; for the tribes were divided into thousands, over every one of which was placed a PRINCE, or chief. Thus the real agreement of St. Matthew with the Hebrew is manifest. It is, however, here to be noticed, that the whole prophecy in Micah is not adduced; for it was the custom of the Jews, when quoting their Scriptures for argument or illustration, to cite only the introductory parts of a section to which they made reference, supposing those to whom they spoke or wrote to be familiar with the whole, as indeed they generally were. Though, therefore, the quotation does not give the complete prophecy, we are referred by it to the whole section in which it stands, which extends through several verses, and is an illustrious revelation of the Divinity and official glory of that prince of Judah, who was indeed to be born in Bethlehem, but whose “goings forth were of old, even from everlasting.”

“This prophecy of Micah;” says Dr. Hales, “is perhaps the most important single prophecy in the Old Testament, and the most comprehensive, respecting the personal character of the Messiah, and his successive manifestation to the world. It crowns the whole chain of prophecies descriptive of the several limitations of the blessed Seed of the woman, to the line of Shem, to the family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to the tribe of Judah, and to the royal house of David, here terminating in his birth at Bethlehem, ‘the city of David.’ It carefully distinguishes his human nativity from his eternal generation; foretells the rejection of the Israelites and Jews for a season, their final restoration, and the universal peace destined to prevail throughout the earth in ‘the regeneration.’ It forms, therefore, the basis of the New Testament; which begins with his human birth at Bethlehem, the miraculous circumstances of which are recorded in the introductions of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels; his eternal generation, as the ORACLE, or WISDOM, in the sublime introduction of John’s gospel; his prophetic character and second coming, illustrated in the four gospels and the epistles; ending with a prediction of the speedy approach of the latter, in the Apocalypse, Revelation 22:20.”

Verse 7. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, &c. — He thought it prudent to keep the matter as close as possible, lest the Jews, understanding the time of the birth of the Messiah, should, from thence, take occasion to rebel: for not having an hereditary right to the kingdom, and having been guilty of many acts of cruelty among them, he had no reason to presume upon their good-will toward him. He feared, likewise, lest, if it should be noised abroad that the Messiah was born, his purpose of destroying him should be prevented. But there is no wisdom or counsel against the Most High! He inquired of them diligently — Or, as the words hkribwse par’ autwn, more properly signify, inquired of them the exact time, or, got exact information from them, what time the star appeared — That is, at what time it began to appear, judging, as probably the fact was, that the star first appeared at the time the child was born. His view in this was, that he might thereby form some conjecture concerning the age of the child to whose birth it referred. For on the one hand, it seems, he did not wish to destroy more children than the accomplishment of his design appeared to require; and on the other, not to leave this child alive.

7. Privily — Privately, because he wished the excitement to die, and to keep the matter under his own control. Called the wise men — Who plainly were waiting to learn the locality of the Messiah, being not now directed by the visible star. What time the star appeared — In order to know the precise time of the birth.

V. 8. And if ye find him, bring me word-Probably Herod did not believe he was born; otherwise would not so suspicious a prince have tried to make sure work at once?

Verse 8. That I may come and worship him also.] See Matthew 2:2, and on Genesis 17:3, and Exodus 4:31. What exquisite hypocrisy was here! he only wished to find out the child that he might murder him; but see how that God who searches the heart prevents the designs of wicked men from being accomplished!

Verse 8. When ye have found him, bring me word again — Viz., concerning the young child, his condition, and that of his parents, and all circumstances. It seems probable that Herod did not believe he was born, otherwise it is amazing that so suspicious and artful a prince as he was should put this important affair on so precarious a footing. How easily might he, if he had not himself accompanied these learned strangers, under pretence of doing honour to them, have sent a guard of soldiers with them, who might, humanly speaking, without any difficulty have slaughtered the child and his parents on the spot. But, perhaps, he might be unwilling to commit such an act of cruelty in the presence of these sages, lest their report of it should render him infamous abroad. Or rather, we must refer his conduct, in this matter, to that secret influence with which God, whenever he pleases, can infatuate the most sagacious of mankind, and disappoint their designs. See Doddridge. That I may come and worship him also — That I also, who would permit no interest of mine to interfere with the decrees of Heaven, may come with my family and court to pay homage to this new-born king; a duty to which I look upon myself as peculiarly obliged. Mark the hypocrisy of this perfidious tyrant! We may observe here, it is a peculiar excellence in the sacred writers, that they often describe a person’s character in one sentence, or even in one word, and that, by the by, when they are pursuing another object. An instance of this we have in verse 3, where the evangelist mentions Herod’s being troubled at the tidings brought by the wise men, an expression which exactly marked his character. Here again his disposition is perfectly developed; deep, crafty, subtle; pretending one thing but intending another; professing to have a design of worshipping Jesus, when his purpose was to murder him! In like manner having, according to Josephus, lib. 15. cap. 3, out of pretended friendship invited Aristobulus to an entertainment at Jericho, he contrived after dinner to have him drowned in a fish-pond, in which he was persuaded to bathe along with several of Herod’s attendants. For they, by Herod’s direction, as if in play and sport, dipped him so often, and kept him so long under water, that he died in their hands. And then, as if his death had been an unfortunate accident, which had happened without any previous design, Herod pretended great sorrow for it, shed abundance of tears, and bestowed upon his body a very splendid and expensive funeral.

8. To Bethlehem — The narratives of Matthew and Luke are usually harmonized on the somewhat doubtful view that they actually went to Bethlehem. The discussion belongs to notes on Luke. Worship him also — In his cool measures of consulting the Sanhedrim, guarding against excitement, and using the Magi, under false professions, Herod shows the wily craft of a politician, combined with the folly of supposing he can defeat the plans of God.

Verse 9. In the east] Or, at its rise. See Clarke on “Matthew 2:2”. Stood over where the young child was.] Super caput pueri, Over the head of the child, as the OPUS IMPERFECTUM, on this place, has it. See Griesbach’s Var. Lect. So it appears to have been a simple luminous meteor in a star-like form, and at a very short distance from the ground, otherwise it could not have ascertained the place where the child lay. But the last quoted reading, from the Opus Imperfectum, justifies the opinion that the luminous appearance which had hitherto directed them now encompassed the head of the child; and probably this gave the first idea to the ancient painters, of representing Christ in the manger, with a glory surrounding his head. This glory, or nimbus, is usually given also to saints and eminent persons, especially in the Roman Church, by all Roman Catholic painters.

Verse 9. When they had heard the king, they departed — Viz., from Jerusalem, without the least suspicion, it seems, of his treacherous and cruel designs. As these sages came from a distant country into Judea upon such an important discovery, and Bethlehem was so near, it is matter of wonder that none of the Jews attended them on their journey. But it is probable they were afraid of Herod. Or, perhaps, the dismission of the wise men might be kept a secret in Jerusalem; so that if any of the Jews had had an inclination to have gone with them, they might not have had an opportunity. And Herod might avoid sending any one with them, lest he should raise suspicion in the minds of the parents or relations of the child; or lest the Jews suspecting a plot, should contrive to bring about a revolt, or raise sedition. Or rather, the whole matter is to be referred to the providence of God, so ordering it that they should go unaccompanied, that the child might not be discovered to Herod. The Lord, however, prepared these illustrious strangers a better guide. For, lo, the star which they saw in the east — In their own country, went before them — This intimates that it had not been their guide in their journey from their own country. Nor was it needful they should have a guide, Jerusalem being sufficiently known. It had shone, it seems, on the night of his nativity, and then had disappeared till the present time. By its not appearing for a time, occasion was given for their inquiries at Jerusalem, which gave notice to the Jews of the birth of Christ; an event of which, it is likely, they would have had no information, if the star had led the wise men first to Bethlehem. And the reappearance of the star was probably intended of God to prevent their being discouraged at their not only not finding the king they sought in the royal city, but not being able to learn that any thing was known there concerning his birth, and especially in perceiving that when they had brought intelligence of it, all ranks seemed to be troubled, and not a single person of those whose native king he was offered himself as a companion to them, though come from a foreign land to worship him. Thus, also, their taking offence at the low condition in which they found Christ and his parents, was prevented. At the same time, it was a great confirmation of their faith, to be thus miraculously conducted to the very town pointed out in the Scriptures as the place of the birth of the Messiah. It left them not till it came and stood over where the young child was — Thus pointing out the very house, lest if they should have been obliged to make anxious inquiry concerning the child, there should be some who might have carried the matter to Herod, and have discovered him and his parents. Here, therefore, the star stopped, and proceeded no further, and not long after, viz., as soon as the wise men arrived at the place, as is most probable, entirely vanished. Hence it appears, that this star was not in the higher heavens, but in the lower regions of the air; for no star in the heavens could have exactly pointed out a particular house. Nothing is said here concerning a ray descending from the star to the top of the house, or concerning the descent of the body of the star. It is therefore probable it was a meteor, which to them had the appearance of a star, as meteors frequently have. This appears, further, from its moving by intervals, sometimes moving and sometimes standing still, which the stars, properly so called, never do. Dr. Whitby conjectures that what the wise men saw in the east might be that very light which shone upon the shepherds at Bethlehem, when the angel came to impart unto them the tidings of our Saviour’s birth. This light certainly was exceeding great, as is clear from its being styled the glory of the Lord, and it was a light from heaven, hanging over their heads, and shining round about them. Now such a light, at a great distance, would appear as a star: or, as it ascended up from the shepherds it might be formed into the likeness of a star. A similar body of light, when they journeyed from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, was formed into the same likeness in which it had formerly appeared, and went before them in the air to the latter city, and then sunk down so low as to point out the very house where the babe lay. In this case the star must have been seen by the wise men on the very day of Christ’s nativity.

9. Lo, the star — The star re-appears. What star? The star, namely, which they saw, not at Jerusalem, nor on their way thither, but while they were in the East. Went before them — The starry form came so lowly from the skies as to move horizontally before them, and guide their steps. Whether visible to any other than themselves is not said. Stood over — So specifically and directly as to individualize the very house.

Verse 9. And, lo, the star, which they saw, in the east, &c. — If the star guided them the whole way to Judea, which is not to be inferred from the history, it disappeared upon their entrance into Judea, and left them to their own judgment; and, as they were in search of him who was born “king of the Jews,” they naturally directed their course to the metropolis. It was upon their departure from Jerusalem to Bethlehem that the star again appeared; and at this, according to our version, “they rejoiced with exceeding great joy,” which is an excellent translation of ecarhsan caran megalhn sfodra, where, as in passages which sometimes occur in Greek and Latin authors, similar words are used to denote emphasis and excess.

V. 10. Seeing the star-Standing over where the child was.

Verses 10, 11. When they saw the star — Thus standing over where the child was, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy — The original expression, ecarhsan caran megalhn sfodra, is remarkably emphatical, and might be rendered, They joyed a great joy, very much, a translation which, though very bad English, as Dr. Doddridge observes, comes near to a literal version. They thus rejoiced because they were now confirmed in the certainty of the child’s being born, and also because they saw themselves in so remarkable a manner under the divine direction, and conducted with such certainty to the glorious person whom they came to seek. And when they were come into the house — Mary, it seems, was now better accommodated than at the time of her delivery: she was now in a house, (though probably a poor one,) and not in a stable. Some think that Joseph had now changed the place of his abode, and taken up his residence at Bethlehem, but this is not clear from the story. They saw the young child with Mary his mother — And how different soever the condition in which they found them might be from what they had expected, they were not offended at its meanness, but, falling down on their faces before him, they worshipped him — That is, they did him honour after the manner of the East, whose inhabitants were wont to prostrate themselves before their kings. They wisely considered, that such miraculous honours as the star gave him were far beyond any external circumstance, and therefore paid him, though a child in a poor cottage, without attendants, or any mark of royal descent, their homage, as readily as if they had found him in the most splendid palace, surrounded with servants and guards. “An amiable example this, of that humble, ingenuous temper, which fits a man for the reception of the gospel!” And when they had opened their treasures — Which they had brought along with them for this purpose, they presented to him gifts — It was customary in those countries for persons to offer some present to any illustrious personage whom they came to visit, as appears from many passages of the Old Testament; and Maundrell, Chardin, and many other modern writers of the best credit assure us, that the custom is yet retained, and that no person of rank is approached without a present. In this instance the gifts, consisting of the most valuable productions of their country, constituted a present very proper to the occasion. Perhaps this was all that these wise men intended by their offerings of gold, frankincense, and myrrh; and that there is no need to have recourse to allegory. “Nevertheless, if we will have it,” says Grotius, “that the Divine Wisdom intended something mysterious here, it would not displease me to hear it intimated, that those three things, which we now offer to God through Christ, in consequence of the abolition of the ancient sacrifices, may be signified by these gifts, viz., works of mercy, Philippians 4:18; bodily purity, Romans 12:1; and prayers, Psalm 141:2; Revelation 5:8. The two texts last quoted manifestly show that prayers may be signified by frankincense; gold is, as it were, the common measure of the good things of this life, wherewith we relieve the wants of others. And, as we learn from Pliny, and St. John 19:39, there is hardly any other use of myrrh than to preserve bodies from corruption.” But if we may believe the ancient fathers, the wise men, by these gifts which they offered, showed who he was that was worshipped by them; offering myrrh, says Irenæus, because he was to die for mankind; gold, because he was a king, whose kingdom should have no end; thus, as it were, paying him tribute; and frankincense, because he was God, and God was wont to be honoured with the smoke of incense. To the same purpose speak Tertullian and Origen. Perhaps, however, there is more of fancy than truth in this doctrine. Be this as it may, we cannot but acknowledge the providence of God in sending the holy family such a seasonable supply in their low circumstances, especially as they were to take so long and expensive a journey as that into Egypt; a country where they were entirely strangers, and were to stay for a considerable time.

10. When they saw the star — Implying that it had before been unseen. Rejoiced with exceeding great joy — The strong terms show how great was the rapture at recovering sight of the lost star.

V. 11. They presented to him gifts-It was customary to offer some present to any eminent person whom they visited. And so it is, as travellers observe, in the eastern countries to this day.

Gold, frankincense, and myrrh-Probably these were the best things their country afforded; and the presents ordinarily made to great persons. This was a most seasonable, providential assistance for a long and expensive journey into Egypt, a country where they were entirely strangers, and were to stay for a considerable time.

Verse 11. They presented unto him gifts] The people of the east never approach the presence of kings and great personages, without a present in their hands. This custom is often noticed in the Old Testament, and still prevails in the east, and in some of the newly discovered South Sea Islands. Gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.] Some will have these gifts to be emblematic of the Divinity, regal office, and manhood of Christ. “They offered him incense as their God; gold as their king; and myrrh, as united to a human body, subject to suffering and death.” Aurum, thus, myrrham, regique, DEO, HOMINIQUE, dona ferunt. JUVENCUS. Rather, they offered him the things which were in most esteem among themselves; and which were productions of their own country. The gold was probably a very providential supply, as on it, it is likely, they subsisted while in Egypt.

Verses 10, 11. When they saw the star — Thus standing over where the child was, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy — The original expression, ecarhsan caran megalhn sfodra, is remarkably emphatical, and might be rendered, They joyed a great joy, very much, a translation which, though very bad English, as Dr. Doddridge observes, comes near to a literal version. They thus rejoiced because they were now confirmed in the certainty of the child’s being born, and also because they saw themselves in so remarkable a manner under the divine direction, and conducted with such certainty to the glorious person whom they came to seek. And when they were come into the house — Mary, it seems, was now better accommodated than at the time of her delivery: she was now in a house, (though probably a poor one,) and not in a stable. Some think that Joseph had now changed the place of his abode, and taken up his residence at Bethlehem, but this is not clear from the story. They saw the young child with Mary his mother — And how different soever the condition in which they found them might be from what they had expected, they were not offended at its meanness, but, falling down on their faces before him, they worshipped him — That is, they did him honour after the manner of the East, whose inhabitants were wont to prostrate themselves before their kings. They wisely considered, that such miraculous honours as the star gave him were far beyond any external circumstance, and therefore paid him, though a child in a poor cottage, without attendants, or any mark of royal descent, their homage, as readily as if they had found him in the most splendid palace, surrounded with servants and guards. “An amiable example this, of that humble, ingenuous temper, which fits a man for the reception of the gospel!” And when they had opened their treasures — Which they had brought along with them for this purpose, they presented to him gifts — It was customary in those countries for persons to offer some present to any illustrious personage whom they came to visit, as appears from many passages of the Old Testament; and Maundrell, Chardin, and many other modern writers of the best credit assure us, that the custom is yet retained, and that no person of rank is approached without a present. In this instance the gifts, consisting of the most valuable productions of their country, constituted a present very proper to the occasion. Perhaps this was all that these wise men intended by their offerings of gold, frankincense, and myrrh; and that there is no need to have recourse to allegory. “Nevertheless, if we will have it,” says Grotius, “that the Divine Wisdom intended something mysterious here, it would not displease me to hear it intimated, that those three things, which we now offer to God through Christ, in consequence of the abolition of the ancient sacrifices, may be signified by these gifts, viz., works of mercy, Philippians 4:18; bodily purity, Romans 12:1; and prayers, Psalm 141:2; Revelation 5:8. The two texts last quoted manifestly show that prayers may be signified by frankincense; gold is, as it were, the common measure of the good things of this life, wherewith we relieve the wants of others. And, as we learn from Pliny, and St. John 19:39, there is hardly any other use of myrrh than to preserve bodies from corruption.” But if we may believe the ancient fathers, the wise men, by these gifts which they offered, showed who he was that was worshipped by them; offering myrrh, says Irenæus, because he was to die for mankind; gold, because he was a king, whose kingdom should have no end; thus, as it were, paying him tribute; and frankincense, because he was God, and God was wont to be honoured with the smoke of incense. To the same purpose speak Tertullian and Origen. Perhaps, however, there is more of fancy than truth in this doctrine. Be this as it may, we cannot but acknowledge the providence of God in sending the holy family such a seasonable supply in their low circumstances, especially as they were to take so long and expensive a journey as that into Egypt; a country where they were entirely strangers, and were to stay for a considerable time.

11. Worshipped him — Something more than human homage; for emphatically it was offered to him, and not to his mother, in whose arms he was. Gold and frankincense — The very sort of presents predicted in Isaiah 60:6: “All they from Sheba shall come; they shall bring gold and incense.” This is a sample and type of the conversion of the Gentile nations to Christ. “The Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.” Isaiah 60:3.

Incense, or frankincense, is a resinous gum, flowing from a tree, gashed for the purpose, growing in Arabia and Lebanon. Myrrh is also a gum obtained from a tree similar to the Acacia, growing in Arabia. From the nature of these presents it has been argued that the Magi came from Arabia, the land which abundantly produces them; but this sort of wealth abounded through all the East. They were the kind of presents which it was customary to bring when admitted into the presence of princes or gods.

§ 13. — RETURN OF MAGI AND FLIGHT INTO EGYPT, 12-15.

Verse 11. And fell down, and worshipped him. — The same Greek word is used to express both Divine worship and the prostrate homage which the people of the east paid to their kings. Thus Xenophon, describing the respect paid to Cyrus by his subjects, says, “When the people saw him, pantev prosekunhsan, they all worshipped him. Our own word worship, as formerly used, had this double sense. In this case the magi paid our Lord ROYAL homage; but whether with any reference also to his Divinity does not so clearly appear as some of the fathers would have it understood. And yet, as the fact of Messiah having been born was made known to them by a Divine revelation, intimations of his Divinity might also be given, and their worship be paid to him under the highest character. As for the gifts presented, gold, frankincense, and myrrh, it may be remarked, that no person in ancient times in those countries appeared before a superior without a present. These were of the most costly kind, and such only as were presented to the greatest personages. That these magi were men of rank as well as philosophers, is the voice of tradition. Thus in their lower sense and earliest application were those prophecies fulfilled, —

“Nations shall come to thy light,

And princes to the brightness of thy rising:

The kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.”

Opened their treasures. — That is, the packages and vessels which contained them; the word being applied, not to the contents, but to the containing receptacle. Thus Cicero calls memory “the treasure of all things;” and Virgil the vessels in which honey is preserved, servataque mella thesauris.

Several very important ends were answered by the visit of the magi. It showed that the expectation of the appearance of Messiah about that time was not only entertained by Jews, but by Gentiles; and therefore that the prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures were not the only sources of information on that interesting subject. Either several of the same prophecies had been transmitted by the heads of those families which had branched off from the common Abrahamic stock, or the relics of the ten tribes in different eastern countries had communicated those annunciations of Messiah contained in the Pentateuch; or the proselytes, “the strangers” who occasionally went up to worship God at Jerusalem, circulated the leading doctrines and hopes of the Jewish Church; or revelations were occasionally made on the subject of “the great salvation of God” to pious Gentiles in different places and at different times. How else shall we account for so general an expectation of the appearance of the great Restorer, which certainly existed? “For,” says Suetonius, “an ancient and settled persuasion prevailed throughout the east, that the fates had decreed some one to proceed from Judea, who would attain universal empire.” How also shall we account for the Sibylline prophecies which Virgil has embodied in his Pollio, and which bear so striking a resemblance to some of the predictions of Isaiah, as to the glorious and peaceful reign of Messiah, and the great changes to be wrought in his days in the state of society? And, finally, how are we to account for the journey of these magi from the east? The simple circumstance of the appearance of an extraordinary meteor could not alone indicate that the Messiah, the king of the Jews, was already born; a direct verbal revelation must be supposed, answering no doubt to the general information previously existing among them, and communicating the intelligence that he whom they expected was in fact born, and that he was born in Judea. Of this revelation the appearance of the star was the supernatural sign, which became still more indubitable when it went before them and directed their steps to Bethlehem. — Another end answered by this event was, that the public inquiry made by these strangers for “the king of the Jews,” whom they knew to have been recently born, turned the attention of the inhabitants of the Jewish metropolis to the fact of his birth, which probably they then for the first time heard; the annunciation of the shepherds being probably as yet confined to the neighbourhood in which it took place. But a still higher purpose was, to bring forth a public testimony from the highest ecclesiastical and theological authority among the Jews as to the birth place of Messiah having been previously recorded by one of their own prophet’s to be Bethlehem of Judah, and to show that it was a matter of universal agreement among them, that that illustrious prophecy, in all its parts, belonged to Messiah, and consequently that the Christ of prophecy stood in opposition to those low conceptions which they afterward indulged as to the simple humanity of the Messiah, and were contradicted by a passage which attributes positive Divinity as well as real humanity to him, and which, in full council, and in answer to the question of Herod their king, they declared to be a prophecy of the Christ. To the Messiah, as described by Micah, the Messiah which the Jews have ever expected does not answer; but to the Messiah of this prophecy our blessed Lord is the exact counterpart; he was born in Bethlehem, and yet his “goings forth have been from the days of eternity.” The whole history is also beautifully instructive, as one of those numerous instances with which the Scriptures abound of the manner in which an unseen, but ever-watchful, ever-active power overrules the purposes of men, even when they are opposed to that issue which is evolved by unanticipated circumstances, and frustrates equally their subtlety and their power. Herod, in his own true character of malignant cunning, wishes to make the magi the instruments of conveying to him the intelligence of this new-born heir of the throne of David, and affects to partake of their joy, and to be ready to do him homage; but, warned of God, they depart home by another route, and thus their safety is provided for, which might have been compromised by an act of constructive treason, in acknowledging another king beside him; while his sanguinary purpose was delayed, to give the holy family time to hasten down to Egypt, beyond the reach of his power; for which journey the gifts of the wise men afforded a seasonable, and, as it appears, an abundant supply. “There is no counsel against the Lord.”

Verse 12. And being warned of God in a dream, that they should not return to Herod — Which, it is probable, in the simplicity of their hearts, they were preparing to do, they departed into their own country another way — Not at all solicitous as to the consequences of Herod’s resentment. Thus did the providence of God watch over these devout Gentiles, as well as over Jesus and his parents, and would not suffer their honest simplicity to be abused, and made a prey of by the crafty designs of Herod. For into what grief and perplexity would they have been brought, had they been made even the innocent instruments of an assault on the holy child! But God delivered them, and guided their way. For while he was waiting for their return, they had time to get out of his reach, before his passion rose, which might have been fatal to them.

Verse 13. Flee into Egypt] Many Jews had settled in Egypt; not only those who had fled thither in the time of Jeremiah, see Jer. 48; but many others who had settled there also, on account of the temple which Onias IV. had built at Heliopolis. Those who could speak the Greek tongue enjoyed many advantages in that country: besides, they had the Greek version of the Septuagint, which had been translated nearly 300 years before this time. Egypt was now a Roman province, and the rage of Herod could not pursue the holy family to this place. There is an apocryphal work in Arabic, called the Gospel of the infancy, which pretends to relate all the acts of Jesus and Mary while in Egypt. I have taken the pains to read this through, and have found it to be a piece of gross superstition, having nothing to entitle it to a shadow of credibility.

Verse 13. And when they were departed — Probably very soon after; for Bethlehem being only about two hours’ journey from Jerusalem, no doubt Herod would have speedy intelligence of the motions of the wise men: the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, take the young child, &c. — How watchful was the providence of God over this holy child and his righteous parents: while Joseph and Mary slept secure, enriched by the presents of the wise men, God watches for their safety, and makes them acquainted with the danger which hung over them. They are commanded to flee into Egypt, which was situated so near to Bethlehem, that they could easily arrive there in a few days. And the same divine providence also superintends and preserves all that have an eye thereto, and confide therein, and are God’s true people. Only they must obey his voice, and use the means he has appointed for their preservation. Even Jesus, the only begotten and beloved Son of the Father is not preserved without being taken into a foreign country. The command given by the angel to Joseph and Mary, to flee into Egypt, shows, that this vision happened before their return to Nazareth. For otherwise, it is much more probable they would have been ordered to flee into Syria, which was much nearer to Nazareth than Egypt; to which they could not have passed from thence without going through the very heart of Herod’s dominions, unless they had taken a very large circuit with great expense and danger. For Herod will seek the young child to destroy him — Being alarmed by the extraordinary circumstances which had lately taken place, and fearing lest this child should, in time, be a formidable rival to his family. For when the wise men had come so far to pay their homage to a new-born prince, the several reports of what had lately happened would, upon this occasion, be revived; and the behaviour of two such celebrated persons as Simeon and Anna, on the presentation of Christ in the temple, which might at first be only taken notice of by a few pious persons, would, probably, be now reported to Herod, and must add to the alarm which the inquiry of the sages gave him. Respecting Egypt, to which the holy family was commanded to flee, we may here observe, that after the death of Antony and Cleopatra it became a Roman province, and many Jews fixed their abode there, who, speaking the Greek language, made use of the Greek version of the Scriptures, and had even a temple there, which Onias had built them. These circumstances, doubtless, would make the abode of Joseph and Mary in that country more comfortable to them than it otherwise would have been; yet it is natural to suppose, that this information and command from the angel would be a great trial of their faith. To say nothing of the concern it must give them to learn that the life of this divine child was threatened by so crafty, powerful, and bloody a prince as Herod. Joseph was but a carpenter, and therefore, we may suppose, in low circumstances; and Egypt was a strange land, and a land where, it is likely, he had few, if any, acquaintances, and no visible way of subsistence. But, no doubt, he was able to trust that God whose beloved Son was given him in charge, and who had appeared in so signal and manifest a manner for the redemption of his people, and for the child’s protection.

13. The young child and his mother — Not thy wife and child. They are to him a charge rather than relatives.

Verses 14, 15. When he arose — Viz., from his bed, he took the young child, &c. — He immediately obeyed the heavenly vision, and departed into Egypt — With as hasty a flight as their circumstances would allow. And was there until the death of Herod — Which happened a few months after. That it might be fulfilled — That is, fulfilled again, which was spoken by the prophet — Viz., Hosea, on another occasion, Out of Egypt have I called my son — These words of Hosea, without doubt, were primarily spoken of God’s bringing Israel out of Egypt under the conduct of Moses, the prophet referring to God’s message to Pharaoh, recorded Exodus 4:22, 23, Israel is my son, even my firstborn; let my son go that he may serve me. Now this deliverance of the Israelites, God’s adopted son, was a type of his bringing Christ his real son from thence, and the meaning here is, that the words were now, as it were, fulfilled anew, and more eminently than before, Christ being in a far higher sense the son of God than Israel, of whom the words were originally spoken. For as a prophetical prediction is then fulfilled when what was foretold has come to pass, so a type is fulfilled when that is accomplished in the antitype, which was done in the type before. If the reader will consult the note on Hosea 11:1, he will find this passage fully, and, it is hoped, satisfactorily explained and vindicated; and the consistency of the evangelist’s words with those of the prophet clearly shown. It may not, however, be improper to add here to what is there advanced, that the lot of the Messiah in Egypt was now afflictive, like that of his ancestors formerly in the same country. And the same love of God which induced him to deliver Israel out of Egyptian bondage, was the cause also why he would not leave Christ in Egypt, but bring him back to his own people, whom he was about to enlighten with his heavenly doctrine, and redeem by his sufferings and death. Nor would it be absurd to carry the allegory still further, and to compare Herod to Pharaoh. For, as by the just judgment of God, both the firstborn of Pharaoh, the enemy of the Jews, was slain, and a little after Pharaoh himself perished; so Herod, not long after he had formed the wicked but vain design of putting Christ to death, in a fit of diabolical rage killed his firstborn son, and afterward himself perished, suffering the greatest tortures. — Wetstein.

14. By night — That no informant may be able to indicate whither he has gone. Departed into Egypt — Colonies of Jews had for a long time existed and flourished in Egypt. A rival temple had there been built, and there the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, called the Septuagint, was made. It was, by the ordinary caravan road, but a few days’ journey; the gifts of the Magi would furnish ample provision for the expenses, and doubtless there were relatives or friends in Egypt willing to receive them. The flight to Egypt had three purposes: 1. The security of the child from his enemies. 2. To show the divine care and valuation of the holy child. 3. To make his childhood’s sufferings an antitype to the history of chosen Israel. As Israel went down into Egypt and tarried there under compulsion of Pharaoh until his restoration to Canaan, so Jesus went down into Egypt and tarried under compulsion of Herod until restored to the Holy Land. Twice, then, out of Egypt did God call his son; namely, his collective son, Israel, and his individual son, Christ.

Verse 14. And departed into Egypt, — From the time of the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great, the Jews were settled in great numbers in its principal cities, and especially in Alexandria. There they established their own worship, and maintained a constant intercourse with their own country-men in Judea. Joseph would therefore naturally reside among his own people during his stay in Egypt, and, being out of Herod’s jurisdiction, was safe.

V. 15. That it might be fulfilled-That is, whereby was fulfilled. The original word frequently signifies, not the design of an action, but barely the consequence or event of it.

Which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet-on another occasion: Out of Egypt have I called my Son-which was now fulfilled as it were anew; Christ being in a far higher sense the Son of God than Israel, of whom the words were originally spoken. Hosea 11:1.

Verse 15. Out of Egypt have I called my son.] This is quoted from Hosea 11:1, where the deliverance of Israel, and that only, is referred to. But as that deliverance was extraordinary, it is very likely that it had passed into a proverb, so that “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” might have been used to express any signal deliverance. I confess, I can see no other reference it can have to the case in hand, unless we suppose, which is possible, that God might have referred to this future bringing up of his son Jesus from Egypt, under the type of the past deliverance of Israel from the same land. Midrash Tehillin, on Psalm 2:7, has these remarkable words: I will publish a decree: this decree has been published in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the Hagiographia. In the Law, Israel is my first-born son: Exodus 4:22. In the Prophets, Behold, my servant shall deal prudently: Isaiah 52:13. In the Hagiographia, The Lord said unto my lord: Psalm 110:1. All these passages the Jews refer to the Messiah. See Schoetgen.

Verses 14, 15. When he arose — Viz., from his bed, he took the young child, &c. — He immediately obeyed the heavenly vision, and departed into Egypt — With as hasty a flight as their circumstances would allow. And was there until the death of Herod — Which happened a few months after. That it might be fulfilled — That is, fulfilled again, which was spoken by the prophet — Viz., Hosea, on another occasion, Out of Egypt have I called my son — These words of Hosea, without doubt, were primarily spoken of God’s bringing Israel out of Egypt under the conduct of Moses, the prophet referring to God’s message to Pharaoh, recorded Exodus 4:22, 23, Israel is my son, even my firstborn; let my son go that he may serve me. Now this deliverance of the Israelites, God’s adopted son, was a type of his bringing Christ his real son from thence, and the meaning here is, that the words were now, as it were, fulfilled anew, and more eminently than before, Christ being in a far higher sense the son of God than Israel, of whom the words were originally spoken. For as a prophetical prediction is then fulfilled when what was foretold has come to pass, so a type is fulfilled when that is accomplished in the antitype, which was done in the type before. If the reader will consult the note on Hosea 11:1, he will find this passage fully, and, it is hoped, satisfactorily explained and vindicated; and the consistency of the evangelist’s words with those of the prophet clearly shown. It may not, however, be improper to add here to what is there advanced, that the lot of the Messiah in Egypt was now afflictive, like that of his ancestors formerly in the same country. And the same love of God which induced him to deliver Israel out of Egyptian bondage, was the cause also why he would not leave Christ in Egypt, but bring him back to his own people, whom he was about to enlighten with his heavenly doctrine, and redeem by his sufferings and death. Nor would it be absurd to carry the allegory still further, and to compare Herod to Pharaoh. For, as by the just judgment of God, both the firstborn of Pharaoh, the enemy of the Jews, was slain, and a little after Pharaoh himself perished; so Herod, not long after he had formed the wicked but vain design of putting Christ to death, in a fit of diabolical rage killed his firstborn son, and afterward himself perished, suffering the greatest tortures. — Wetstein.

Ver. 15. Out of Egypt have I called my son. St. Paul says that Adam “was a figure of him that was to come.” Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are also allowed to be figures of Christ. The posterity of those patriarchs, therefore, when called out of Egypt, were figures of the wanderings and the sufferings of Christ, and of his church. The christians in Jerusalem would raise no objections against this application: the Hebrews by common consent were figures of the christian church.

15. By the prophet — Hosea 11:1. Out of Egypt… son — The passage quoted from the prophet is spoken of Israel, the people being personified as an individual. When Israel was a child then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. A type is a person or object divinely designed to prefigure a future character or object to which it bears designed resemblance. The future object so prefigured is called the antitype. Type is therefore visible prediction, as prophecy is spoken prediction. Thus the sacrifices were divinely appointed types of the great atoning sacrifice of Christ. An entire set or combination of objects may be typical of an entire set of antitypical objects. The objects may resemble, and the principle which connects the objects of the combination may be the same in both sets. Thus here we have of type and antitype, then, two sets:

1. Pharaoh, Israel, Egypt, Canaan.

2. Herod, Christ, Egypt, Palestine.

The individuals of each couplet are similar or same, and the relation connecting the individuals of each set is the same. So Israel is a type of the Church, and Christ’s infantile history is a type of his Messianic history, as his Messianic history is a type of the Church. Thus:

Adversary, Righteous One, Trial, Restoration.

1. Pharaoh, Israel, Egypt, Canaan.

2. Herod, Christ, Egypt, Palestine

3. Satan, Christ, World, Glory.

4. Satan, Church, World, Heaven.

When the Old Testament designedly uses words which describe the typical points in the type, those words will describe the future antitype. It thereby becomes prediction, which is fulfilled in the antitype. Thus the words, “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” describe the typical point which Israel bears to Christ. It is therefore a prediction which is fulfilled in Christ. So God’s dispensations do repeat and reproduce similar sets of types and antitypes in continuity. In printer’s phrase, the type continually produces the same set of words and paragraphs, through successive pages and editions. In the present case, Christ’s infant history was so framed as to be brought into antitypical relation; and the words of the prophet were so framed as to predict the antitype Christ in describing the type Israel. The inspiration that enabled the prophet to utter, enabled the evangelist to explain the prediction.

As Israel was God’s chosen among the nations, so Christ was God’s chosen among men. Reciprocally, as Christ was his Son, so Israel was his son. Both are his firstborn. So Exodus 4:22: “Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” In Isaiah 49:3, the words, “Thou art my servant, O Israel,” are spoken of the Messiah. So the Jewish rabbis have recognized the Scripture doctrine that Israel is type of Messiah. This typeism between Israel and Christ and the Church arises from the fact of their sameness of relation to God, as being objects of divine favour, representatives of righteousness in a world of trial, under pressure of the adversary, yet destined to victory; as we have exhibited in the parallels above.

Verse 15. Out of Egypt have I called my son. — This is cited from Hosea 11:1; and has been often adduced by those who consider the quotations from the Old Testament in the evangelists as mere accommodated allusions, founded upon some vague and undesigned resemblances, as a pregnant proof of their theory. But it is here to be recollected that the evangelist introduces the quotation with the formula, “that it might be fulfilled,” as in Matthew 1:22, 23, on which see the note. — Now this formula is just as appropriate when a type is referred to, as a prophecy; for when the type is not one of human fancy, but of Divine appointment, in each case there is an accomplishment, or completion; because a type is predictive, and differs only from a prophecy in form. The passage, as it stands in Hosea, is, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt;” and, as these words were spoken of the people Israel, the question is, whether, in any respects, the people Israel bore a typical character? This must be granted, because nothing is more certain, both from the style of the Hebrew prophets, and from the writings of St. Paul, than that Israel “after the flesh” is often made the type of “the Israel of God,” or of the Christian Church; and the deliverance of the former from Egypt the type of our redemption by Christ. It will be pertinent next to inquire, whether by the Prophet Hosea the term Israel is not sometimes used in a sense not literal, and under which, therefore, some religious mystery is contained. Of this we have an instance in Hosea 12:3-6: “By his strength he had power with God: yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him. — Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep mercy and judgment, and wait on thy God continually.” Here, indeed, there is not a typical use of the real Jacob or Israel; but the people Israel are personated and identified with their progenitor, and under that character, as Israel, “a prince which had power with God,” they are exhorted, as though they had been Jacob or Israel himself, to “turn to God,” and to “wait on him continually,” in order to prevail. This is sufficient to prove, that this prophet does not always confine himself to one simple view in the use of the term Israel. But it will throw still greater light upon the subject, if we consider that the people Israel are sometimes spoken of as one person, and called God’s “son,” and his “first-born,” which indicates that Israel was intended to be in some particulars the type of some individual: and who could this be but “the Son,” and “the First-born” of God, the Messiah? To which we may add this strong confirmation, that the Messiah himself is by the prophets called Israel, doubtless for this reason, for no other can be assigned, that he was, in some respects or other, typified by the people Israel. Thus, in Isaiah, 49:3, where Jehovah is introduced speaking to Messiah, he says, “Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified;” and Isaiah 42:1, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth,” is, in the Septuagint, “Jacob my servant — and Israel mine elect.” Here too the Jewish uninspired writers afford a proof that they understood the Messiah to be typified by Israel. Thus Dr. Alix remarks that the author of Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 2:7, says, “The mysteries of the King Messiah are declared in the law, the prophets, and the Hagiographa.” In the law it is written, Exodus 4:22, “Israel is my Son, even my first-born.” Hence Rabbi Nathan in Schemoth Rabba on those words speaks thus: “As I made Jacob my first-born, Exodus 4:22, so have I made Messiah my first-born, as it is said, Psalm 89:27, ‘I will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth.’” Thus, then, as we find Messiah called Jacob and Israel, and no other reason can be assigned for this but that something in the case and history of the people of Israel was realized in him, in the sense of correspondence with an instituted type, the words of Hosea were intended to indicate, at least in one respect, in what the type consisted, and those of the evangelist how the type was “fulfilled in him.” Israel was in Egypt subject to a foreign power, and in a lowly state; but was brought out from thence, and, after various trials and wanderings in the desert, was raised to dominion and glory among the nations. So our Lord was for a time in Egypt, in subjection to a foreign dominion, and in a lowly condition; but was called from thence, that, after his season of trial and humiliation, he might be exalted to glory and universal dominion. It is in these particulars that the type was fulfilled. Israel the typical son, and Jesus the true Son, were each called out of Egypt, by special interposition of God, to accomplish his great purposes, and to be raised to honour, and invested with dominion. We may therefore conclude that the Holy Spirit first dictated the passage quoted to Hosea, and then directed St. Matthew to refer the call of Christ out of Egypt to the same passage, as an accomplishment of it, in order to explain in what the typical character of Israel in reference to Christ consisted, and to convince the Jews by this type that the humiliation and glory of the Messiah were as much connected, in the intention of God, as the humiliation of the ancient Israel, and the glory to which that people were afterward conducted. Thus the words of the prophet, which had always a mystical reference to Christ, were in the strict sense FULFILLED. With respect to this passage it may, however, be observed that Doddridge, following earlier commentators inclines to the opinion that the words are in the strictest sense a prophecy, and are to be read, “Though Israel be a child that is wayward and perverse, yet I have loved him, and WILL CALL my Son out of Egypt;” the past being used for the future, as is frequent in the prophetic writings. The sense would then be, that, notwithstanding the unworthiness of Israel, yet the compassion of God would still extend to them through the Messiah, and that after having been preserved from Herod, he would be called out of Egypt to accomplish their salvation.

V. 16. Then Herod, seeing that he was deluded by the wise men-So did his pride teach him to regard this action, as if it were intended to expose him to the derision of his subjects.

Sending forth-a party of soldiers:

In all the confines thereof-In all the neighbouring places, of which Rama was one.

Verse 16. Slew all the children] This cruelty of Herod seems alluded to in very decisive terms by Macrobius, who flourished toward the conclusion of the fourth Century. In his chapter Deuteronomy jocis Augusti in alios, et aliorum rursus in ipsum, he says, Cum audisset inter pueros, quos in Syria Herodes, rex Judeorum, intra bimatum jussit interfici, filium quoque ejus occisum, ait, Melius est Herodis PORCUM esse, quam FILIUM. “When he heard that among those male infants about two years old, which Herod, the king of the Jews, ordered to be slain in Syria, one of his sons was also murdered, he said: ‘It is better to be Herod’s HOG than his SON.’“ Saturn. lib. ii. c. 4. The point of this saying consists in this, that Herod, professing Judaism, his religion forbade his killing swine, or having any thing to do with their flesh; therefore his hog would have been safe, where his son lost his life.

Verse 16. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men — The word enepaicqh, here rendered, was mocked, “properly signifies was played with, and well expresses the view in which the pride of Herod taught him to regard this action, as if it were intended to expose him to the derision of his subjects, and to treat him as a child, rather than as a prince of so great experience and renown.” Dr. Campbell reads, deceived, observing, that, “in the Jewish style, any treatment which appeared disrespectful, came under the general appellation of mockery. Thus, Potiphar’s wife, in the false accusation she preferred against Joseph, of making an attempt upon her chastity, says, that he came in to mock her, Genesis 39:17;” where the same word is employed by the LXX. which is here used. “Balaam accused his ass of mocking him, when she would not yield to his direction, Numbers 22:29. And Delilah said to Samson, Judges 16:10, Thou hast mocked (i.e., deceived) me, and told me lies. As one who deceived them appeared to treat them contemptuously, they were naturally led to express the former by the latter.” Was exceeding wroth — Very highly incensed and enraged; and in order to make the destruction of this unknown infant as pure as possible, sent forth — Not immediately, it seems, but a little time after the departure of the wise men, a party of soldiers, and slew all the children — The male children, as touv paidav properly signifies. From two years old and under — Or, as the words apo dietouv kai katwterw are rendered by the last-mentioned writer, From those entering the second year, down to the time whereof he had procured exact information from the magians. “There can be no doubt,” as the doctor observes, “that in this direction, Herod intended to specify both the age above which and the age under which infants were not to be involved in this massacre. But there is some scope for inquiry into the import of the description given. Were those of the second year included or excluded by it? By the common translation they are included, by the other excluded. Plausible things may be advanced on each side.” Dr. Campbell, however, for divers reasons, which he assigns, adopts the latter, and thinks that the import of the direction was, “that they should kill none above twelve months old, or under six.” It is probable that Herod, in his passion, ordered the slaughter of the infants as soon as he perceived that he was disappointed in his expectation of the return of the wise men, lest otherwise the child he was so jealous of should be removed. Some have inferred from hence, that it was not till some considerable time after the birth of Christ, that he was visited by the wise men. But there is little account to be given of the actions of a tyrant who slew three of his own sons, and who, it is reasonable to suppose, would wish to make sure work in this case, and therefore would, no doubt, extend the slaughter to those born before the first appearance of the star, thinking, perhaps, that it might not appear immediately upon the conception or birth of the child, but some time after. Accordingly, though the scribes told him the child was to be born in Bethlehem, he is not content to slay the infants there, but added thereto the slaughter of those in all the coasts. Who can avoid reflecting here on the horrible wickedness manifested in slaying these infants, who could neither hurt others nor defend themselves, and whom the king, as the guardian of the laws, was bound to have defended against the injuries of all lawless persons? But the wrath of wicked princes is usually extravagant and destructive. Thus Saul, when David had escaped, not only commanded Abimelech, with eighty-five priests, to be slaughtered, but also all the people of the city, not excepting even the women and children. This action of Herod was no less impious than unjust and cruel; for, to endeavour to make void the counsel of the Almighty God, declared by prophecies, by the appearance of a star, and by the consent of scribes and priests; what was it else but directly and designedly to oppose and fight against God? What cause we have to be “thankful that we are not under the arbitrary power of a tyrant, whose sallies of distracted fury might spread desolation through houses and provinces. Let us not say, Where was the great Regent of the universe when such horrible butchery was transacted? His all-wise counsels knew how to bring good out of all the evil of it. The agony of a few moments transmitted these oppressed innocents to peace and joy, while the impotent rage of Herod only heaped on his own head guilt, infamy, and horror.” — Doddridge.

Ver. 16. Herod slew all the children that were in Bethlehem. It is said that one of his own male children, named Antipater, after his father, fell among the victims. When the news reached the ears of Augustus the emperor, he is reported to have said, that he would rather be Herod’s pig than Herod’s son. Vide Poli. Syn. This slaughter of the infants is attested by Macrobius.

§ 13. — SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS, AND RETURN FROM EGYPT, 16-23.

16. Mocked — Slighted and deceived. Wroth — Angry. Slew — Herod believed the prophecy, for he ordered the sacred records to be consulted, with the expectation that they would tell, and tell truly, where the Messiah would be born. He believed the Scripture; he believed in the Messiah. But what a believer! He imagined that he could kill the predicted Messiah, and so defeat the God of ages! Such idiots may the most crafty men make of themselves, when blinded by ambition. All the children — Male children. Many imagine that the number was immense; but the number of male children under two years old in a small village and its adjacent country borders could not be large. Coasts — The original word signifies not sea coasts, but suburbs, land borders.

There is no force in the modern objection to the truth of the history of the massacre of the infants, derived from the fact that no secular historian of that day mentions it. Amid the enormous slaughters perpetrated by this monster, the killing of a few children in a country village would hardly be thought worthy of notice by any pagan author. See our remarks on Herod in our notes upon verse 1.

Verse 16. Slew all the children. — That is, all the male children; touv waidav. This act, however barbarous, was quite accordant with the malignant character of Herod, who, especially when under the influence of political jealousy, knowing how much he was hated by the Jews, gave full range to his sanguinary temper. He had imbrued his hands in the blood of his own sons, and his wife, and many others; and, though tormented in his last days by remorse and fear, yet even on his deathbed he sent for all the considerable Jews of Jericho, where he then was, and had them shut up in the circus, giving orders that they should be slain as soon as he expired, that he might have a lamentation at his death. The order was disobeyed; but it marks the character of this unhappy man of blood, with whom departed the sceptre finally from Judah. — Josephus does not mention this slaughter of the children by Herod. This may be accounted for probably because of the slight impression which this event would produce among the Jews, accustomed to witness in Herod’s proceedings acts of superior atrocity; and also because it was done in an obscure part of the country, and was unconnected with any political event. The memory of it would be preserved among Christians, as connected with the early history of their Lord; but a Jew like Josephus, writing near a century afterward, was likely to overlook it. Beside this, Josephus professes to take the greatest part of his account of Herod’s actions from Nicolaus of Damascus, whom he acknowledges to have written with partiality in Herod’s favour, omitting many of his cruelties. There was nothing in this matter, barbarous as it was, to give it a prominent place in heathen or Jewish record; nevertheless, it is adverted to by Macrobius, a heathen author of the fourth century, adduced by Lardner, but only to introduce one of the witticisms of Augustus, the Roman emperor. “Melius est Herodis porcum esse, quam filium.” — “It is better to be Herod’s swine, than his son;” alluding to the Jewish abstinence from swine’s flesh. The remark of Augustus applied, however, to Herod’s murder of his sons, though Macrobius joins with this the distinct tragedy of Bethlehem, to which only his words can refer: “Those male infants within two years old, which Herod, the king of the Jews, ordered to be slain in Syria.” This event is noticed in a rabbinical work called Toldath Jeshu, — “And the king gave orders for putting to death every infant to be found in Bethlehem.”

V. 17. Then was fulfilled-A passage of Scripture, whether prophetic, historical, or poetical, is in the language of the New Testament fulfilled, when an event happens to which it may with great propriety be accommodated.

Verse 17. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy — The words of Jeremiah here referred to (Jeremiah 31:15, where see the notes) were primarily meant of the Jews carried captive by Nebuchadnezzar, Ramah being the place where they were assembled to be led away to Babylon. But, as this cruel execution here related by the evangelist, extended itself to all the neighbouring places, and in particular to this same Ramah, a town of Benjamin, which lay near to Bethlehem, the prophet’s words are, with great propriety, applied to this melancholy event likewise, and are represented as receiving a second accomplishment in the bloody slaughter of these infants. And when it is considered that the Jews who were carried captive were not slain, but lived many of them to return again, as the Prophet Jeremiah foretold, to their own border, it must be allowed, that the prediction was much more literally fulfilled on this latter than on the former occasion. This application of the prophecy by the evangelist affords a sure proof that a passage of Scripture, whether prophetical, historical, or poetical, may, in the language of the New Testament, be said to be fulfilled, when an event happens to which it may with great propriety be accommodated.

§ 13. — SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS, AND RETURN FROM EGYPT, 16-23.

16. Mocked — Slighted and deceived. Wroth — Angry. Slew — Herod believed the prophecy, for he ordered the sacred records to be consulted, with the expectation that they would tell, and tell truly, where the Messiah would be born. He believed the Scripture; he believed in the Messiah. But what a believer! He imagined that he could kill the predicted Messiah, and so defeat the God of ages! Such idiots may the most crafty men make of themselves, when blinded by ambition. All the children — Male children. Many imagine that the number was immense; but the number of male children under two years old in a small village and its adjacent country borders could not be large. Coasts — The original word signifies not sea coasts, but suburbs, land borders.

There is no force in the modern objection to the truth of the history of the massacre of the infants, derived from the fact that no secular historian of that day mentions it. Amid the enormous slaughters perpetrated by this monster, the killing of a few children in a country village would hardly be thought worthy of notice by any pagan author. See our remarks on Herod in our notes upon verse 1.

V. 18. Rachel weeping for her children-The Benjamites, who inhabited Rama, sprung from her. She was buried near this place; and is here beautifully represented risen, as it were out of her grave, and bewailing her lost children.

Because they are not-that is, are dead. The preservation of Jesus from this destruction, may be considered as a figure of God's care over his children in their greatest danger. God does not often, as he easily could, cut off their persecutors at a stroke. But he provides a hiding place for his people, and by methods not less effectual, though less pompous, preserves them from being swept away, even when the enemy comes in like a flood. Jeremiah 31:15.

Verse 18. In Rama was there a voice heard] These words, quoted from Jeremiah 31:15, were originally spoken concerning the captivity of the ten tribes; but are here elegantly applied to the murder of the innocents at Bethlehem. As if he had said, Bethlehem at this time resembled Rama; for as Rachel might be said to weep over her children, which were slaughtered or gone into captivity; so in Bethlehem, the mothers lamented bitterly their children, because they were slain. The word qrhnov, lamentation is omitted by the Codd. Vatic. Cypr. one of Selden’s MSS. the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, Æthiopic, all the Itala, (except that in the Cod. Bezae,) Vulgate, and Saxon, several of the fathers, and above all Jeremiah, Jeremiah 31:15, from which it is quoted. Griesbach leaves it in the text with a note of doubtfulness. This mourning may refer to cases far from uncommon in the east, where all the children have been massacred. The lamentations of a Hindoo mother for her child are loud and piercing; and it is almost impossible to conceive of a scene more truly heart-rending than that of a whole town of such mothers wailing over their massacred children. See WARD.

Verse 18. In Rama was a voice heard — Rachel weeping for her children — Benjamin, it is well known, was the son of Rachel: his posterity, therefore, who inhabited Ramah and the parts adjacent, sprung from her, and, according to the Scripture language, were her children. The slaughter of the inhabitants of Bethlehem, also, might with propriety enough be termed the slaughter of her children; she being buried there, Genesis 35:19, and the Bethlehemites being the offspring of her husband and sister. It is by a very striking and beautiful figure of speech, by which she is here represented as awaked by the cries of the infants, and as rising out of her grave, and bitterly bewailing her little ones, who lie slaughtered in heaps around her. Because they are not — That is, are not among men, are taken away from the land of the living, are dead. The same phrase is frequently used in the same sense in the Old Testament. Now, as it was not true of those that were carried into captivity in Jeremiah’s days, that they were not, in this sense, why should it be thought strange that so literal a completion of the prophecy as took place in the days of Herod, should be referred to by the Holy Ghost? Here observe, The first crown of martyrdom for Jesus was won by these infant sufferers, and the honour to which they are advanced infinitely repays the short pains they endured. Some have questioned the authenticity of the evangelist’s narrative of the slaughter of these infants, on account of the diabolical wickedness of the action; but the following account, given by Prideaux, of Herod’s last deed and purpose, will convince any one that there was nothing too bad for that miserable man to perpetrate: — “Knowing the hatred the Jews had for him, he concluded aright, that there would be no lamentations at his death, but rather gladness and rejoicing all the country over. To prevent this, he framed a project and resolution in his mind, which was one of the most horrid and wicked, perchance, that ever entered into the heart of man. For, having issued out a summons to all the principal Jews of his kingdom, commanding their appearance at Jericho, (where he then lay,) on pain of death, at a day appointed; on their arrival thither, he shut them all up in the circus, and then, sending for Salerno his sister, and Alexas her husband, commanded them that, as soon as he was dead, they should send in the soldiers upon them, and put them all to the sword. ‘For this,’ said he, ‘will provide mourning for my funeral all over the land, and make the Jews in every family lament my death, whether they will or not:’ and when he had adjured them hereto, some hours after, he died. But they, not being wicked enough to do what they had been solemnly made to promise, rather chose to break their obligation, than to make themselves the executioners of so bloody and horrid a design.”

Since Josephus, who has given us the history of Herod’s transactions at large, has taken no notice of the slaughter of these children, some have been ready to suspect his fidelity as an historian, or, which is worse, that of St. Matthew. But there is no need to do either. For surely it is not to be supposed, that an historian lessens his credibility as often as he relates the facts omitted by another; or passes over those recorded by another. For it is hardly possible it should be otherwise, unless one should exactly copy from another. Besides, Josephus has so many instances exactly similar to this, and those so remarkable, that he might think it needless to add this. For, as Is. Vossius, a man by no means superstitious or credulous, has observed, after so many examples of Herod’s cruelty at Jerusalem and through all Judea, after so many sons, so many wives, relations, and friends, cut off by a variety of torments, it does not seem to have been a great thing to have also put to death the infants of a town or village, with the territory belonging to it, the slaughter of which could not have been very great in so small a place, especially since not all, but only the male infants were destroyed, and of these only such as were under two years old. What Tacitus has observed, Anal. 6:7, is very applicable here: “I am not ignorant,” says he, “that the dangers and punishments undergone by many have been omitted by most writers, either because they were tired of relating such a multitude of instances, or feared that the things which had been wearisome and disagreeable to them would be equally so to their readers.” — Wetstein. Indeed, Josephus was not old enough to remember it himself, and if he did not find it in the Memoirs of Nicholas of Damascus, (that flattering historian, of whom we know he made great use in compiling the life of Herod,) he might be unwilling to introduce it, even if he were particularly acquainted with it; lest the occasion might have led him to mention what, generally, at least, he is solicitous to decline — I mean, Christian affairs. It is sufficient that this cruelty of Herod is preserved in Macrobius, who, in a chapter “concerning the jests of Augustus upon others, and of others upon him,” says, “When he heard that among those male infants about two years old, which Herod the king of the Jews ordered to be slain in Syria, one of his sons was also murdered, he said, ‘It is better to be Herod’s hog than his son.’” The saying alludes to his professing Judaism, which forbade his killing swine, or eating their flesh; therefore, his hog would have been safe where his son lost his life.

Ver. 18. In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping. So Jeremiah speaks, after he had warned the Benjamites to flee from Bethlehem, and from Ramah, the adjacent district, to avoid the sword of the Chaldeans. Jeremiah 6:1. 31:15. But prophecies have often a double sense, for the prophets always spake with the Messiah before them. When Isaiah went to king Ahaz with his infant son in his arms, he promised that a virgin should bear a Son, who should eventually save Israel. When the man of God came to Bethel, he gave a sign by the rending of the altar, that king Josiah should burn the bones of the apostate priests. So here, the prophet Jeremiah, from the Chaldean slaughter, got a glance of the infant martyrs whom Herod immolated in hopes of destroying the Christ.

18. In Ramah — Rama was a village in the tribe of Benjamin, near Bethlehem. Rachel weeping — Rachel was the wife of Jacob, or Israel, and died “in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.” (See Genesis 35:19; 48:7.) When the Babylonian captivity took place, Rama was the rendezvous where the Jews were assembled to be carried away. The prophet describes this by the beautiful passage (Jeremiah 31:15, 16) here quoted. Rachel, the ancestral mother of Israel, is represented as weeping over the loss of her captured and murdered children. In this the evangelist finds a typical resemblance to the martyrdom of the children by Herod.

A beautiful illustration of this personification of captured Israel as a female is found in several ancient medals, still extant, in which a mourning female figure is stamped with the pathetic inscription, Judea capta. The typical principles are the same as in verse 15. Only there it is paternal Israel, and here it is maternal. There the father of the nation represents the nation, and here, his wife, the mother of tribes. Israel, or Judea, is here a woman. And as in the prophetic passage in Jeremiah, when fully quoted, there is a promised restoration for the hapless national Rachel, so in this case a triumph is shadowed for the maternal mourner.

They are not — Equivalent to our phrase, They are no more. They are borne away into slavery. To their weeping mother they are to all intents and purposes dead.

Verse 18. In Rama was there a voice heard, &c. — This quotation more nearly agrees with the Hebrew than with the present copies of the Septuagint; the variation is, however, unimportant. Rama was near Bethlehem, though in the tribe of Benjamin, near which Rachel was buried: — “And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.” Here the captives were assembled, to be led away to Babylon, after the land and the cities had been wasted by war. Jeremiah had predicted all this, and, by an elegant poetic creation, brings forth Rachel, one of the common mothers of the people, thus slaughtered and led away captive, out of her tomb, bitterly lamenting the loss of her children; and then comforts her with the promise of the return of the captives from Babylon; Jeremiah 31:15, 16. This fine passage has also been thought a mere accommodation, as quoted by St. Matthew; and, as the slaughter of the innocents took place near the tomb of Rachel, she might, it is thought, be introduced in the same poetical spirit by the evangelists, as lamenting this new calamity. St. Matthew, however, does not write poetically, but with that historical simplicity which renders it very unlikely that he should make such an application of the passage, which indeed could only be suggested by a glowing fancy, if no prophetic reference had been couched under it. Nor is the remark of Whitby and some others, who reject the doctrine of accommodation generally, of any weight, that the form of introducing the quotation is not ina wlhrwqh, that it might be fulfilled, but tote eplhrwqh, then was fulfilled; meaning, “Then that happened which gave a more full completion to the words of Jeremiah:” for if the words of Jeremiah should be considered as a prediction of the distress to be brought upon the Jewish mothers of his day, personified by Rachel, by the slaughtering and the leading away their children into captivity by the Babylonian army; still this prophecy may rank among a large class of predictions which have an application to two or more events; and the heart-rending affliction of the mothers at Bethlehem and its borders was the second event to which the prophecy of Jeremiah looked, and that with striking propriety; since the scene was laid in the same tract of country, and the event was rendered equally moving by the cries and lamentations of bereaved mothers. The prophecy was therefore truly said by St. Matthew to have been “fulfilled” in its originally designed ultimate application. There is a much better reason than that given by Whitby for the change in the formula from, “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled,” to, “Then was fulfilled;” for, in the former instances of the birth of Christ, and his call out of Egypt, there was a Divine agency employed; something “done” by God which fulfilled his own predictions; but in this slaughter the only agency was that of a wicked and infuriated despot.

Because they are not. — Oti ouk eisi, a phrase which equally applies to the loss of Rachel’s children, whether by captivity or by the sword, — they were not to her. When used to express death, it does not import annihilation; for those Greek writers use the phrase who allow expressly, says Grotius, that the soul survives. Philo the Jew uses the same phrase for death.

Verse 19. When Herod was dead — His death, of which Josephus has given us a very affecting account, happened, according to some, within three or four months of his perpetrating the above-mentioned bloody act, and was a fearful instance of that vengeance which God, even in this world, sometimes takes on his enemies, and those of his people. He died eaten with worms, at the age of seventy-one, after a reign of forty years, having endured such excruciating, lingering, and loathsome diseases, as rendered him intolerable to himself and others also. And his innate cruelty being thus exasperated, he became more barbarous than ever, and just before his death caused Antipater, his son and the heir apparent of his kingdom, to be executed on some groundless suspicion. God, it seems, made him, in a remarkable manner, a terror to himself and to all round about him. Eusebius, the ancient ecclesiastical historian, thought his death so great an illustration of the gospel history, that he has inserted it at large in his work. An angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt — Probably the same angel which had appeared to him before, and directed him to flee into Egypt, and abide there till he should bring him word again. That word is now brought him, and in obedience to it he returns with the child and his mother into the land of Israel. Let us, in like manner, remember, it is God’s part to direct, and ours to obey. Nor can we be out of the way of safety and comfort while we are in the way of duty, following his directions, and steering our course by the intimations of his pleasure. For, “the preservation of the holy child Jesus may be considered as a figure of God’s care over his Church and people, in their greatest dangers. He doth not often, as he easily could, strike their persecutors with immediate destruction, but he provides a hiding place for his children, and by methods not less effectual, though less pompous, preserves them from being swept away even when the enemy comes in like a flood. Egypt, that was once the seat of persecution and oppression to the Israel of God, is now a refuge to his Son: and thus all places will be to us what Divine Providence will be pleased to make them. When, like Joseph and Mary, we are cut off from the worship of his temple, and, perhaps, removed into a strange land, he can be a little sanctuary to us, and give us, in his gracious presence, a rich equivalent for all we have lost.” — Doddridge.

§ 13. — SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS, AND RETURN FROM EGYPT, 16-23.

16. Mocked — Slighted and deceived. Wroth — Angry. Slew — Herod believed the prophecy, for he ordered the sacred records to be consulted, with the expectation that they would tell, and tell truly, where the Messiah would be born. He believed the Scripture; he believed in the Messiah. But what a believer! He imagined that he could kill the predicted Messiah, and so defeat the God of ages! Such idiots may the most crafty men make of themselves, when blinded by ambition. All the children — Male children. Many imagine that the number was immense; but the number of male children under two years old in a small village and its adjacent country borders could not be large. Coasts — The original word signifies not sea coasts, but suburbs, land borders.

There is no force in the modern objection to the truth of the history of the massacre of the infants, derived from the fact that no secular historian of that day mentions it. Amid the enormous slaughters perpetrated by this monster, the killing of a few children in a country village would hardly be thought worthy of notice by any pagan author. See our remarks on Herod in our notes upon verse 1.

Verse 20. They are dead] Both Herod and Antipater his son; though some think the plural is here used for the singular, and that the death of Herod alone is here intended. But as Herod’s son Antipater was at this time heir apparent to the throne, and he had cleared his way to it by procuring the death of both his elder brothers, he is probably alluded to here, as doubtless he entered into his father’s designs. THEY are dead-Antipater was put to death by his father’s command, five days before this execrable tyrant went to his own place. See Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 11; xvii. 9.

Verse 20. They are dead which sought the young child’s life — It has been conjectured by some, that Antipater, the son of Herod, who died but five days before his father, might also be referred to in these words, They are dead, &c. At the time when Christ was born, he was heir apparent to the crown, and was a prince so cruel and ambitious, that he had procured the death of his two elder brothers, to clear his way to the succession, and no doubt he would be an active counsellor and instrument in seeking the destruction of the new-born Jesus, and in advising the slaughter of the infants.

20. They are dead — Words quoted from Exodus 4:19, where they are applied to Pharaoh the type of Herod. Our Lord’s stay in Egypt could have not been many months in duration.

Verses 21, 22. And he arose — Joseph obeyed the angel, and, it appears, would gladly have gone to Judea, probably to Bethlehem, because from his own knowledge of the prophecies, as well as from the decision of the scribes, an account of which he might have received from the magi, he fancied his son’s education in Bethlehem was as necessary to his being acknowledged the Messiah, as his birth, which had been so providentially ordered to happen there. Nevertheless, when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea, he was afraid to go thither, knowing the jealous and cruel disposition of that prince. Archelaus was the sixth son of Herod, and the most cruel of all those that survived him. His father appointed him his successor, with regal authority, but Augustus gave him only the title of ethnarch, or ruler of the nation, annexing to his government Samaria and Idumæa. In the very beginning of his reign, he massacred 3,000 Jews at once in the temple, and was afterward, viz., in the tenth year of his government, banished by Augustus to Vienna in Gaul, on a complaint brought against him by the chief of the Jews, for his various cruelties. Joseph, therefore, might well be afraid to settle in a country that was under the government of such a cruel tyrant. Being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee — which was under the government of Herod Antipas, (see note on verse 2,) a prince of a milder character than Archelaus, and then on such hostile terms with him, that there was no danger of his giving up Joseph and Mary into his power. Add to this, that, being intent upon building the cities of Julias and Tiberias, he endeavoured, by promises and immunities, as well as by a mild government, to allure strangers to come and settle there. We may observe here, that although Joseph’s near relation to Jesus exposed him to many difficulties and dangers, such as he had been a stranger to till it commenced, yet it made him ample amends for that inconvenience, by placing him and his under the peculiar care of a watchful Providence, ever attentive to his safety, and that of his little family; and by procuring him the favour of so many extraordinary visitations and supernatural discoveries of the divine will. This is no less than the fourth message sent him from the court of heaven since he became the husband of Mary!

§ 13. — SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS, AND RETURN FROM EGYPT, 16-23.

16. Mocked — Slighted and deceived. Wroth — Angry. Slew — Herod believed the prophecy, for he ordered the sacred records to be consulted, with the expectation that they would tell, and tell truly, where the Messiah would be born. He believed the Scripture; he believed in the Messiah. But what a believer! He imagined that he could kill the predicted Messiah, and so defeat the God of ages! Such idiots may the most crafty men make of themselves, when blinded by ambition. All the children — Male children. Many imagine that the number was immense; but the number of male children under two years old in a small village and its adjacent country borders could not be large. Coasts — The original word signifies not sea coasts, but suburbs, land borders.

There is no force in the modern objection to the truth of the history of the massacre of the infants, derived from the fact that no secular historian of that day mentions it. Amid the enormous slaughters perpetrated by this monster, the killing of a few children in a country village would hardly be thought worthy of notice by any pagan author. See our remarks on Herod in our notes upon verse 1.

V. 22. He was afraid to go thither-into Judea; and so turned aside into the region of Galilee-a part of the land of Israel not under the jurisdiction of Archelaus.

Verse 22. When he heard that Archelaus did reign] Herod, having put Antipater his eldest son to death, altered his will, and thus disposed of his dominions: he gave the tetrarchy of Galilee and Petrea to his son Antipas; the tetrarchy of Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, Batanea, and Paneadis, to his son Philip; and left the kingdom of Judea to his eldest remaining son, Archelaus. This son partook of the cruel and blood-thirsty disposition of his father: at one of the passovers, he caused three thousand of the people to be put to death in the temple and city. For his tyranny and cruelty, Augustus deprived him of the government, and banished him. His character considered, Joseph, with great propriety, forbore to settle under his jurisdiction.

He turned aside into the parts of Galilee] Here Antipas governed, who is allowed to have been of a comparatively mild disposition: and, being intent on building two cities, Julias and Tiberias, he endeavoured, by a mild carriage and promises of considerable immunities, to entice people from other provinces to come and settle in them. He was besides in a state of enmity with his brother Archelaus: this was a most favourable circumstance to the holy family; and though God did not permit them to go to any of the new cities, yet they dwelt in peace, safety, and comfort at Nazareth.

Verses 21, 22. And he arose — Joseph obeyed the angel, and, it appears, would gladly have gone to Judea, probably to Bethlehem, because from his own knowledge of the prophecies, as well as from the decision of the scribes, an account of which he might have received from the magi, he fancied his son’s education in Bethlehem was as necessary to his being acknowledged the Messiah, as his birth, which had been so providentially ordered to happen there. Nevertheless, when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea, he was afraid to go thither, knowing the jealous and cruel disposition of that prince. Archelaus was the sixth son of Herod, and the most cruel of all those that survived him. His father appointed him his successor, with regal authority, but Augustus gave him only the title of ethnarch, or ruler of the nation, annexing to his government Samaria and Idumæa. In the very beginning of his reign, he massacred 3,000 Jews at once in the temple, and was afterward, viz., in the tenth year of his government, banished by Augustus to Vienna in Gaul, on a complaint brought against him by the chief of the Jews, for his various cruelties. Joseph, therefore, might well be afraid to settle in a country that was under the government of such a cruel tyrant. Being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee — which was under the government of Herod Antipas, (see note on verse 2,) a prince of a milder character than Archelaus, and then on such hostile terms with him, that there was no danger of his giving up Joseph and Mary into his power. Add to this, that, being intent upon building the cities of Julias and Tiberias, he endeavoured, by promises and immunities, as well as by a mild government, to allure strangers to come and settle there. We may observe here, that although Joseph’s near relation to Jesus exposed him to many difficulties and dangers, such as he had been a stranger to till it commenced, yet it made him ample amends for that inconvenience, by placing him and his under the peculiar care of a watchful Providence, ever attentive to his safety, and that of his little family; and by procuring him the favour of so many extraordinary visitations and supernatural discoveries of the divine will. This is no less than the fourth message sent him from the court of heaven since he became the husband of Mary!

22. When he heard that Archelaus did reign — He heard this first after he had reached the land of Israel, that is, the southwestern border of Palestine. He knew the death of Herod by revelation in Egypt. Archelaus was the son of Herod the Great, by his fourth wife, Malthace. After Herod had slain his three sons, Aristobulus, Alexander, and Antipater, he left by will his dominions to Archelaus as king. Upon the death of Herod, Archelaus was proclaimed king by the populace, but did not dare assume the crown until his title should be confirmed by the Emperor of Rome. Thereupon the Jews sent a solemn embassy to the emperor, petitioning that they might be exempted from the reign of any of Herod’s family, and that Judea might be governed as a Roman province, under the governor of Syria. The emperor, having heard the representations of all parties, appointed Archelaus not king, but ethnarch, that is, (in the Greek language,) nation-ruler, promising him the title of king, provided he should prove a good ruler. But the cruelty of the father was inherited by the son. Archelaus, after a reign of nine years, was deposed by the emperor at the suit of the Jewish people, and banished to Vienna, in Gaul, where he died. It is therefore very consistent with history, that when the parents of Jesus learned that Archelaus reigned in the stead of his father Herod, they should avoid his dominions, turn aside to Galilee, and make their abode in Nazareth.

It seems singular that Matthew has not thus far alluded to Nazareth by name, although we plentifully know by Luke that Nazareth was the home of the Holy Family before the flight to Egypt. Some think Matthew was not aware of the fact, which is hardly possible. But as Matthew wrote for Jews, it is more probable that he omits it because it was so well known. See concluding remarks of chapter i, par. 2.

Archelaus had as great a reputation for oppression as his cruel father. Herod Antipas, his brother, was ruler in Galilee. Thereby our Saviour’s residence was transferred to a scene predicted by the prophecies of the Old Testament.

Afraid to go thither — Some think that they would have gone thither because they had a residence in Bethlehem. This is disproved from the fact that Mary had not even an acquaintance to afford her a lodging at an exigency when any friend would have made a sacrifice to accommodate her. But they had relatives in Judea, (Luke 1:36, 39, 40;) Judah was their hereditary tribe, and Jerusalem might seem the suitable place for the young heir of David. These facts can surely explain their apparent disposition to settle in Judea. Galilee — Was the northern one of the three great divisions of Palestine. The word signifies circuit. The province consisted of a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles, and so was much despised by the purer Jews of Judea.

Verse 22. That Archelaus did reign. — He succeeded Herod only in Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, as ethnarch, a title inferior to king, though that title frequently was given in courtesy to sovereigns of every degree. — Galilee was under Herod Antipas, from whom there was less apprehension of inquiry or danger. (See note on verse 1.) Under Divine direction Joseph therefore repaired to Nazareth; for which also there was another reason beside his safety, which is mentioned in the next verse. The parts of Galilee. — Galilee was the country formerly occupied by the tribes of Issachar, Zebulon, Naphtali, and part of Asher; and was most honoured by our Lord’s presence. It was bounded on the south by Samaria, on the west and north by “the coasts of Tyre and Sidon,” and on the east by the countries of Abilene and Iturea. Josephus describes it as fruitful and well cultivated, abounding in towns and villages, and exceedingly populous. The dialect and accent of the Galileans somewhat differed from that of the Jews in other parts, and hence Peter, Matthew 26:73, was by his speech known to be of that province.

V. 23. He came and dwelt in Nazareth-(where he had dwelt before he went to Bethlehem) a place contemptible to a proverb. So that hereby was fulfilled what has been spoken in effect by several of the prophets, (though by none of them in express words,)

He shall be called a Nazarene-that is, he shall be despised and rejected, shall be a mark of public contempt and reproach.

Verse 23. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets] It is difficult to ascertain by what prophets this was spoken. The margin usually refers to Judges 13:5, where the angel, foretelling the birth of Samson, says, No razor shall come upon his head; for the child shall be a NAZARITE (ryzn nezir) unto God from the womb. The second passage usually referred to is Isaiah 11:1: There shall come forth a rod from the stem of Jesse, and a BRANCH (rxn netser) shall grow out of his roots. That this refers to Christ, there is no doubt. Jeremiah, Jeremiah 23:5, is supposed to speak in the same language-I will raise unto David a righteous BRANCH: but here the word is jmx tsemach, not rxn netser; and it is the same in the parallel place, Zechariah 3:8; 6:12; therefore, these two prophets cannot be referred to; but the passages in Judges and Isaiah may have been in the eye of the evangelist, as well as the whole institution relative to the Nazarite (ryzn nezir) delivered at large, Num. 6:, where see the notes. As the Nazarite was the most pure and perfect institution under the law, it is possible that God intended to point out by it, not only the perfection of our Lord, but also the purity of his followers. And it is likely that, before St. Matthew wrote this Gospel, those afterwards called Christians bore the appellation of Nazarites, or Nazoreans, for so the Greek word, nazwraiov, should be written. Leaving the spiritual reference out of the question, the Nazarene or Nazorean here may mean simply an inhabitant or person of Nazareth; as Galilean does a person or inhabitant of Galilee. The evangelist evidently designed to state, that neither the sojourning at Nazareth, nor our Lord being called a Nazarene, were fortuitous events, but were wisely determined and provided for in the providence of God; and therefore foretold by inspired men, or fore-represented by significant institutions. But how shall we account for the manner in which St. Matthew and others apply this, and various other circumstances, to the fulfilment of ancient traditions? This question has greatly agitated divines and critics for more than a century. Surenhusius, Hebrew professor at Amsterdam, and editor of a very splendid and useful edition of the Mishna, in six vols. fol. published an express treatise on this subject, in 1713, full of deep research and sound criticism. He remarks great difference in the mode of quoting used in the Sacred Writings: as, It hath been said-it is written-that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets-the Scripture says-see what is said-the Scripture foreseeing-he saith-is it not written?-the saying that is written, &c., &c. With great pains and industry, he has collected ten rules out of the Talmud and the rabbins, to explain and justify all the quotations made from the Old Testament in the New.

RULE I. Reading the words, not according to the regular vowel points, but to others substituted for them. He thinks this is done by Peter, Acts 3:22, 23; by Stephen, Acts 7:42, &c.; and by Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:54; 2 Corinthians 8:15.

RULE II. Changing the letters, as done by St. Paul, Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 9:9, &c.; Hebrews 8:9., &c.; Hebrews 10:5. RULE III. Changing both letters and vowel points, as he supposes is done by St. Paul, Acts 13:40, 41; 2 Corinthians 8:15. RULE IV. Adding some letters, and retrenching others. RULE V. Transposing words and letters.

RULE VI. Dividing one word into two.

RULE VII. Adding other words to make the sense more clear. RULE VIII. Changing the original order of the words.

RULE IX. Changing the original order, and adding other words. RULE X. Changing the original order, and adding and retrenching words, which he maintains is a method often used by St. Paul. Let it be observed, that although all these rules are used by the rabbins, yet, as far as they are employed by the sacred writers of the New Testament, they never, in any case, contradict what they quote from the Old, which cannot be said of the rabbins: they only explain what they quote, or accommodate the passage to the facts then in question. And who will venture to say that the Holy Spirit has not a right, in any subsequent period, to explain and illustrate his own meaning, by showing that it had a greater extension in the Divine mind than could have been then perceived by men? And has HE not a right to add to what he has formerly said, if it seem right in his own sight? Is not the whole of the New Testament, an addition to the Old, as the apostolic epistles are to the narrative of our Lord’s life and acts, as given by the evangelists?

Gusset, Wolf, Rosenmuller, and others, give four rules, according to which, the phrase, that it might be fulfilled, may be applied in the New Testament.

RULE I. When the thing predicted is literally accomplished. RULE II. When that is done, of which the Scripture has spoken, not in a literal sense, but in a spiritual sense.

RULE III. When a thing is done neither in a literal nor spiritual sense, according to the fact referred to in the Scripture; but is similar to that fact. RULE IV. When that which has been mentioned in the Old Testament as formerly done, is accomplished in a larger and more extensive sense in the New Testament.

St. Matthew seems to quote according to all these rules; and it will be useful to the reader to keep them constantly in view. I may add here, that the writers of the New Testament seem often to differ from those of the Old, because they appear uniformly to quote from some copy of the Septuagint version; and most of their quotations agree verbally, and often even literally, with one or other of the copies of that version which subsist to the present day. Want of attention to the difference of copies, in the Septuagint version, has led some divines and critics into strange and even ridiculous mistakes, as they have taken that for THE SEPTUAGINT which existed in the printed copy before them; which sometimes happened not to be the most correct.

ON the birth-place of our Lord, a pious and sensible man has made the following observations:-

“At the first sight, it seems of little consequence to know the place of Christ’s nativity; for we should consider him as our Redeemer, whatever the circumstances might be which attended his mortal life. But, seeing it has pleased God to announce, beforehand, the place where the Saviour of the world should be born, it became necessary that it should happen precisely in that place; and that this should be one of the characteristics whereby Jesus Christ should be known to be the true Messiah.

“It is also a matter of small importance to us where we may live, provided we find genuine happiness. There is no place on earth, however poor and despicable, but may have better and more happy inhabitants than many of those are who dwell in the largest and most celebrated cities. Do we know a single place on the whole globe where the works of God do not appear under a thousand different forms, and where a person may not feel that blessed satisfaction which arises from a holy and Christian life? For an individual, that place is preferable to all others where he can get and do most good. For a number of people, that place is best where they can find the greatest number of wise and pious men. Every nation declines, in proportion as virtue and religion lose their influence on the minds of the inhabitants. The place where a young man first beheld the dawn and the beauty of renewed nature, and with most lively sensations of joy and gratitude adored his God, with all the veneration and love his heart was capable of; the place where a virtuous couple first met, and got acquainted; or where two friends gave each other the noblest proofs of their most tender affection; the village where one may have given, or seen, the most remarkable example of goodness, uprightness, and patience; such places, I say, must be dear to their hearts.

“Bethlehem was, according to this rule, notwithstanding its smallness, a most venerable place; seeing that there so many pious people had their abode, and that acts of peculiar piety had often been performed in it. First, the patriarch Jacob stopped some time in it, to erect a monument to his well-beloved Rachel. It was at Bethlehem that honest Naomi, and her modest daughter-in-law, Ruth, gave such proofs of their faith and holiness; and in it Boaz, the generous benefactor, had his abode and his possessions. At Bethlehem the humble Jesse sojourned, the happy father of so many sons; the youngest of whom rose from the pastoral life to the throne of Israel. It was in this country that David formed the resolution of building a house for the Lord, and in which he showed himself the true shepherd and father of his subjects, when, at the sight of the destroying angel, whose sword spread consternation and death on all hands, he made intercession for his people. It was in Bethlehem that Zerubbabel the prince was born, this descendant of David, who was the type of that Ruler and Shepherd under whose empire Israel is one day to assemble, in order to enjoy uninterrupted happiness. Lastly, in this city the Son of God appeared; who, by his birth, laid the foundation of that salvation, which, as Redeemer, he was to purchase by his death for the whole world. Thus, in places which from their smallness are entitled to little notice, men sometimes spring, who become the benefactors of the human race. Often, an inconsiderable village has given birth to a man, who, by his wisdom, uprightness, and heroism, has been a blessing to whole kingdoms.”

Sturm’s Reflections, translated by A. C. vol. iv.

ST. MATTHEW

Verse 23. He dwelt in a city called Nazareth — Where he had formerly resided before he went to Bethlehem. Nazareth, as appears from Luke 4:29, was built upon a rock, not far from mount Tabor. The country about it, according to Antoninus the martyr, was like a paradise, abounding in wheat and fruits of all kinds. Wine, oil, and honey, of the best kind, were produced there: but it was a place so very contemptible among the Jews, that it was grown into a proverb with them, That no good thing could be expected from thence; so that by Jesus’s returning to Nazareth, and being brought up and educated in it, a way was further opened by the providence of God, for the fulfilment of the many Scriptures which foretold that he should appear in mean and despicable circumstances, and be set up as a mark of public contempt and reproach. This seems to be the most probable solution of this difficult text. He shall be called a Nazarene — That is, he shall be reputed vile and abject, and shall be despised and rejected of men, an event which many of the prophets had particularly foretold. And it is to be observed, that St. Matthew does not cite any particular prophet for these words, as he had done before, Matthew 1:22; and here, verses 15, 17, and in other places, but only says, this was spoken by the prophets, viz., in general, whereby, as Jerome observes, he shows that he took not the words from the prophets, but only the sense. See Psalm 69:9, 10; Isaiah 53:3. Now it is certain the Nazarene was a term of contempt and infamy put upon Christ, both by the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles, and that because he was supposed to come out of this very city. There was, among the Jews, a celebrated thief, called Ben-Nezer, and in allusion to him, they gave the name to Christ. His very going to dwell at Nazareth, was an occasion of his being despised and rejected by the Jews. Thus, when Philip said to Nathanael, We have found Jesus of Nazareth, of whom Moses spake, Nathanael answered, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? And when Nicodemus seemed to favour him, the rest of the council said to him, Search and look, for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. Here then we have a plain sense of these words. He was sent to this contemptible place that he might there have a name of infamy and contempt put upon him, according to the frequent intimations of the prophets. If, after all, this interpretation is not acquiesced in, we may, with many of the ancient Christians, particularly Chrysostom, suppose, that the evangelist may refer to some writings of the prophets, which were then extant, but are now lost, or to some writings not put into the Sacred Canon, or to some paraphrases upon the writings. As to the interpretations which refer this to Christ’s being called Netzer, the Branch, Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; or Nazir, one Separated, or, the Holy One, they all fail in this, that they give no account how this was fulfilled by Christ’s living at Nazareth, he being as much the Branch, the Holy One, when he was born at Bethlehem, and before he went to Nazareth, as after.

23. A city called Nazareth — Though Matthew wrote for Jewish readers, familiar with Nazareth, his words seem to imply the contrary. This we shall soon explain. Nazareth — A small village embosomed in a valley in the southwestern part of Galilee. It was very obscure; it is not mentioned in the Old Testament. According to Hengstenberg, its name is derived from the Hebrew word Netzer, signifying a branch; or rather sprout, or germ; the place being so called from its insignificance. Its fame has solely risen from the residence of the Saviour there. Indeed, the place is a fit emblem of him. Beginning from a germ, it has risen to a tree in fame, and will fill the earth. Stanley gives the following account of Nazareth:

“It is one peculiarity of the Galilean hills, as distinct from those of Ephraim or Judah, that they contain or sustain green basins of table-land just below their topmost ridges. Such above all is NAZARETH. Fifteen gently rounded hills ‘seem as if they had met to form an enclosure’ for this peaceful basin; ‘they rise round it like the edge of a shell to guard it from intrusion. It is a rich and beautiful field’ in the midst of these green hills, abounding in gay flowers, in fig-trees, small gardens, hedges of the prickly pear; and the dense, rich grass affords an abundant pasture. The village stands on the steep slope of the southwestern side of the valley. “From the crest of the hills which thus screen it, especially from that called ‘Nebi-Said,’ or ‘Ismail,’ on the western side, is one of the most striking views in Palestine. There are Tabor, with its rounded dome, on the northeast, Hermon’s white top in the distant north, Carmel and the Mediterranean Sea to the west, a conjunction of those three famous mountains, probably unique in the views of Palestine. And in the nearer prospect, there are the uplands in which Nazareth itself stands, its own circular basin behind it; on the west, enclosed by similar hills overhanging the plain of Acre, lies the town of Sepphorieh, the Roman capital. On the south and southeast lies the broad plain of Esdraelon, overhung by the high pyramidal hill which, as the highest point of the Nazareth range, and thus the most conspicuous to travelers approaching from the plain, has received, though without any historical ground, the name of the ‘Mount of Precipitation.’ These are the natural features which for nearly thirty years met the almost daily view of Him who increased in wisdom and stature’ within this beautiful seclusion. It is the seclusion which constitutes its peculiarity and its fitness for these scenes of the Gospel history. Unknown and unnamed in the Old Testament, Nazareth first appears as the retired abode of the humble carpenter. Its separation from the busy world may be the ground, as it certainly is an illustration, of the evangelist’s play on the word, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’ Its wild character, high up in the Galilean hills, may account both for the roughness of its population, unable to appreciate their own Prophet; and for the evil reputation which it had acquired even in the neighbouring villages, one of whose inhabitants, Nathaniel of Cana, said, ‘Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?’ There, secured within the natural barrier of the hills, was passed that youth, of which the most remarkable characteristic is its absolute obscurity; and thence came the name of NAZARENE, used of old by the Jews, and used still by Mussulmans, as the appellation of that despised sect which has now embraced the civilized world.”

Spoken by the prophets — Not by any one prophet in express terms, but by several of the prophets, in general substance.

He shall be called a Nazarene — The name of Nazarene was but another word for despised one. Hence, although no prophet has ever said anything of the word Nazarene, yet all those prophecies describing the Messiah as a despised one are fulfilled in his being a Nazarene.

Such is the ordinary interpretation, and we concur in it; and the reader is welcome to consider it sufficient. But we are convinced, in spite of the denial of most commentators, that, as Hengstenberg has shown, something more than this is intended. The Hebrew word for Nazareth was Netzer, a branch, or rather germ. Matthew wrote for Hebrews, and in his Hebrew the sentence would read thus: He dwelt in a city called Germ, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, saying, he shall be called a Germ, or Germinal One. Thereby would be fulfilled all that cluster of prophecies in which the Hebrew name Netzer, Branch or Germ, or its near synonym, is applied to Messiah. Thus, Zechariah 6:12: Behold the man whose name is Branch, or Germ. The term in prophecy is expressive of the slender origin of the Messiah. This whole circle of prophecies, indeed, is embraced in this of Isaiah 11:1: There shall come forth a rod from the fallen stem of Jesse and (Netzer,) a branch (germ) from his roots shall bear fruit. That is, from the decayed family stock of David, a feeble sprout shall put forth and grow to great final power. A prophecy this by which the evangelical history is wonderfully confirmed. Humble, obscure, and, as it seems to some, mean as the Gospel origin appears, it is by that very fact a fulfilment of stupendous prophecies. In support of this view we may remark:

1. There is a class of name-predictions in Scripture, of which this is a just specimen. Thus Isaiah gives his sons predictive names, (Isaiah 8:3, 18; 7:3,) which are fulfilled. Melchisedek is a type of Christ by being “King of Salem, that is, King of Peace.” This last is a precisely similar case. Salem, signifying peace, is, like Netzer, a topographical divine name-prediction of Christ’s prophetic character.

2. This interpretation makes the evangelist affirm that there was a divinely intended correspondence in name between the name of the city Netzer and Christ’s prophetic appellative Netzer; and that to mark this correspondence, Providence directed that the living Netzer should have his residence in the village Netzer. Thus would the popular attention be drawn to the prophecy and to its fulfilment.

3. The fulfilment does not stop at the mere name. Nazareth is called a germ from its insignificance; yet it shall, through him, fill the earth with its importance. So it is an emblem of Him, the living Nazareth, who at first is but a Germ, but shall fill the earth with his glory. And as there is a correspondence in the name and thing, so they both continue to fulfil the prophetic predictions of the Netzer, so that there is a triple prophetic cord.

4. By this wise plan of combining an external and audible fulfilment (so customary in prophecy) with the written one, a broad publicity is given to the great fact. It is transferred from the hidden books to the open land, and infused into the common speech. Providence has written a notice of the prophecy on the surface of the earth, as on a map, by the name of Nazareth, and has noted its fulfilment by placing Jesus, the germinal Netzer, there. And he has so contrived that every time a Jew speaks of Jesus as the Netzer, or Nazarene, he reminds himself of a fulfilled prophecy.

5. This view confirms the interpretation which finds in the name Nazarene a symbol of humble origin. Nathaniel’s question, Can any good come out of Nazareth? shows that as Galilee was the odium of Palestine, so Nazareth was the odium even of Galilee.

6. We now may see the true import of the phrase beginning this verse, a city called Nazareth. It implies not that the city was new to Matthew’s readers, for that was not the fact. It implies that Jesus was divinely directed to inhabit a city called by that name, in order that a name-prediction might be fulfilled. It so demonstrates our interpretation. The meaning, then, would be: He came to a city called Netzer that by being himself called a Netzer, the prophecies which predict him as a Netzer might be evidently verified. Or: He came to a city called Germ, that the prophecies which, for substance, predict him as a Germ, may be fulfilled in his very name, as well as condition.

Finally, it is worthy to be observed what a number of name-predictions concur in our Lord, as threads to a common knot. As his name Jesus asserts that he is a predicted Saviour, and antitype to Joshua, the bringer of his people to Canaan; as his appellative, Christ, declares him the end of all the Messianic prophecies; as his name Emmanuel proclaims him the Incarnate One of the Edenic prophecy and all ancient expectation, so his civic appellation Netzer, Nazarene, Branch, Germ, reminds us of a whole cluster of germinal prophecies, while the very spot in which he dwells is a type of the very points which the name designates. And finally, the prevalence of that appellation compels men, Jew or Gentile, the world over, to utter a perpetual reminder to themselves of the prophetic fulfilment. Pity if commentators should take much pains to obscure the reminder.

Verse 23. He shall be called a Nazarene. — No such passage occurs in the Old Testament, nor can St. Matthew refer to any particular text, because he does not refer to any particular prophet; for his phrase is, “that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by THE PROPHETS,” in the plural; so that something was thus accomplished in Christ, to which all the prophets gave concurrent testimony. — Now it is plain that they all agree that he should be “despised” as well as “rejected” of men; that he should be an object of contumely and reproach, and therefore, as Whitby well remarks, “the angel sent him to this contemptible place, that he might have a name of infamy put upon him.” He shall be called mean and contemptible, as the root of the word signifies, as well as separated. How Nazareth was esteemed, we learn from the words of the mild Nathanael, — “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” and the title Nazarene has been, by Jews and other enemies, always given in contempt to our Saviour and his disciples. All the other speculations of commentators on this designation appear to be fanciful and groundless.