Matthew 2:18 Komentář

In this chapter, we have the history of our Saviour's infancy, where we find how early he began to suffer, and that in him the word of righteousness was fulfilled, before he himself began to fulfil all righteousness. Here is, I. The wise men's solicitous enquiry after Christ (Mat 2:1-8). II. Their devout attendance on him, when they found out where he was (Mat 2:9-12). III. Christ's flight into Egypt, to avoid the cruelty of Herod (Mat 2:13-15). IV. The barbarous murder of the infants of Bethlehem (Mat 2:16-18). V. Christ's return out of Egypt into the land of Israel again (Mat 2:19-23).

Now when Jesus was born,.... Several things are here related respecting the birth of Christ, as the place where he was born, in Bethlehem of Judea; so called to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zabulon, Jos 19:15. Here Christ was to be born according to a prophecy hereafter mentioned, and accordingly the Jews expected he would be born here, Mat 2:4 and so Jesus was born here, Luk 2:4 and this the Jews themselves acknowledge; "Such a year, says a noted (l) chronologer of theirs, Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem Juda, which is a "parsa" and a half, i.e. six miles, from Jerusalem.'' Benjamin (m) Tudelensis says it is two parsas, i.e. eight miles, from it; and according to Justin Martyr (n) it was thirty five furlongs distant from it. Yea even they own this, that Jesus was born there, in that vile and blasphemous book (o) of theirs, written on purpose to defame him; nay, even the ancient Jews have owned that the Messiah is already born, and that he was born at Bethlehem; as appears from their Talmud (p), where we meet with such a passage. "It happened to a certain Jew, that as he was ploughing, one of his oxen bellowed; a certain Arabian passed by and heard it, who said, O Jew, Jew, loose thy oxen, and loose thy ploughshare, for lo, the house of the sanctuary is destroyed: it bellowed a second time; he said unto him, O Jew, Jew, bind thy oxen, and bind thy ploughshare, for lo "the king Messiah is born". He said to him, what is his name? Menachem (the comforter); he asked again, what is his father's name? Hezekiah; once more he says, from whence is he? He replies "from the palace of the king of Bethlehem Judah"; he went and sold his oxen and his ploughshares, and became a seller of swaddling clothes for infants; and he went from city to city till he came to that city, (Bethlehem,) and all the women bought of him, but the mother of Menachem bought nothing.'' Afterwards they tell you, he was snatched away by winds and tempests. This story is told in much the same manner in another (q) of their writings. Bethlehem signifies "the house of bread", and in it was born, as an ancient writer (r) observes, the bread which comes down from heaven: and it may also signify "the house of flesh", and to it the allusion may be in Ti1 3:16 "God manifest in the flesh". The time of Christ's birth is here expressed, in the days of Herod the king. This was Herod the great, the first of that name: the Jewish chronologer (s) gives an account of him in the following manner. "Herod the first, called Herod the Ascalonite, was the son of Antipater, a friend of king Hyrcanus and his deputy; him the senate of Rome made king in the room of Hyrcanus his master. This Herod whilst he was a servant of king Hyrcanus (so in the (t) Talmud Herod is said to be a servant of the family of the Asmonaeans) king Hyrcanus saved from death, to which he was sentenced by the sanhedrim of Shammai; that they might not slay him for the murder of one Hezekiah, as is related by Josephus, l. 6. c. 44. and Herod took to him for wife Miriam, the daughter of Alexander the son of Aristobulus, who was the daughter's daughter of king Hyrcanus.'' This writer tacitly owns afterwards (u) that Jesus was born in the days of this king; for he says, that in the days of Hillell and Shammai (who lived in those times) there was one of their disciples, who was called R. Joshua ben Perachiah, and he was, adds he, "the master of the Nazarene", or of Jesus of Nazareth. Herod reigned, as this same author observes, thirty seven years; and according to Dr. Lightfoot's calculation, Christ was born in the thirty fifth year of his reign, and in the thirty first of Augustus Caesar, and in the year of the world three thousand nine hundred and twenty eight, and the month Tisri, which answers to part of our September, about the feast of tabernacles; which indeed was typical of Christ's incarnation, and then it may reasonably be thought that "the word was made flesh", and "tabernacled among us", Joh 1:14. Another circumstance relating to the birth of Christ is, that when Jesus was born--behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem; these wise men in the Greek text are called "Magi", a word which is always used in a bad sense in the sacred writings; hence they are thought by some to be magicians, sorcerers, wizards, such as Simon Magus, Act 8:9 and Elymas, Act 13:8 and so the Jewish writers (w) interpret the word a wizard, an enchanter, a blasphemer of God, and one that entices others to idolatry; and in the Hebrew Gospel of Munster these men are called "wizards". Some have thought this to be their national name. Epiphanius (x) supposes that these men were of the posterity of Abraham by Keturah, who inhabited a country in some part of Arabia, called Magodia: but could this be thought to be the name of their country, one might rather be induced to suppose that they were of the "Magi", a nation of the Medes mentioned by Herodotus (y); since both the name and country better agree with these persons; but the word seems to be rather a name of character and office, and to design the wise men, and priests of the Persians. An Eastern (z) writer says the word is of Persic original, and is compounded of two words, "Mije Gush", which signifies "a man with short ears"; for such was the first founder of the sect, and from whom they were so called. But in the Arabic Persic Nomenclator (a) it is rendered "a worshipper of fire", and such the Persian priests were; and to this agrees what Apuleius (b) says, that "Magus", in the Persian language, is the same as "priest" with us: and Xenophon (c) says, that the Magi were first appointed by Cyrus, to sing hymns to the gods, as soon as it was day, and to sacrifice to them. The account given of them by Porphyry (d) is, that "among the Persians they that were wise concerning God, and worshipped him, were called "Magi", for so "Magus" signifies in their country dialect; and so august and venerable were this sort of men accounted with the Persians, that Darius, the son of Hystaspis, ordered this, among other things, to be inscribed on his monument, that he was the master of the Magi.'' From whence we may learn in some measure who these men were, and why the word is by our translators rendered "wise men"; since the Magi, as Cicero (e) says, were reckoned a sort of wise men, and doctors among the Persians: who further observes, that no man could be a king of the Persians before he understood the discipline and knowledge of the Magi: and the wisdom of the Persian Magi, as Aelianus (f) writes, among other things, lay in foretelling things to come. These came from the east, not from Chaldea, as some have thought, led hereunto by the multitude of astrologers, magicians, and soothsayers, which were among that people; see Dan 2:2 for Chaldea was not east, but north of Judea, as appears from Jer 1:14 Jer 6:22. Others have thought they came from Arabia, and particularly Sheba, induced hereunto by Psa 72:10. But though some part of Arabia lay east, yet Sheba was south of the land of Israel, as is evident from the queen of that place being called the "queen of the south", Mat 12:42. The more generally received opinion seems to be most right, that they came from Persia, which as it lies east of Judea, so was famous for this sort of men, and besides the name, as has been seen, is of Persic original. The place whither they came was Jerusalem, the "metropolis" of Judea, where they might suppose the king of the Jews was born, or where, at least, they might persuade themselves they should hear of him; since here Herod the king lived, to whom it seems they applied themselves in the first place. The time of their coming was, "when Jesus was born"; not as soon as he was born, or on the "thirteenth" day after his birth, the sixth of January, as it stands in our Calendar; or within the forty days before Mary's Purification; since this space of time does not seem to be sufficient for so long a journey, and which must require a considerable preparation for it; nor is it probable if they came so soon as this, that after such a stir at Jerusalem, after Herod's diligent search and inquiry concerning this matter, and his wrath and anger at being disappointed and deluded by the wise men, that Joseph and Mary should so soon bring the child into the temple, where, it was declared to be the Messiah by Simeon and Anna. Besides, immediately after the departure of the wise men, Joseph with his wife and child were ordered into Egypt, which could not be done before Mary's Purification. But rather this their coming was near upon two years after the birth of Christ; since it is afterwards observed, that "Herod sent and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men", Mat 2:16. This was the opinion of Epiphanius (g) formerly, and is embraced by Dr. Lightfoot (h), to whom I refer the reader for further proof of this matter. (l) R. David Ganz. Zemach David, pars 2. fol. 14. 2. (m) Itinerarium, p. 48. (n) Apolog. 2. p. 75. (o) Toldos, p. 7. (p) Hieros. Beracot. fol. 5. 1. (q) Echa Rabbati, fol. 50. 1. (r) Hieron. Epitaph. Paulae. fol. 59. E. Tom. 1. (s) R. David Ganz. Zemach David, pars 1. fol. 24. 1. (t) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 3. 2. Juchasin. fol. 17. 1. & 18. 1. & Seder Olam Zuta, p. 111. (u) Ib. col. 2. (w) T. Bab. Sabbat. fol. 75. 1. Gloss. in ib. & Sota, fol. 22. 1. & Sanhedrim, fol. 39. 1. (x) Contr. Haeres. l. 3. Haeres. 30. (y) Clio sive l. 1. c. 101. (z) Alfiranzabadius in Pocock. Specim. Hist. Arab. p. 146. (a) In Ibid. (b) Apolog. p. 204. (c) Cyropaedia, l. 8. sect. 6. (d) De Abstinentia, l. 4. sect. 16. (e) De Divinatione, l. i. (f) Hist. Var. l. 2. c. 17. (g) Contr. Haeres. l. 1. Haeres. 30. and l. 2. Haeres. 51. (h) Harmony, Vol. I. p. 205, 432, &c.

It could not be that they were not who seemed now dead, but by glorious martyrdom they were advanced to eternal life; and consolation is for those who have suffered loss, not for those who have reaped a gain. Rachel affords a type of the Church long barren now at length fruitful. She is heard weeping for her children, not because she mourned them dead, but because they were slaughtered by those whom she would have retained as her first-born sons.

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not." Thus having filled the hearer with horror by relating these things: the slaughter so violent and unjust, so extremely cruel and lawless; he comforts him again, by saying, Not from God's wanting power to prevent it did all this take place, nor from any ignorance of His, but when He both knew it, and foretold it, and that loudly by His prophet. Be not troubled then, neither despond, looking unto His unspeakable providence, which one may most clearly see, alike by what He works, and by what He permits.

But what, it may be said, hath Rachel to do with Bethlehem? For it saith, "Rachel weeping for her children." And what hath Rama to do with Rachel? Rachel was the mother of Benjamin, and on his death, they buried her in the horse-course that was near this place. The tomb then being near, and the portion pertaining unto Benjamin her infant (for Rama was of the tribe of Benjamin), from the head of the tribe first, and next from the place of her sepulture, He naturally denominates her young children who were massacred. Then to show that the wound that befell her was incurable and cruel, He saith, "she would not be comforted because they are not." Hence again we are taught this, which I mentioned before, never to be confounded when what is happening is contrary to the promise of God. Behold, for instance, when He was come for the salvation of the people, or rather for the salvation of the world, of what kind were His beginnings. His mother, first, in flight; His birth-place is involved in irremediable calamities, and a murder is perpetrated of all murders the bitterest, and there is lamentation and great mourning, and wailings everywhere. But be not troubled for He is wont ever to accomplish His own dispensations by their contraries, affording us from thence a very great demonstration of His power.

(In Hierem. 31:15.) This passage of Jeremiah has been quoted by Matthew neither according to the Hebrew nor the LXX version. This shows that the Evangelists and Apostles did not follow any one's translation, but according to the Hebrew manner expressed in their own words what they had read in Hebrew. By Ramah we need not suppose that the town of that name near Gibeah is meant; but take it as signifying 'high.' A voice was heard 'aloft,' that is, spread far and wide.' Rachel's son was Benjamin, in which tribe Bethlehem is not situated. How then does Rachel weep for the children of Judah as if they were her own? We answer briefly. She was buried near Bethlehem in Ephrata, and was regarded as the mother, because her body was there entertained. Or, as the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin were contiguous, and Herod's command extended to the coasts of Bethlehem as well as to the town itself, we may suppose that many were slain in Benjamin. This may be understood in two ways; either she thought them dead for all eternity, so that no consolation could comfort her; or, she desired not to receive any comfort for those who she knew had gone into life eternal.

(Vers. 17 seqq.) Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying: A voice was heard in Ramah, sobbing and loud lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be consoled, since they are no more (Jerem. XXXI, 15). From Rachel was born Benjamin, in whose tribe Bethlehem is not (Genes. XXXV). Therefore, it is asked how Rachel mourns the sons of Judah, that is, Bethlehem, as if they were her own. We will answer briefly, because she is buried near Bethlehem in Ephrath, and from the maternal womb, she received the name of the mother's lodging. Whether because Judah and Benjamin were two joined tribes, and Herod had ordered not only the killing of children in Bethlehem, but also in all its borders. By the slaughter of Bethlehem, we understand that many from Benjamin were also killed. But she wept for her children, and she did not receive consolation, according to a twofold interpretation. Either because she considered them dead for eternity, or because she did not want to console herself about those whom she knew would survive. But what is said in Rama, let us not think that this is the name of a place, near Gabaa, but 'rama' is interpreted as 'an elevated place', so the meaning is: A voice was heard in an elevated place, that is, far and wide dispersed.

Hil. Quaest. N. and N. Test.9. 62: Or, The sons of Benjamin, who were akin to Rachel, were formerly cut off by the other tribes, and so extinct both then and ever after. Then therefore Rachel began to mourn her sons, when she saw those of her sister cut off in such a cause, that they should be heirs of eternal life; for he who has experienced any misfortune, is made more sensible of his losses by the good fortune of aneighbour.

Or, it was heard on high, because uttered for the death of the innocent, according to that, The voice of the poor entereth into the heavens. (Ecclus. 35:21.) The 'weeping' means the cries of the children; 'lamentation,' refers to the mothers. In the infants themselves their death ends their cries, in the mothers it is continually renewed by the remembrance of their loss.

The sacred Evangelist adds, to show the greatness of the mourning, that even the dead Rachel was roused to mourn her sons, and would not be comforted because they were not.

Or, The Church weeps the removal of the saints from this earth, but wishes not to be comforted as though they should return again to the struggles of life, for they are not to be recalled into life. Rachel is well set for a type of the Church, as the word signifies 'a sheep' or 'seeing;' (vid. note i, p. 19.) her whole thought being to fix her eye in contemplation of God; and she is the hundredth sheep that the shepherd layeth on his shoulder.

In Rama was there a voice heard. Rama is a place in Palestine of high elevation, for the name itself means "high." This place fell by lot to the inheritance of the tribe of Benjamin, who was the son of Rachel, and Rachel was buried in Bethlehem. By "Rachel," therefore, the prophet Jeremiah means "Bethlehem," for Rachel was buried in Bethlehem (Gen. 35:19). He is saying that weeping and lamentation will be heard from on high. Listen to what the prophet says: Lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, that is, Bethlehem weeping for its children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. In this life they are no more, but their souls are immortal.

(ord.) She will not be comforted in this present life, for that they are not, but transfers all her hope and comfort to the life to come.

(17) Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah. Having mentioned the slaughter of the infants, the evangelist according to custom now mentions the prophecy foretelling this: (18) A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were not (Jer 31:15). And it should be noted that, as Jerome says, wherever any text is introduced by the apostles and evangelists, it is not necessary to present it always word for word, but as the Holy Spirit gave it to them, sometimes sense for sense in our use. Thus we have in Jeremiah (31:15): "A voice is heard on high of lamentation and weeping and mourning. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not." The sense is the same. We should notice that as far as this text is concerned, it is one of those which are brought into the gospel, but which has a literal sense that is a figure of something in the New Testament. Hence, to understand it one must consider a bit of history, which is recorded in Judges, where it says that almost the whole tribe of Benjamin was wiped out on account of a sin committed against the wife of a Levite. It also states that there was greatest mourning there, so great, indeed, that it was heard from Gabsa to Ramah, a distance of 12,000 paces. Rachel is said to mourn this, because she was the mother of Benjamin; and it is a figure of speech used to express how great was the pain. But this is a prophecy about the past. In another way it is about the future in two ways: in one way it can refer to the captivity of Israel who, when they were led into captivity, are said to have wept on the road near Bethlehem; and then Rachel is said to have mourned, because she had been buried there (Gen 35:19). And this is said in the same manner of speaking as a place is said to weep over the evils which happen in the place. The prophet, therefore, desires to say that just as there was the greatest pain and grief when the tribe of Benjamin was destroyed, so in the future would be another excruciating pain in the time of the captivity. It is explained in a second way thus: the evangelist accepts the fact of the killing of the Innocents and amplifies the pain in four ways: first, from its extent; secondly, from the amount; thirdly, what the pain concerned; fourthly, its inconsolability. He says, therefore: A voice in Ramah. This is a city in the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:25) and can be taken as the city of Liah. But here it is taken for the heights and can be interpreted in two ways: first, a voice uttered on high was heard, because a voice in a lofty place is spread far and wide: "Go up in a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength" (Is 40:9). Or was heard in Ramah, i.e., in heaven before God (Sir 35:21): "The prayer of the humble pierces the clouds, and he will not be consoled until it reaches the Lord"; "Do not the tears of the widow run down her cheek, as she cries out against him who has caused them to fall?" (Sir 35:15). Wailing: This can refer to the weeping of the infants who were slaughtered. And loud lamentation: This refers to the weeping of the mothers. Or both can refer to the infants: wailing, in as much as they were lifted up by the soldiers; lamentations, in as much as they were slain. The pain of the mothers is greater than that of the infants. Again, the mothers' pain was continual, that of the infants, brief. For this reason Zechariah (12:10) says: "They shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." Also from the source of the pain, because it was concerned with the death of the infants. Hence, Rachel laments. But it might be objected that Bethlehem was not in the tribe of Benjamin but in the tribe of Judah, who was Liah's son. This is answered in three ways: first, because Rachel was buried near Bethlehem (Gen 35:19). Accordingly, she wept for the infants in the way in which any place is said to weep: "Be appalled, O heavens, at this, be shocked, be utterly desolate, says the Lord" (Jer 2:12). Or in another way: it was stated above that Herod killed the infants in Bethlehem and in all its surrounding territory. But Bethlehem lay within the confines of two tribes, namely, Judah and Benjamin. Hence, some infants from the tribe of Benjamin were killed. Thus the objection ceases, as Jerome explains. But Augustine explains it another way and says that it is customary, when one is habituated to prosperity, that he becomes sadder when adversities come. Liah and Rachel were sisters, and the ones killed were among the children of Liah. Thus they were killed bodily, lest they be punished eternally, as in the case of Gabaa. Therefore, she is said to weep, when she sees her children killed or damned. Or the Church is signified by Rachel, because it means "seeing God," and the Church sees by faith. She weeps over her slain children, not because they were slain, but because through them she could obtain others. Or she weeps not for the slain but for the slayers. Then he mentions the inconsolable pain: she refused... This is explained in a number of ways: first, as referring to the people who existed then. For consolation should be forthcoming, as long as a remedy is hoped for; but when there is no hope for it, there is no consolation, as in the case of the hopelessly infirm. Therefore, he says in regard to the mothers' opinion, because they were no more, i.e., no longer visible: "The lad is gone" (Gen 37:30). Or she refused to be consoled, because they were no more, i.e., as if they were no more: for consolation is expected only for evil things. Hence, according to this it is referred to the opinion of the Church, which regards them as reigning; hence, it rejoices over them as reigning: "But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope" (1 Thes 4:13). Or she refused to be consoled at present but awaited consolation in the future: "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Mt 5:5).

(Hil. Quæst. N. and V. Test. 9. 62.) Or, The sons of Benjamin, who were akin to Rachel, were formerly cut off by the other tribes, and so extinct both then and ever after. (see Judg. 20.) Then therefore Rachel began to mourn her sons, when she saw those of her sister cut off in such a cause, that they should be heirs of eternal life; for he who has experienced any misfortune, is made more sensible of his losses by the good fortune of a neighbour.

VISIT OF THE MAGI TO JERUSALEM AND BETHLEHEM. (Mat 2:1-12) Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea--so called to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun, near the Sea of Galilee (Jos 19:15); called also Beth-lehem-judah, as being in that tribe (Jdg 17:7); and Ephrath (Gen 35:16); and combining both, Beth-lehem Ephratah (Mic 5:2). It lay about six miles southwest of Jerusalem. But how came Joseph and Mary to remove thither from Nazareth, the place of their residence? Not of their own accord, and certainly not with the view of fulfilling the prophecy regarding Messiah's birthplace; nay, they stayed at Nazareth till it was almost too late for Mary to travel with safety; nor would they have stirred from it at all, had not an order which left them no choice forced them to the appointed place. A high hand was in all these movements. (See on Luk 2:1-6). in the days of Herod the king--styled the Great; son of Antipater, an Edomite, made king by the Romans. Thus was "the sceptre departing from Judah" (Gen 49:10), a sign that Messiah was now at hand. As Herod is known to have died in the year of Rome 750, in the fourth year before the commencement of our Christian era, the birth of Christ must be dated four years before the date usually assigned to it, even if He was born within the year of Herod's death, as it is next to certain that He was. there came wise men--literally, "Magi" or "Magians," probably of the learned class who cultivated astrology and kindred sciences. Balaam's prophecy (Num 24:17), and perhaps Daniel's (Dan 9:24, &c.), might have come down to them by tradition; but nothing definite is known of them. from the east--but whether from Arabia, Persia, or Mesopotamia is uncertain. to Jerusalem--as the Jewish metropolis.

In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not--These words, as they stand in Jeremiah, undoubtedly relate to the Babylonish captivity. Rachel, the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, was buried in the neighborhood of Bethlehem (Gen 35:19), where her sepulchre is still shown. She is figuratively represented as rising from the tomb and uttering a double lament for the loss of her children--first, by a bitter captivity, and now by a bloody death. And a foul deed it was. O ye mothers of Bethlehem! methinks I hear you asking why your innocent babes should be the ram caught in the thicket, while Isaac escapes. I cannot tell you, but one thing I know, that ye shall, some of you, live to see a day when that Babe of Bethlehem shall be Himself the Ram, caught in another sort of thicket, in order that your babes may escape a worse doom than they now endure. And if these babes of yours be now in glory, through the dear might of that blessed Babe, will they not deem it their honor that the tyrant's rage was exhausted upon themselves instead of their infant Lord?