聖書注解書

Matthew 2:1-2 Wise men from the east come to Jerusalem to inquire

after Christ.

Matthew 2:3-8 Herod is alarmed.

Matthew 2:9-12 The wise men are directed by a star to Christ, and

worship him, offering gifts.

Matthew 2:13-15 Joseph, warned by an angel, fleeth with the young

child and his mother into Egypt.

Matthew 2:16-18 Herod’s massacre of the children in Bethlehem and

round about.

Matthew 2:19-23 Upon the death of Herod Christ is brought out of

Egypt, and dwelleth at Nazareth.

That Joseph, the legal father of Jesus, was of Nazareth in Galilee, appears from Luke 2:4, where we are told that he went from thence unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David); to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife: for, it seems, so was the emperor’s decree, Luke 2:1, and Cyrenius the governor of Syria had ordered that every one should go to be taxed in his own tribe and city. Those words, of Judea, were added to distinguish the place from another Bethlehem, which was in the territories of Zebulun, Joshua 19:15. The verse further tells us, that this was

in the days of Herod the king: these words, the king, are added to distinguish him from Herod the tetrarch, Matthew 14:1, or other Herods. This was that Herod the Great, commonly called the Ascalonite, the son of Antipater. There are three opinions of learned men concerning him. Some think that he was by birth an Idumean, and that his mother was an Arabian, and say he was the first foreigner that ever reigned in Judea; and that in him the prophecy was fulfilled, Genesis 49:10, that the sceptre should not depart from Judah till Shiloh came. Others contend that he was a native Jew. A third sort say he was originally an Idumean, but that his predecessors had for some ages been proselyted to the Jewish religion: which last opinion is judged the most probable. Judea was at that time subject to the Romans, whose senate made him king over it. Christ being born at this time, it is said,

there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. How long it was after he was born that they came the Scriptures tell us not. Some think they came presently; some think within thirteen days; some think it was two years after. It is certain they were directed to find Christ at Bethlehem, Matthew 2:8,9. There he was born, and circumcised the eighth day. There his mother accomplished the days of her purification, according to the law; which days were thirty-three, as may be seen Leviticus 12:2,3, &c. Luke tells us, Luke 2:22, that after the accomplishment of those days, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him (as their firstborn) to the Lord, Exodus 13:2, and to offer a sacrifice; and he tells us there of his meeting with Simeon and Anna, and of their prophecies, Luke 2:25, &c.; and it is said, Luke 2:39, When they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. It is not probable that these wise men came before our Lord was carried to Jerusalem, (which was about six weeks after he was born), for besides that they had a long journey to come, after such a noise made by the wise men’s coming, it is no way probable that Joseph and Mary would have carried him to Jerusalem, where the inquiry was first made; especially considering Herod’s trouble about it, and his sending messengers presently to slay all the children in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, Matthew 2:16. It is therefore most probable that it was near two years after the birth of Christ before they came; for though no such thing can be concluded from Herod’s decree, which was for the slaying those that were two years old and under, yet one would think the following words signify some such thing, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. He had then made inquiry about what time this child should be born; possibly they could not tell him the exact time, but if they said a year or a year and half before, Herod (to make sure) might make his decree for all to be slain from two years old and under; but had they said a month or six weeks, it is not probable Herod would have been so barbarous as to have slain all of two years old: so as, if we wisely consider the history of Scripture, it is no way probable that they came before Mary’s purification was over, and their offering him to the Lord, &c. mentioned Luke 2:22.

But then how should they find him at Bethlehem? For he went to Nazareth, Luke 2:39.

Answer: God might order some motion of Joseph to Bethlehem (of which the Scripture is silent); it was a city within the tribe to which he related, where probably he had kindred. So as, though it were a year or more after the birth of Christ before these wise men came, yet it is possible they might find him at Bethlehem, his parents being as guests there, though inhabitants at Nazareth. This is enough to have spoken of the time when these wise men came, viz. at what distance from the birth of Christ, considering that nothing can be in the case certainly determined. It is yet a greater question who these wise men were, and from what part of the world (here called the east) they came. The uncertainties of men’s conclusions in their points of curiosity, rather than profit, let us know how vainly men search for satisfaction when God hath hidden a thing from them. They cannot agree in the number of these men, some will have them twelve, some but three; and they undertake to tell us their names, though neither can they agree in it. Some will have them to be kings; and the papists make us believe they have their sepulchres with them to this day at Cologne; and by the number of the tombs they know their number; and that Church hath a festival for them, which is our Twelfth day. These and a hundred more fables there are about them. The Scripture saith no more than wise men, and telleth us nothing of their number. Whether they were mere astrologers, or such as were skilled in magical arts, or more generally philosophers, is vainly disputed; only we have their observation of this extraordinary star, together with what the Scripture tells us of the use those Eastern nations made of astrologers, to guide us to think they were such as were famous in their country for astrology: though others think them persons skilled in Divine and human laws. The Scripture only calls them

wise men. Whether they came from the eastern parts of the world, or that part of the world which lay eastward to the city of Jerusalem, is another unprofitable question: pagans they were, without doubt; whether Persians or Arabians, or of some other country, is of no great concern for us to know, and almost impossible to determine. These were the firstfruits of the Gentiles owning Christ as King of the Jews, whilst he came amongst his own, and they received him not; nor do I know any thing more worthy of our observation concerning them. Those that think it worth the while to read what more is said concerning them, may read enough in Spanhem, his Dub. Evang., Heinsius, his Exercitat. Sac. and Poli Critica, which I rather choose to name than the popish writers, because in some of these he will find the antidote together with the poison of those fabulous discourses, and be taught a pious wariness of obtruding old wives’ fables into canonical history, and lightly imposing upon the faith of ignorant people.

Jerusalem was the metropolis of Judea; thither they come, as to the most likely place where to receive satisfaction. Of whom they inquired the Scripture saith not, but it is observable that they took notice that there was a person born who was to be an illustrious King of the Jewish nation, they speak not at all doubtfully as to that. This information they doubtless had from a Divine revelation, for although there was an extraordinary star appeared, which might let them know that God had produced, or was producing, so extraordinary a work of providence in the world, yet without a supernatural interpreter they could not have made so true and particular interpretation of it, as upon the sight of it to have come with such a confidence to Jerusalem, affirming that there was a King of the Jews born, and that this was his star, a light which God had put forth to direct that part of the world to the true Messiah. All guesses at the nature of this star, and the means how the wise men came to know that the King of the Jews was born upon the sight of it, and its motion, are great uncertainties; God undoubtedly revealed the thing unto them, and caused this extraordinary star, as at first to appear to confirm what he told them, so at last to appear directing them to the very house in which the young Child with his mother were.

And are come to worship him: whether worshipping here signifieth only a civil honour, which those Eastern nations ordinarily gave unto great princes, or that religious homage and adoration which was due unto the Messias, is variously opened by interpreters. It is said, Matthew 2:11, they fell down and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. This might be upon a civil or upon a religious account; and doubtless was according to the revelation which they had, concerning which nothing can be certainly determined.

Herod was hardly warm in his kingdom, and had taken Jerusalem by force, and was therefore much concerned to hear that there was a new King born; and supposing him to have been all his life acquainted with the Jewish writings and records, where were prophecies of the Messias under the notion of a King, and not knowing that the kingdom of the Messias was not to be of this world, but being possessed of the ordinary nation of the Jews, that the Messias should restore a temporal kingdom to Israel, he could not but be troubled at the news of one born who was to be the King of the Jews, especially having a confirmation of it by such an extraordinary means, as persons coming from a far country, and being directed to their journey by some extraordinary impulse, upon the sight of a new star, which pointed to Judea, as the place to which it related: Herod upon this might justly think that his newly acquired kingdom would not last long. And though most people are quickly weary of conquerors, yet their former miseries being fresh in their minds, and the renewing of them likely upon a change in the government, it is no wonder if the generality of the people were also troubled.

In this perplexity the king Herod calleth a synod or convocation, which was made up of the chief priests and scribes; the single question which he propounds to them was to resolve him

where Christ should be born. It is most likely this was an extraordinary convention of such of these persons as the king thought fit, who were best skilled in the law, and other revelations of holy writ, not any orderly meeting of the sanhedrim; for the question propounded to them was of mere ecclesiastical concern, and to be resolved from the prophecies and writings of the Old Testament. The stating of the question to them, not where the King of the Jews, but where Christ should be born, makes it manifest, that although (that we read of) the wise men said nothing of Christ, yet Herod presently conceived that this King of the Jews, that was born, must be the Messiah prophesied of Psalm 2:1-12 and in Daniel 9:1-27; he therefore desired to know of them the place in which, according to their received tradition, and sense of the prophecies of holy writ, the Messiah whom they expected (that is, Christ) should be born.

See Poole on "Matthew 2:6".

Ver. 5,6. It was (as it seems) so received a tradition, and interpretation of Micah 5:2, that they gave him an answer without any hesitation, telling him he was to be born

in Bethlehem of Judea; this they confirm by the prophecy of the prophet Micah, Micah 5:2; so confirming the Son of the virgin Mary (at unawares) to be the Messiah from the testimony of the prophet Micah. The words in Micah something vary from those here mentioned; they are thus: But thou, Bethlehem Ephrata, 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; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. We must know,

1. That the writers of the New Testament, in their quotations out of the Old Testament, ordinarily quote only so much of them as makes to their purpose, and not always in the very terms in which they are found in the Old Testament: but keeping to the sense.

2. That it is more than probable that the evangelist keeps to the words in which the priests and scribes delivered in their answer to the king, for in this relation he is but reciting their answer.

The sole question propounded to them was: What the place was, where the Messiah, according to their records, was to be born? They answer: In Bethlehem Judah: they prove their answer from the testimony of the prophet. If any object that the prophet calls it Bethlehem Ephratah, not Bethlehem Judah, the answer is, that it is in sense the same, for Bethlehem Ephratah was within the tribe of Judah. It should seem by Genesis 35:19 48:7 that it was formerly in Jacob’s time called Ephrath. Some think that it was a town within Caleb’s portion, and called Ephratah from his second wife, whose name was Ephrath, or Ephratah, 1 Chronicles 2:19,50, if it were not the same place, only fortified anew. We read of another Bethlehem in Judah builded by Rehoboam, 2 Chronicles 11:6; whether it had this addition from its old name in Jacob’s time, or from Caleb’s wife, or to distinguish it from Bethlehem belonging to the tribe of Zebulun, is hard to say: it is plain that that Bethlehem is meant, both by Micah and Matthew, which was in Judah; possibly in tract of time the addition Ephratah was lost.

But, say some, there is a contradiction between Micah and Matthew; Micah saith it was the least, Matthew saith it was not the least.

Answer: Here is no contradiction; consider Bethlehem itself, it was but a small city, (if it were in Caleb’s lot it is not named), but in other respects it was not the least. It was of old famous for Ibzan, one of the judges, for Elimelech, Boaz, Jesse, David; and now last of all for the birth of Christ, where respect to which the evangelist calls it not the least; or if he reciteth the scribes’ and priests’ words, they might call it not the least upon the account of Boaz, Jesse, and David, all which were born or dwelt there; and particularly with respect to Christ, who was born there. The prophet calls it the least with respect to its state in his time, the evangelist not the least with respect to its state then, its state being magnified by the birth of Christ. Micah saith among the thousands. Matthew,

among the princes. It is the same thing, for, Numbers 1:16, their princes were heads of thousands in Israel. The Jews would by no means have this text interpreted of Christ, but either of Zerubbabel or David: but as to Zerubbabel, he was born in Babylon, not in Bethlehem, and David was dead long before this prophecy; neither could the following words, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, agree to Zerubbabel or David: Zerubbabel’s name tells us where he was born, and we never read that Bethlehem was thus celebrated with reference to David, though he was born there, 1 Samuel 16:1 17:58, upon which account it is called the city of David, Luke 2:4. The prophecy certainly related to Christ, and him only, and so is interpreted by the Chaldee paraphrast, who some think was one of this council called by Herod in this cause.

Herod having heard the answer of the priests and scribes, did not think fit to make any noise of it amongst the people; he knew the Jews were apt enough to rebel, and being so little a conqueror had no reason to presume much of their goodwill towards him; he therefore calls the wise men privily, and takes no notice of any King they talked of, but only inquires the time when this new star first appeared. To what end he made this inquiry may be learned from Matthew 2:16; only that he might be able to govern himself in his bloody decree, that he might neither destroy more children than would serve his present design, nor yet leave this Child behind.

He tells the wise men that Bethlehem was the place, wherein his wise men had informed him that the King of the Jews was to be born, and sends them thither with these instructions: That they should go, and

search diligently there

for the young Child, whom he doth not call King; thereby dissembling his bloody mind, and making as if he had no jealousy of him; yet withal he suggests to them that he was like to be a great Prince, or else he would never have pretended that he had a design, when once he knew certainly where he was, to go and pay a homage to him. This text lets us see the malignity of Herod’s heart, and indeed of all wicked men’s hearts. Herod knew that the Messiah was born. The extraordinary star and the coming of the wise men, the priests’ and scribes’ answer to him, could not but confirm him that he was born, who was long since promised, as a King and Governor to Israel; yet could he not obtain of his wretched heart to comply with the counsels of God, but, contrary to his own convictions, shows the folly of his heart, in thinking it was in his power to frustrate the Divine counsels, and be too hard for God himself. Nor is his folly less remarkable, not sending any of his own courtiers with them, whom he might better have trusted than mere strangers to have come back and brought him an account; but whether it was that he durst not trust any of the Jews, or that he was over credulous in trusting to the innocent simplicity of these wise men, being not made acquainted with his intentions, he suffereth them to go alone upon this errand, whom he might possibly think would be least suspected of Joseph and Mary, so as at their return he should have a more full account of all circumstances concerning him, than he could have expected from one who had been taken notice of as one that belonged to his court.