圣经注释书

CHAPTER 2.

HISTORY OF THE INFANCY CONTINUED.

The leading aim of the evangelist in this chapter is not to give biographic details as to the time and place of Christ’s birth. These are disposed of in an introductory subordinate clause with a genitive absolute construction: “Jesus being born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the King”: that is all. The main purpose is to show the reception given by the world to the new-born Messianic King. Homage from afar, hostility at home; “foreshadowing the fortunes of the new faith: acceptance by the Gentiles, rejection by the Jews; such is the lesson of this new section. It is history, but not of the prosaic sort: history with a religious bias, and wearing a halo of poetry. The story forms a natural sequel to the preceding account. The δὲ in Matthew 2:1, as in Matthew 1:18, is adversative only to the extent of taking the attention off one topic and fixing it on another connected and kindred. This, according to Klotz, who regards δὲ as a weak form of δὴ, is the original force of the particle. He says (in Devarius, p. 355): “Illa particula eam vim habet, ut abducat nos ab ea re, quae proposita est, transferatque ad id quod, missa illa priore re, jam pro vero ponendum esse videatur”.

Matthew 2:1-12. Visit of the Magi.

Matthew 2:1. ἐν Βηθλεὲμ: The first hint of the birthplace, and no hint that Bethlehem is not the home of the family.—τῆς Ἰουδαίας: to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in Galilee (Zebulon), named in Joshua 19:15. Our Bethlehem is called Bethlehem-Judah in 1 Samuel 17:12, and Jerome thought it should be so written here—Bethlehem of Judah, not of Judaea, taking the latter for the name of the whole nation. The name means “house of bread,” and points to the fertility of the neighbourhood; about six miles south of Jerusalem.—ἐν ἡμέραις, “in the days,” a very vague indication of time. Luke aims at more exactness in these matters. It is enough for our evangelist to indicate that the birth of Jesus fell within the evil time represented by Herod. A name of evil omen; called the Great; great in energy, in magnificence, in wickedness; a considerable personage in many ways in the history of Israel, and of the world. Not a Jew, his father Antipater an Edomite, his mother an Arabian—the sceptre has departed from Judah—through the influence of Antony appointed King of Judaea by the Roman senate about forty years before the birth of Christ. The event here recorded therefore took place towards the close of his long reign; fit ending for a career blackened with many dark deeds.—ἰδοὺ μάγοι: “Behold!” introducing in a lively manner the new theme, and a very different class of men from the reigning King of Judaea. Herod, Magi; the one representing the ungodly element in Israel, the other the best element in the Gentile world; Magi, not kings as the legend makes them, but having influence with kings, and intermeddling much by astrological lore with the fortunes of individuals and peoples. The homage of the Gentiles could not be offered by worthier representatives, in whom power, wisdom, and also error, superstition meet.—μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατ. παρεγ., Magi from the east came—so the words must be connected: not “came from the east”; from the east, the land of the sunrise; vague indication of locality. It is vain to inquire what precise country is meant, though commentators have inquired, and are divided into hostile camps on the point: Arabia, Persia, Media, Babylon, Parthia are some of the rival suggestions. The evangelist does not know or care. The east generally is the suitable part of the world for Magi to come from on this errand.—εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα: they arrived at Jerusalem, the capital, the natural place for strangers to come to, the precise spot connected with their errand to be determined by further inquiry. Note the Greek form of the name, usual with Matthew, Mark and John. In Luke, the Hebrew form Ἱερουσαλὴμ is used. Beforehand, one would have expected the first evangelist writing for Jews to have used the Hebrew form, and the Pauline evangelist the Greek.

Matthew 2:2, ποῦ … Ἰουδαίων: the inquiry of the Magi. It is very laconic, combining an assertion with a question. The assertion is contained in τεχθεὶς. That a king of the Jews had been born was their inference from the star they had seen, and what they said was in effect thus: that a king has been born somewhere in this land we know from a star we have seen arising, and we desire to know where he can be found: “insigne hoc concisae orationis exemplum,” Fritzsche. The Messianic hope of the Jews, and the aspiration after world-wide dominion connected with it, were known to the outside world, according to the testimony of non-Christian writers such as Josephus and Tacitus. The visit of the Magi in quest of the new-born king is not incredible.—εἴδομεν … ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ, we saw His star in its rising, not in the east, as in A. V[4], the plural being used for that in Matthew 2:1. Always on the outlook, no heavenly phenomenon escaped them; it was visible as soon as it appeared above the horizon.—ἀστέρα, what was this celestial portent? Was it phenomenal only? an appearance in the heavens miraculously produced to guide the wise men to Judaea and Bethlehem; or a real astronomical object, a rare conjunction of planets, or a new star appearing, and invested by men addicted to astrology with a certain significance; or mythical, neither a miraculous nor a natural phenomenon, but a creation of the religious imagination working on slender data, such as the Star of Jacob in Balaam’s prophecies? All these views have been held. Some of the fathers, especially Chrysostom, advocated the first, viz., that it were a star, not φύσει, but ὄψει μόνον. Harons were such as these: it moved from north to south; it appeared in the daytime while the sun shone; it appeared and disappeared; it descended down to the house where the child lay, and so indicated the spot, which could not be done by a star in the sky (Hom. vi.). Some modern commentators have laid under contribution the investigations of astronomers, and supposed the ἀστήρ to have been one of several rare conjunctions of planets occurring about the beginning of our era or a comet observed in China. Vide the elaborate note in Alford’s Greek Testament. The third view is in favour with students of comparative religion and of criticism, who lay stress on the fact that in ancient times the appearance of a star was expected at the birth of all great men (De Wette), and who expect mythological elements in the N. T. as well as in the Old. (vide Fritzsche, Strauss, L. J., and Holtzmann in H. C.) These diverse theories will probably always find their abettors; the first among the devout to whom the miraculous is no stumbling-block, the second among those who while accepting the miraculous desire to reduce it to a minimum, or at least to avoid its unnecessary extension, the third among men of naturalistic proclivities. I do not profess to be able to settle the question. I content myself with expressing general acquiescence in the idea thrown out by Spinoza in his discussion on prophecy in the Tractatus theologico-politicus, that in the case of the Magi we have an instance of a sign given, accommodated to the false opinions of men, to guide them to the truth. The whole system of astrology was a delusion, yet it might be used by Providence to guide seekers after God. The expectation of an epochmaking birth was current in the east, spread by Babylonian Jews. That it might interest Magians there is no wise incredible; that their astrological lore might lead them to connect some unknown celestial phenomenon with the prevalent expectation is likewise credible. On the other hand, that legendary elements might get mixed up in the Christian tradition of the star-guided visit must be admitted to be possible. It remains to add that the use of the word ἀστήρ, not ἀστρόν, has been supposed to have an important bearing on the question as to the nature of the phenomenon. ἀστήρ means an individual star, ἀστρόν a constellation. But in the N. T. this distinction is not observed. (vide Luke 21:25; Acts 27:20; Hebrews 11:12; and Grimm’s Lexicon on the two words.)

[4] Authorised Version.

Matthew 2:3. ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἡρώδης ἐταράχθη: βασιλεὺς before the name, not after, as in Matthew 2:1, the emphatic position suggesting that it was as king and because king that Herod was troubled. The foreigner and usurper feared a rival, and the tyrant feared the rival would be welcome. It takes little to put evildoers in fear. He had reigned long, men were weary, and the Pharisees, according to Joseph (A. J. xvii. 2–4), had predicted that his family would were long lose its place of power. His fear therefore, though the occasion may seem insignificant, is every way credible.—καὶ πᾶσα I., doubtless an exaggeration, yet substantially true. The spirit of the city was servile and selfish. They bowed to godless power, and cared for their own interest rather than for Herod’s. Few in that so-called holy city had healthy sympathies with truth and right. Whether the king’s fears were groundless or not they knew not nor cared. It was enough that the fears existed. The world is ruled not by truth but by opinion.—πᾶσα: s Ἰεροσόλυμα feminine here, or is ἡ πὀλις understood? or is it a construction, ad sensum, of the inhabitants? (Schanz).

Matthew 2:4. Herod’s measures.—καὶ συναγαγὼν … τοῦ λαοῦ. Was this a meeting of the Sanhedrim? Not likely, as the elders are not mentioned, who are elsewhere named as the representatives of the people, vide Matthew 26:3, “the chief priests, scribes and elders of the people”. Here we read only of the chief priests and scribes of the people. The article is not repeated before γραμματεῖς, the two classes being joined together as the theological experts of the people. Herod called together the leading men among the priests and scribes to consult them as to the birth-place of Messiah. Holtzmann (H. C.), assuring that a meeting of the Sanhedrim is meant, uses the fact as an argument against the historicity of the narrative. The Herod of history slew the Sanhedrists wholesale, and did his best to lull to sleep Messianic hopes. It is only the Herod of Christian legend that convenes the Sanhedrim, and makes anxious inquiries about Messiah’s birth-place. But the past policy of the king and his present action, as reported by the evangelist, hang together. He discouraged Messianic hopes, and, now that they have revived in spite of him, he must deal with them, and his first step is to consult the experts in as quiet a way as possible, to ascertain the whereabouts of the new-born child—ἐπυνθάνετο, etc.: it is not a historical question he submits to the experts as to where the Christ has been born, or shall be, but a theological one: where, according to the accepted tradition, is His birth-place? Hence γεννᾶται, present tense.

Matthew 2:5-6. The answer of the experts.—οἱ δὲ εἶπον, etc. This is not a Christian opinion put into the mouth of the scribes. It was the answer to be expected from them as reflecting the current opinion of the time. The Targum put upon the oracle in Micah a Messianic interpretation (Wetstein, and Wünsche, Beiträge). Yet with the Talmudists the Messiah was the one who should come forth from a strange, unknown place (Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, p. 342). Vide on this point Schanz, who quotes Schegg as denying the statement of Wetstein, and refers to Celsus as objecting that this view about Messiah’s birthplace was not current among the Jews. (Origen, c. Celsum, i. 51. Cf. John 7:27; John 7:42.)—οὕτω γὰρ γεγραπται, etc.: The Scripture proof that Messiah’s birth-place was Bethlehem is taken from Micah 5:2. The oracle put into the mouth of the experts consulted by Herod receives its shape from the hand of the evangelist. It varies very considerably both from the original Hebrew and from the Sept[5] The “least” becomes “by no means the least,” “among the thousands” becomes “among the princes,” and the closing clause, “who shall rule my people Israel,’ departs from the prophetic oracle altogether, and borrows from 2 Samuel 5:2, God’s promise to David; the connecting link apparently being the poetic word descriptive of the kingly function common to the two places—ποιμανεῖ in Micah 5:3, ποιμανεῖς in 2 Samuel 5:2. The second variation arises from a different pointing of the same Hebrew word באלפי, בְאַלפֵי = among the thousands, בְאַלֻּפֵי = among the heads of thousands. Such facts are to be taken as they stand. They do not correspond to modern ideas of Scripture proof.

[5] Septuagint.

Matthew 2:7-8. Herod’s next step.—τότε Ἡρώδης … ἀστέρος: τότε, frequent formula of transition with our evangelist, cf. Matthew 2:16-17; Matthew 4:1; Matthew 4:5; Matthew 4:11, etc. Herod wished to ascertain precisely when the child the Magi had come to worship was born. He assumed that the event would synchronise with the ascent of the star which the Magi had seen in its rising, and which still continued to be seen (φαινομένου). Therefore he made particular inquiries (ἠκρίβωσε) as to the time of the star, i.e., the time of its first appearing. This was a blind, an affectation of great interest in all that related to the child, in whose destinies even the stars were involved.

Matthew 2:8. καὶ πέμψας … αὐτῷ: his hypocrisy went further. He bade the strangers go to Bethlehem, find out the whereabouts of the child, come back and tell him, that he also might go and worship Him. Worship, i.e., murder! “Incredible motive!” (H.C.). Yes, as a real motive for a man like Herod, but not as a pretended one, and quite likely to be believed by these simple, guileless souls from the east.—πέμψας εἶπε: the sending was synchronous with the directions according to De Wette, prior according to Meyer. It is a question of no importance here, but it is sometimes an important question in what relation the action expressed by the aorist participle stands to that expressed by the following finite verb. The rule certainly is that the participle expresses an action going before: one thing having happened, another thereafter took place. But there is an important class of exceptions. The aorist participle “may express time coincident with that of the verb, when the actions of the verb and the participle are practically one”. Goodwin, Syntax, p. 52, and vide article there referred to by Prof. Ballantine in Bibl. Sacra., 1884, on the application of this rule to the N. T., in which many instances of the kind occur. Most frequent in the Gospels is the expression ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπε, which does not mean “having first answered he then proceeded to say,” but “in answering he said”. The case before us may be one of this kind. He sent them by saying “Go and search,” etc.