Matthew 2

1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

The star they saw was evidently not of the ordinary heavenly bodies. It was neither a "fixed star," a planet, nor a meteor. Its motion was local and slow and steady, and subject to an intelligent guidance, which caused it to

"stand over where the young child was."

This was a phenomenon entirely outside ordinary astrological occurrences. The idea that the star they saw was an appearance caused by the brilliant conjunction of leading planets at their perihelia, cannot be maintained if we are to accept Matthew's account (as to which we hold there can be no true question.) .

....There is no reason why we should not take the narrative just as it stands. Its unusual or miraculous character need be no obstacle. The whole situation of which it forms a part was miraculous. The birth of Christ by a virgin -- the introduction of Emmanuel upon the scene -- the announcement thereof by an angel and its celebration by a multitude of the heavenly host -- the activity of the spirit of prophecy in Mary, Zacharias, Elizabeth, Simeon, &c. -- surely all was miraculous: and why not a miraculous star, if to divine wisdom it seemed necessary or suitable?

A cloud, which at night turned to radiance, went before Moses and the children of Israel when they came out of Egypt: why not a star in connection with the work of the prophet like unto Moses? There is nothing to be said against it except that it is strange and unusual, and apparently superfluous: but there is no weight in this against the testimony of Matthew whom the spirit guided into all truth, as Jesus promised.

These "wise men from the east" were evidently God-fearing men on the watch for the Messiah, whom many beside them in that age were expecting to appear, on the strength of Dan. ix. And this travelling star appears to have been given them as a sign. Even if it could be proved they were astrologers, this would not dispose of the attested fact that in this matter of looking for the promise, God had regard to them and communicated with them at a time when angelic communications on the subject were rife.

Balaam was a soothsayer, and yet was the subject of true revelation on a certain occasion when appropriate use could be made of him. So the witch of Endor was used to make known the truth of Saul's doom. There would have been nothing more incongruous in God employing a company of the kind of men that were popularly supposed to be learned in occult things, in garnishing the situation that witnessed the birth of his beloved Son.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 8

2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

àNow, was it not fitting that at the very commencement of the life of him who was to be the Father's representative and manifestation, there should be a recognition of the kingly majesty veiled and involved?

The angels celebrated the event of his birth: and here we have the representatives of what was esteemed in that age the most honourable order of men upon earth, prostrating themselves in the presence of the child, and offering costly gifts. It is fitting; it is beautiful.

The impulse of all hearts in genuine sympathy with the work of God, will be that if they had been there, they would have taken joyful part with the wise men's adoration of the babe in whom was fulfilled the heart-stirring prophecy,

"Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called wonderful, counsellor, &c."

Nazareth Revisited Ch 9

12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

àJoseph and Mary, having "performed all things according to the law of the Lord," "returned into Galilee to their own city Nazareth." So Luke informs us. Matthew seems to say they went to Egypt (ii. 14). Whence this apparent inconsistency? It evidently arises from Matthew omitting notice of the matters recorded by Luke, and speaking of a later occurrence. That it is a later occurrence of which he speaks is manifest from a comparison of the leading features of the two accounts.

In the case of Luke, all that is recorded happened within the first six weeks of the Lord's life. In the case of Matthew, the period was sufficiently extended to make Herod go as high as two years for the maximum age of the children to be slain ("two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men," Matt. ii. 16). The details require a considerably extended period.

It was "when Jesus was born in Bethlehem" that wise men came from the east. Their journey must have taken some time. They did not start till they had seen the star, and the appearance of the star coincided with the birth of Jesus, as would appear from Matt. ii. 7.

They enquired on their arrival at Jerusalem, "where is he that is born King of the Jews?" Their enquiry troubled all Jerusalem. This must have been a work of time; so must the summoning of the "chief priests and scribes" by Herod, to ascertain from them the locality of the birth of Christ according to the prophets; and the departure of the wise men to find the child.

All these things could not have come into the six weeks elapsing from the Lord's birth to his presentation in the temple. Therefore, they must have transpired afterwards. If it be asked, how could that be, seeing that the wise men found the child in Bethlehem when, according to Luke, it had been conveyed to Nazareth, there are two suggestions, either of which may yield the answer. Either of them would allow a place for Matthew's incidents in the narrative of Luke, viz: either in Luke ii. 39, or between 39 and 40.

The first is, that when Luke said "When they had performed all things according to the law," he only meant "after" they had "performed all things, &c.," without intending to indicate how soon after, and that, in fact they stayed a while, during which they received the visit of the wise men, and then went to Egypt, and then to Nazareth.

On this supposition, Luke simply leaves the Egyptian episode out of the record, as having been already fully narrated by Matthew, with whose Gospel he would be acquainted before he began to write his own; giving prominence rather to details of which Matthew says nothing. The room for it, on this view, would he in Luke's word "returned" in verse 39: they "returned" (via Egypt) on their journey to which, he deemed it superfluous to say anything.

The other suggestion is that if Luke meant that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth immediately after the presentation of Jesus in the Temple, then they must have returned to Bethlehem sometime afterwards (possibly to complete the business of the family enrolment.) There is no record of a second visit having been made; but Matt. ii. is evidence of it, if they departed to Nazareth when Jesus was six weeks old; because it shows them in Bethlehem when he must have been an infant of months

"according to the time which Herod had diligently enquired of the wise men."

One or other of these hypotheses is necessitated: either Joseph and Mary did not return to Nazareth immediately, or they came back from Nazareth to Bethlehem after having returned.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 8

15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, 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 enquired of the wise men.

àThis barbarous edict was thoroughly carried out by the willing instruments always at the disposal of a despotic government. Thereupon arose a wail rarely heard upon earth -- the wail of a multitude of bereaved mothers.

17 Then [on that occasion - there have been others - Jeremiah's prophecy was not limited to one fulfilment] was fulfilled <in an appropriate sense> [a fulfilment - there have been other fulfilments] that which was spoken [the saying] by Jeremy the prophet, saying,

Rachel the constitutional matriarch of Israel

is the mother of the tribes according to "the adoption which pertains to Israel;" for all Israel not being her natural descendants, they become her sons by a constitutional provision. At present "they are not;" but when God shall graft them into their own olive upon a principle of faith, with believers of all other nations of past generations, she will no longer "refuse to be comforted." She will rejoice because "they are"—because they are children returned from the land of the enemy to live in their own border, and a multitude of them for evermore.

But saith the inquirer, if this exposition be admitted, what does Matthew mean by saying that Herod's slaughter of

"all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof," was the fulfilment of this prophecy of Jeremiah about Rachel? Matthew does not say that that event fulfilled Jeremiah's prophecy, but the το ρ῾ηγεν, to reethen, the saying. The saying was fulfilled in an appropriate sense; for Bethlehem and the limits thereof were the resting-place of Rachel's dust, which might be figuratively said, in the words of the prophet, to utter a voice of lamentation and bitter weeping, when the cry of her daughters rent the air for their bereavement.

On that occasion "a voice was heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning." This was a fact. The mothers of the murdered infants would not be comforted, because they were dead. This was another fact. It was also a fact, that the mothers were Rachel's people; but it was figurative to say that Rachel wept.

Taken altogether, the saying of Jeremiah was very applicable; especially as it was the earnest of a lamentation which would be the accomplishment of his prophecy in full—an accomplishment to which Jesus alluded when he said to the women who bewailed and lamented him,

"Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts that never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?"

Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, July 1853

18 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.

Rachel Weeping for Her Children

Rachel was the mother of Joseph and Benjamin; and literally, or in fact, never wept for her children "because they were not," inasmuch as she died long before them. The voice of lamentation is therefore affirmed of her in a figurative sense. The voice was a real voice of woe, and declared of Rachel in the case of her descendants. The appointment of Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, as patriarchs of tribes with Benjamin, made her the mother, or matriarch, of a fourth part of Israel; and by their political relations to the other tribes, the chief mother of the flock.

Hence, the inheritor of Joseph's preëminence is styled "Ephraim my firstborn." Laban would have had Leah for the matriarch of Jacob's posterity; but God, who establishes all things by an election, chose Rachel, as he had done Isaac and Jacob in preference to Ishmael and Esau, the beloved of their fathers, to be with Sarah and Rebekah, the matriarchs of Israel.

Rachel's children, then, are constitutionally the whole twelve tribes. She died and was buried near to Bethlehem-Ephratha, afterwards rendered famous as the birthplace of David, and his son Jesus Christ. Sleeping in the dust of Judea, she is personified as weeping in bitterness of soul for the cruelty inflicted upon her sons in the land of the living.

Her tears fall from their eyes when Nebuzaradan, Herod, or Titus, become a sword in the hearts of their children and friends; and as Israel's mother she refuses to be comforted so long as they are in the land of the enemy, exiles from home.

Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, July 1853

àIt is impossible to conceive acuter natural agony than that inflicted on the mothers of Bethlehem. As no human affection is stronger than that of a mother for her child, so no suffering could be greater than that caused by this cruel slaughter.

... It is one of the most harrowing episodes in the story of human suffering -- a long, dark, dreadful story. Then was indeed fulfilled, in its most literal and striking manner, that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying

"In Ramah was there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping and great mourning."

The primary application of this prophecy was to the removal of Israel in captivity from the land, but the richness and depth of the mind of God are often seen in two or more analogous coming events being covered in the same prophecy.

Had Joseph and Mary and "the young child" been in Bethlehem at the time, nothing short of a miracle would have saved the child from Herod's executioners. A miracle, no doubt, would in that case have been performed; but God does not work miracles unless they are absolutely necessary.

He shielded His Son from harm by having him removed beforehand [the descent into Egypt v15]. He has other sons who may hope for similar providential favour; for all His sons are precious to Him.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 9

Weeping Rachel

With regard to Rachel weeping for her children, Matthew (2:18) quoted just as much of Jeremiah's prophecy (31:15) as applied to the event he was recording. The rest of the prophecy, that Rachel's children shall come again to their own border, does not apply to the case that Matthew is treating of, but to the restoration of Israel to their own land, as is evident from the unquoted parts of the chapter, which speak with a plainness upon the matter it is impossible to mistake.

To interpret the words "they shall come again from the land of the enemy," to mean that the children whom Herod slew will be raised from the dead, is inadmissible; Matthew does not quote that part, because it was not applicable to the case in hand. Christ likewise quoted prophecy to the extent that its terms were applicable to the circumstance of the hour (Luke 4:18, 19); so did Peter (Acts 2:17–21); so did James (Acts 15:13–17); and so did Paul (Rom. 10:16–21).

Prophecy is a thing of manifold application. It is purposely so constructed as to admit of it. The prophecy in question was uttered in the reign of Judah's last king (Zedekiah), and therefore close up to the time when the whole nation was carried captive into the land of the enemy. What Rachel weeping for her children was in the first instance we see illustrated in "The Lamentations of Jeremiah."

In Matthew we have simply another illustration of the prophecy, as we have of the words, "out of Israel have I called my son," first said of Israel, and afterwards of the young child that Joseph took down into Egypt, and brought out again when the King who sought the child's life was dead. Judah came back from Babylon, but there is another and still larger coming from the land of the enemy, when Rachel shall say,

"Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children?" (Isa. 49:21).

The Christadelphian, Jul 1889

19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,

20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.

21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

àHerod's son, Archelaus, was in power, and fearing that the son might retain the feelings of the father in reference to "the young child," he went northwards, and "turned aside" to Nazareth

Nazareth Revisited Ch 9

23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

"Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (John i. 46).

àIt is evident from this that it was a place of no repute -- we might almost say a place of bad repute -- a place at all events that could lend no human lustre to Christ.

Why should such a place be chosen? Why not Jerusalem, Hebron, or Cesarea? The answer is doubtless to be found in the principle defined by Paul, that receives such frequent illustration throughout the course of Scripture: "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty ... that no flesh should glory in his presence" (I Cor. i. 27, 29).

Nazareth was among the "weak things" of the age. It could give no prestige to the work that God was about to do. Therefore that work would come before men without human claims or recommendations.

The glory of God alone would be seen.

... It is in the universal disposition of men to lean towards influence and respectability in their enterprises, and to avoid everything of a damaging or even questionable association. The very word Nazareth thus becomes a symbol of the divine nature and origin of the work of Christ; and of the principle upon which divine ends are achieved.

Wherein God may have a work on earth at this time, it will be found that the same principle has been adopted. America has given us the gospel which venerable and learned England was alone supposed to be possessed of learning enough to discover. And it is in the hands of the poor and the unlearned that its work is being done.

Nazareth was off the highway of human traffic. It stands in a secluded part of the Holy Land in its northern section. The seclusion is obtained by the formation of a circle of hills in the heart of the mountain range that bounds the plain of Esdraelon on its northern side.

Access to this circle of hills (forming a natural amphitheatre) is obtained from the plain by a narrow pathway, which strikes through a cleft in the side of the mountain.

The pathway gradually opens out into a valley, which increases in width as the traveller advances, until at last it opens out into an amphitheatre of hills, on the northern side of which lies Nazareth, well to the top of one of the hills -- a straggling village now -- probably greatly reduced from what it was in the days of Christ, having shared in the shrinkage that has befallen everything in the Lord's land in this the day of its desolation.

In this secluded nook there was greater quiet and simplicity of life than in the busier centres and channels of human activity, in more southerly parts of the land. It was fitting that such a quiet place should be chosen as the sphere of the Lord's human life in probation. It was more adapted to the culture of a divine state of mind than the activity of a great city.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 6

He shall be called a Nazarene

There is no prophecy in these terms to be found in any of the prophets. It is evident from the way it is introduced that it was not intended as a citation of express words. It is introduced as something "spoken by the prophets;" this is not the way an exact prophecy would be referred to. It is a way of alluding to some general sense of what the prophets have said. What have they said that would connect his name with Nazareth? This depends upon the meaning attached to Nazareth.

There are two meanings, both of which would yield some analogy to what is predicted of Christ "by the prophets." The first is that which is yielded by the Hebrew root of the name Nazareth, netzer. Though its primary meaning is to reserve, preserve, it comes by derivation, as a noun, to signify

"a plant, sucker, or young tree springing from the old root and reserved or preserved when the tree is cut down,"

therefore, a branch, as translated in Is. xi. 1, and other places: "a branch shall grow out of his roots."

Scholars suggest that the reason of Nazareth being called by a name having this meaning was the exuberance of its foliage. However this may be, there was a fitness in the man who was to be known as the Branch of David, being brought up in a city having that idea in its name, however derived.

...The second meaning would be found in the unfavourable impression conveyed to the popular mind in Matthew's day...

"Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

Nazareth was in poor repute; it was a despised place. To be a Nazarene was to be a despised man. Now this is what was "spoken by the prophets" that Jesus was to be -- a man despised and rejected -- a Nazarene in the sense attachable to the epithet at the time of Christ's birth.

There is a third meaning for which there is something to be said, though its fitness is not so apparently complete as in the other two cases, viz., the possible correspondence of the name of Nazareth with the Nazarite law which prefigured Christ as much as all other parts of the law which have their "substance" in him.

He was to be a separated and holy one unto God after the type of the Nazarite; and this general prophecy may have been taken as corresponding with the name of the city where he was to be brought up

...Finally, it is possible that in the far-reaching and richly involved operations of divine wisdom in the arrangement of these matters, the whole three meanings were intended to converge in the name of that particular spot upon earth which was to be honoured as the mortal home of Earth's Immortal Lord and Owner.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 9