Chapter Two

1–12. The adoration of the wise men to the Savior. – 13–15. The flight of Joseph and Mary with the Infant into Egypt. – 16–18. The slaughter of the innocents by Herod in Bethlehem. – 19–23. The return from Egypt to Nazareth.

Matthew 2:1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem and were saying: In explaining this verse, we must first pay attention to the likelihood of a rapid succession of events in the early childhood of the Savior. We can scarcely suppose that His stay in Bethlehem after His birth was lengthy, that much time passed from His birth until His presentation in the temple, and from His flight to Egypt until His return from that country. Most probably, all these events took only a few months. The commonly accepted current opinion about the order of events of Christ’s Nativity is as follows: the departure of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-5); the Nativity of Christ (Matt 1:18-25; Luke 2:6-7); the worship of the shepherds and the presentation (Luke 2:8-39); the worship of the wise men and the flight to Egypt (Matt 2:1-18), and then the return to Nazareth (Matt 2:19-23; Luke 2:39). The words: “when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod, came to Jerusalem”... could be understood in the Greek text in two ways, if it corresponded to the Russian—that is, either Jesus was born in the days of Herod, or the wise men came in the days of Herod. But this latter understanding is prevented by the word ἰδού—“behold” (in the Russian translation omitted; in Slavonic—“see”), which divides the speech and requires relating the words “in the days of King Herod” to the word “was born.” Why the word “behold” or “see” is omitted in the Russian translation is unknown to us. For such an omission in the existing codices there is no basis. “In Bethlehem of Judea.” That Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea is confirmed by two evangelists—Matthew and Luke (Luke 2:4). Bethlehem, where the Savior was born, is called in the Gospel “of Judea,” to distinguish it from another Bethlehem which was in the tribe of Zebulun not far from the lake of Galilee (Josh 19:15), although the evangelist did not intend to provide geographical information here. Bethlehem was also called by another name in antiquity—Ephrata (Gen 35:16; Mic 5:2 and in many other places of the Old Testament). Here Rachel gave birth to Benjamin for Jacob, “and her labor was hard” (Gen 35:16); she died and was buried on the road to Ephrata, that is, to Bethlehem. Here Ruth came with Naomi (Ruth 1:19), gathered grain in the field of Boaz, married him, and bore him Obed, whose father was Jesse, the father of David (Ruth 4:17). Since David was born and lived first in Bethlehem, it is also called “the city of David” (Luke 2:4). At present, Bethlehem is the same small town it has always been, three hours’ journey from Jerusalem (about six to seven miles), on the road to Hebron, situated somewhat to the side from this road, about a mile to the east. In springtime, when the grass sprouts, trees leaf out, and wild fragrant anemones bloom, the region around Bethlehem is very picturesque. From the flat roofs of Bethlehem’s houses one can see the terrain descending steeply to the southeast, where there are many rounded, whitish-yellowish hills, and in the distance one can see the Dead Sea, lying thousands of feet below the region where Bethlehem is located. In Bethlehem there are neither rivers nor streams, and water is usually taken from cisterns, which are filled with rainwater. But on the plain somewhat farther to the south of Bethlehem flows a stream where there is much water from “Solomon’s pools.” The inhabitants are industrious, occupied chiefly with making and selling various items to travelers and with tilling the soil, which from time immemorial has been distinguished by its fertility. On the site of Christ’s birth a cave still exists now, hung with precious lamps. “In the days of King Herod”—that is, Herod, called “the Great.” He was the son of the Edomite Antipater, and his mother was an Arab. He was crowned king of the Jews in Rome and after that had to conquer his kingdom by force of arms. The Jews hated him, despite the fact that to please them he rebuilt the Jerusalem temple with great magnificence. Herod was very cruel and stopped at nothing, desiring to secure the kingdom for himself. He executed his brother-in-law (the brother of his wife Mariamne), his father-in-law, his mother-in-law, three of his sons, and many other persons, suspecting them of conspiracies against him. He died according to sufficiently accurate calculations in the year 750 from the founding of Rome, shortly after the Savior’s birth, in the 38th year of his reign and in the 70th year of his life. Detailed information about his reign is provided by Josephus Flavius in his work “Jewish Antiquities” (books 14–17). “Wise men from the East.” About the origin of the wise men who came to worship the Savior, nothing definite is known except that they came from eastern countries, in relation, of course, to Jerusalem. There are many indications that the wise men, who in both Hebrew and Greek were called “magoi,” lived in many countries and among many peoples—in Arabia, Persia, Chaldea, and Parthia. Recently, on the basis of new discoveries of Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, the German exegete Zahn and others have proposed a hypothesis about the origin of the magi, which appears to be the most probable. Briefly, it consists as follows. The expression “from the east” (ἀπ’ ἀνατολῶν), without the article and in the plural, communicates the idea of an indefinite distance in the eastern direction from Palestine, and by this alone eliminates the idea of Arabia—even if the kingdom of the Nabataeans, which in Gal 1:17 (see also 2 Cor 11:32) is called Arabia, which was to the east of the Judean region, and extended to Damascus. If we pay attention to the fact that the expressions of the evangelist Matthew indicate above all magoi as astrologers (the Gospel of Matthew does not say at all that these were any kind of sorcerers and magicians, of which there were many in the Roman Empire at that time), then it cannot be doubted that the wise men came from some region of the Parthian kingdom, which then ruled over almost all of Mesopotamia or directly, or through kings dependent on it, subject to the Parthians, as in Edessa and Adiabene. Thus, the wise men came either from Babylonia or from some other part of Mesopotamia, or from the adjoining regions. Babylonian magi are mentioned several times in the Bible. Thus in Jer 39:3 mention is made of a slave—magus (“chief of the magi”), as a title of a noble, who accompanied Nebuchadnezzar. In the book of the prophet Daniel the word “magus” does not occur, but various wise men, enchanters, dream-interpreters, and so on are listed—they are called Chaldeans as a special class (Dan 2:2). In other places they are called “the wise men of Babylon” (Dan 2:12), and also Chaldeans (Dan 2:4). The word “Chaldeans” was commonly used by Greeks and Romans to denote a caste of priests and learned men among the Babylonians, and their characteristic was constantly considered to be occupations with astronomy and astrology. The gifts brought by the magi abound not only in Arabia. Such is Zahn’s opinion. In support of the fact that these eastern magi were interested in Palestine, they quote such sayings of “the magi and astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon”: “when a star is on her (constellation of the Virgin) left horn, there will be a darkening of the ring of Agarru” (Phoenicia and Palestine); “when the Lion is dark, the trade of Agarru will meet with difficulties”; “when Venus appears in the Virgin, the harvest of Agarru will be good”; “when Jupiter enters the middle of the moon, there will arise need in Agarru”; “when Saturn, the star of Agarru, becomes dim, it is bad for Agarru; there will be a hostile attack on Agarru.” One should recall in this connection that Balaam, the prophet, lived in Mesopotamia and prophesied about the star of Jacob. The calling of the wise men “kings” should be considered later inventions, as well as their names Balthazar, Casper or Jasper, and Melchior, first indicated (by Bede) only in the 7th century, as well as the determination of their number (three—corresponding to the three gifts brought by them or to the number of the persons of the Holy Trinity) and dignity, as representatives of the three main peoples descended from Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Only one thing can be considered authentic: the wise men were not Jews. This is evident from their question: “where is the newborn King of the Jews” (not “our” king)? (verse 2), and also from their obvious unfamiliarity with Herod, whom it was not safe to ask such questions to in that era, as the magi did; their ignorance of where Bethlehem is located, and so on.

Matthew 2:2. where is the newborn King of the Jews? For we saw his star in the East and have come to worship him. Regarding the star of the wise men, there are several opinions and suppositions. 1. It is thought that the star that appeared to the wise men was not an ordinary one, but miraculous. So thinks Saint John Chrysostom, an opinion shared by many exegetes, including modern ones. Thus, the English commentator on Matthew’s Gospel, Morison, arguing against the opinion of Kepler (see below), says that this opinion is untenable both from a scientific and an exegetical point of view. “From verse 2 we conclude that the star which the magi saw was not a star that appeared in the sky in the modern and scientific sense of the term ‘star.’ It was neither a fixed star, standing at an enormous distance from the earth, nor a planet revolving around our solar center. The magi never thought of stars as distant worlds. For them a star was only a shining point in the sky. And such a shining point appeared to them from the west of them when they were observing the heavenly vault. It appeared to them, indicating Judea, and calling them there. Why then could it not be a miraculous star? Jesus Christ was the center of an enormous circle of supernatural beings, and this circle crossed in many points the multitude of other circles, both in the external and human nature. Hence—preparations for His manifestation not only among Jews but also among the surrounding pagans... Hence too the concentration of miracles at His birth, life, and death and around them. Hence too (why not?) and the star of the wise men.” Against this opinion one can object that neither from the Gospel nor from any other sources (which, besides, do not exist) is it evident at all that the star of the wise men guided them on the way to Jerusalem. If the journey of the wise men had been accomplished under the guidance of the star, one asks, why did it lead them to Jerusalem and not straight to Bethlehem? Does not the wise men’s question itself about the place of the birth of the King of the Jews contradict such suppositions? Further, it is clear that the wise men set out for Bethlehem not because the path there was indicated to them by the star, but because they learned about the place of Christ’s birth, though not necessarily from their own observation, but through the mediation of others, from the “high priests and scribes” (verse 4). When the star appeared to the wise men again on the way to Bethlehem, it was only a confirmation of the information they had previously obtained, which would be completely unnecessary (and there would be no reason to mention it) under exclusively miraculous guidance. Finally, Morison’s opinion that the star appeared to the wise men “from the west” of them and in the direction of Jerusalem is completely arbitrary and contradicts the clear assertion of the wise men themselves that the star appeared to them “in the East.” If we remove from such phenomena all that is natural, then this means not only distorting the Gospel text, but also diminishing the miraculous significance of the Gospel events themselves. What benefit is there for any miracle if we explain it by another miracle? Does clarity and comprehensibility of any miracle come from such explanations? A miracle is not an action or event accomplished with the help of other miracles, but a miracle in itself. In the present case the miracle is the manifestation of God in the flesh. Nature could testify to this miracle naturally, in no way diminishing the chief miracle, just as the sun does not diminish or increase its brilliance if during the day we light or extinguish a lamp in our room. It is true that the coming of the Redeemer into the world was accompanied by miracles, but alongside them there were such phenomena and events which we can and must attribute to the realm of natural and even abnormally natural (monstrous, like, for example, the killing of infants) events. 2. The second opinion belongs to the famous astronomer Kepler (1571–1630), who observed in 1603–1604 a conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, to which in the following year the planet Mars also joined, so that from the three planets one planet was formed, which shone for some time. This conjunction was, of course, only visible, optical—in reality the planets were as far from each other as at any other time; only to the eye it seemed that they had merged or joined. By means of mathematical calculations, Kepler found that such a planetary conjunction occurs once in 800 years. If we subtract from 1604 the figure 800 and then subtract another 800 years, it turns out that the time of the planetary conjunction falls exactly on the time of the Nativity of Christ. On the basis of these considerations, Kepler determined the year of Christ’s birth as 748 from the founding of Rome. But subsequent scholars found this date inaccurate and not fully corresponding to the Gospel accounts (Christ was born shortly before Herod’s death in 750 from the founding of Rome) and determined the year of Christ’s birth as 749 from the founding of Rome. The determination of the time of Christ’s birth as December 25, 749 from the founding of Rome agrees well with some other data by which the year of birth can be determined, and also explains the circumstance why Herod ordered the killing of infants in Bethlehem from two years old and younger—because the new star appeared, according to Kepler’s calculations and those of others, two years before the birth of Christ, in the year 747 from the founding of Rome. However, it is objected against such interpretation that in verse 9 it is clearly spoken of that same star that in verse 2, which in Greek is called ἀστήρ. If the “star” of verse 9 was formed from the conjunction of three planets, how did it happen that it “went” before the wise men and stopped above the house where the Infant was? Further, another circumstance is pointed out. If the star of the wise men were a conjunction of three planets, it would have been called ἄστρον—“constellation,” and not ἀστήρ—“star,” and this consideration is given decisive significance in the present case. But such objections are hardly strong. In Russian we distinguish “constellation” from “star” in that by “constellation” we understand a group of stars not connected either optically or in nature (for example, the constellations of the Big or Little Bear). One can think that the Greeks understood by ἄστρον precisely such constellations. But if several stars, say, from the Big Bear, joined into one, then both Greeks and we would call such a joining a star (ἀστήρ), which would be an imprecise scientific term but quite understandable in everyday language. To this we add that Zahn refers to any good Greek dictionary, from which one can learn that the distinction between ἄστρον and ἀστήρ among the best Greek writers is not upheld. In the New Testament Luke 21:25 ἄστροις corresponds to Matt 24:29—ἀστέρες. Thus, the objection based on the distinction between constellation and star falls away. But how can the circumstance that this star went before the wise men and stopped above the house where the Infant was be explained? It was said above that the wise men were directed to Bethlehem not by the star but by people. When they left Jerusalem, that same star, which they had seen before, acquired for them a new and more definite meaning, and it seemed to them that it went before them. In other words, it was simply an optical phenomenon. Such an interpretation, it is true, is accepted only by a few scholars (including among other things the well-known apologist Ebrard and Zahn), but in it there is nothing unnatural or arbitrary. We constantly feel that, when we move or travel, the moon, for example, appears to move before us and we cannot overtake it. Why was it not the same with the wise men? “The star moved while they moved; when they stopped, the star also stopped” (Zahn). Kepler’s opinion is currently accepted by many serious interpreters, and it can be said that this is the best and most well-founded opinion. If one accepts it, then there is no need to resort to further suppositions, for example, that the star which the wise men saw on the way to Bethlehem was not the one they had seen before, but a different one. The expression “in the East” is also disputed and requires explanation. Some think that this expression means “at the rising,” others argue against this on the grounds that then the Greek would read: “at its rising” (ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ αὐτοῦ). This objection is not convincing. By saying “at the rising,” the wise men indicate not only that they saw how this star rose or rises, but also indirectly the time itself of its appearance. They saw the star at the very beginning, when it had just risen or had risen. A far more difficult question is how the wise men came to know from the star that the King had been born, and moreover, the King of the Jews. Here we can only reason about probabilities, and we must in some measure detach ourselves from contemporary conceptions of the starry sky and enter, as much as possible, into the psychology of the wise men. Even to a modern person accustomed, due to the successes of astronomy, to look at the starry sky differently than the ancients did, the celestial vault may appear covered with writings which no one has yet been able to read and explain. There is here some special language, the language of stars. There are here some special written signs which are much more intricate than any Egyptian hieroglyphs. These writings visible to us on the vault of heaven are not fused together. Except only for the Milky Way, where stars only seem to be fused and present to our vision almost a continuous haze, not a single star closer to us obscures another, does not merge with it. This could not be if chaos reigned in the stellar world. Thus, to us as well, the stars can speak of the order in which they move by the command and decree of the Almighty. But the ancients could read what is written in the stars differently than we. To their vision the vault of heaven was not a multitude of many worlds separated from each other at a vast distance, but a series of brilliant points whose movements were somehow related to our earthly life. There were people who devoted themselves to the study of these brilliant points and from them tried to predict the fate of individual people, peoples, and kingdoms. Heavenly knowledge thus was not scientific but rather served practical and earthly purposes. However, matters were not without science. The counting of stars, their distribution into constellations, the comparison of one star with another, the study of their movements—all this we owe to the ancients and primarily to Arab astrologers. The star that appeared to the wise men was noticed in the sky only by them and perhaps a few other people interested in celestial phenomena. While the wise men were troubled by the extraordinary heavenly phenomenon they had observed, thousands and millions of other people at that time noticed nothing unusual in the sky, because the star was not, in any case, so great as to attract the eyes of those who did not know astrology. Even at a time when astrology had transformed into astronomy and became a science, the star was seen by hardly anyone but Kepler himself, who described it, while many others perhaps regarded the phenomenon with indifference. An extraordinary star, by the understanding of the wise men, was to portend an extraordinary event. If it appeared two years before the birth of Christ, then the wise men could talk about it among themselves, and perhaps, coming into contact at this time with Jews scattered throughout the world, they learned from them that in Jerusalem they were expecting a great King, and they set out there to worship Him. The word “worship” in Greek almost always has the same meaning—to fall to the ground and bow down to someone. Here there is an indication of purely Eastern, and moreover only pagan, customs. The Jews, remembering the second commandment, did not bow down to earthly rulers but only to God. The Jewish writer Philo (De Sos. 28) justifies what is related in Gen 42:6 by ancient custom. Worship of men provoked protests (Acts 10:26; Rev 19:10). Among pagans it was different. According to Herodotus, “instead of greeting others they kiss them on the lips, and if another is a little inferior, they kiss him on the cheeks; and if someone is much lower than the other, he bows down before him, falling prone (προσκυνέει).” The word “worship” denoted thus the respect of a lower person for a higher one, and this same word means worship of gods or God. But in speaking of their intention to worship Christ, the wise men hardly conceived of Him as God; it is only certain that they conceived of Him as a King, and moreover, an extraordinary King, whose birth was announced by a star.

Matthew 2:3. But when Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Herod probably heard of the arrival of the wise men from others. “Herod the king was troubled.” The word “be troubled” (Greek) is used of stormy seas and means—to heave. In a figurative sense it means any kind of spiritual agitation and disquiet. If we consider how much labor Herod expended to acquire the throne for himself, recall how he went to Rome for this purpose, his murders, the executions of suspected persons, and then the troubled state of Judea and Jerusalem, where there were sufficient reasons, no matter how insignificant, for serious disturbances, then Herod’s anxiety becomes understandable. It entered, so to speak, into his habit, and apparently never left him even before his death. In him there was a kind of insane, morbid striving to secure the throne for himself and for his descendants, and—what is most striking—such striving apparently arose not so much from love for his descendants as from ambition or other motives. Along with Herod, all Jerusalem was troubled. The commentators are agreed that the cause of Jerusalem’s trouble was Herod’s trouble. And this is entirely natural. But as applied to Jerusalem the word also indicates somewhat different phenomena. Jerusalem was troubled because of fears as to what Herod might do. The word “all” can be taken as a hyperbolic general expression used to denote the prevailing, dominant sentiment or public opinion. Such expressions are often used. Thus: the entire city was horrified, although, of course, there were people in it who were free from horror. The word Jerusalem in Matthew’s Gospel (Greek text) usually occurs in the neuter gender of the plural number, in the singular number of the feminine gender only here and perhaps in Matt 3:5. Once (Matt 23:37) in Matthew there occurs a special form (Ἱερουσαλήμ instead of Ἱεροσόλυμα).

Matthew 2:4. And when he had gathered together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ should be born. Matthew 2:5. They said to him: “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: The chief priests and scribes had no opportunity to communicate to Herod any precise and definite information and only referred to an ancient prophecy, perhaps hoping that Herod, who tried to appear to be a Jew, would believe their words and find their answer satisfactory.

Matthew 2:6. “You, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not least among the princes of Judah; for from you shall come a Governor, who will shepherd my people, Israel. The prophecy of Micah (according to the Hebrew text Mic 5:1, according to the Russian Bible Mic 5:2) according to a literal translation from Hebrew reads thus: “and you, Bethlehem Ephrata, small you are to be among the tribes of Judah, from you shall go forth for Me a leader for Israel, and his origins from ancient time, from the days of eternity.” According to the translation of the Seventy, verse Mic 5:2 reads thus: “and you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, the smallest to be in the thousands of Judah; from you shall go forth for Me a chief (archon, or according to another reading, a leader ἡγούμενος) of Israel, and his departures from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” The differences between the Hebrew and Greek text of the Seventy depend on the fact that the Hebrew word “eleph,” used here, has different meanings, meaning both origin, tribe, family, and thousand. From what has been said, it is clear that the words of the evangelist Matthew do not agree either with the Hebrew text or with the translation of the Seventy. Whether this change was made by the evangelist himself or he only literally conveyed the words of the chief priests and scribes—this is not of great importance. The deviation is explained thus: the words of the prophet Micah are quoted not from the Hebrew original and not from the translation of the Seventy because at that time interpretive translations and commentaries of the sacred books were widespread, which were not permitted to be written down. They were a kind of interpretive translation: “In those days each person made a targum (interpretation) for himself.” This is a common phenomenon in the New Testament. In the interpretation of Mic 5:1 (according to the Hebrew text) it meant “Bethlehem land of Judah” instead of “Ephrata”; and “princes” instead of “thousands.” However one translates the words Mic 5:1 (according to the Hebrew text), they contained a prophecy of Christ, or the Messiah, and of the fact that He would be born in Bethlehem. The translation through ἡγεμόσιν clearly shows that the evangelist read in Micah not “beeleph” (tribe, family), but “belufe” (chiefs and chief dwelling places of the tribes, governors). Bethlehem in this expression is personified—“land of Judah,” properly the land of Judah. There is no need to understand by the land only the city of Bethlehem; one should understand the land itself on which it stands, or, even better, the district, the environs of Bethlehem.

Matthew 2:7. Then Herod secretly called the wise men and ascertained from them the exact time of the star’s appearance. Herod had no hope that the wise men would communicate to him any accurate information about the King, but he could learn precisely from the wise men the time of the star’s appearance. Accurate information about the star could help him get his bearings in this dark matter for him, to consider how to act further, because the time of the star’s appearance, in his opinion (and in that of the wise men), coincided with the time of the new King’s birth. The words “the time of the star’s appearance” can be otherwise conveyed (from the Greek) thus: “the time of the appearing star”; the translation “the time when the star appeared” is considered inaccurate. Some interpreters think that Herod already at that time began to suspect that the wise men would not return to him, and for that reason was ascertaining from them about the star, in order to decide the matter even without them.

Matthew 2:8. and, having sent them to Bethlehem, said: “Go and search carefully for the Child, and when you have found him, bring word to me, so that I also may come and worship him. Matthew 2:9. And they, having heard the king, went their way. And behold, the star which they saw in the East went before them, until it came and stood over the place where the young child was. Matthew 2:10. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy, The star that appeared to the wise men was the same one they had seen at home and perhaps during their journey to Jerusalem. This is confirmed by the Gospel account, which cannot be misinterpreted, about the star, “which the wise men saw in the East.” But it now acquired a new meaning for them. Before they knew it only as a star announcing the birth of some great King. Now they were sure that this King had already been born and precisely in Bethlehem. Additional knowledge about the King was gained. If we pay attention to the difference that exists in people’s views of the same things, depending on the enlightenment and development of their spirit, it is easy to understand the psychological state of the wise men. It now seemed to them that the star was going before them, rejoiced with them, indicated to them the place (that is, Bethlehem) where the Infant was born. The wise men resembled sea travelers sailing by the stars that indicate the path. Amid the waves and storms—what joy to see a star indicating a quiet harbor!

Matthew 2:11. And entering the house, they saw the infant with Mary, His mother, and falling down, they worshipped Him; and opening their treasures, they offered Him gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The evangelist does not report how the wise men found the house where the Infant was. This, it appears, would be difficult to explain if one were to assume that the star, which went before them, was a natural star. But the difficulty is removed if we recall that people in Bethlehem had already begun to speak about the Infant. Doubtless, the worship of the Bethlehem shepherds took place before the worship of the wise men; the shepherds told what had been announced to them by the angels about the Infant, “and all who heard it marveled at what the shepherds told them” (Luke 2:18). It is very probable that these who heard were at first few in number, but this does not eliminate the appearance of even hearsay about the Infant, at least in Bethlehem. Confirmation of this we find in the circumstance that Mother and the Infant were now lodged “in a house,” and not in the previous inn or cave (as in Justin Martyr E.J. Goodspeed. Die ältesten Apologeten, Göttingen, 1915, p. 78, 5). The Russian and Slavonic translations “having opened their treasures” are not accurate. According to all probability, in Russian the word “treasures” was used in correspondence with the Slavonic translation and also because the Greek word θησαυρός in some cases really does mean treasure (Matt 6:19-21; Luke 12:33; Heb 11:26, etc.). But in some cases it means “a place where precious things are stored,” and here is meant precisely this latter. Because it would be incomprehensible how the wise men could open (the precise meaning of the Greek word ἀνοίγνυμι see Matt 17:27) their treasures, that is, gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Thus, instead of the word “treasures,” one should adopt “treasure chests,” and the meaning will be clear. The wise men brought Christ “gold, frankincense, and myrrh” according to Eastern custom, which was observed when presenting to kings, embassies to them, and so on. In sending his sons to Egypt, Jacob ordered them to take a gift “for that man” (Joseph)—“some balm and some honey, stacte and myrrh, pistachios and almonds” (Gen 43:11). In sending his son David to Saul, Jesse took “a donkey with bread and a skin of wine and one young goat, and sent them by David his son to Saul” (1 Sam 16:20). These examples are characteristic. From them it is seen that gifts were presented according to the resources of those who brought them. In this case, the wise men brought to Christ the productions of their land. With their offering, they themselves hardly connected any symbolic meaning. But this meaning became clear to subsequent interpreters, who in the gold brought to Christ saw an indication of His royal dignity, in frankincense—the honoring of Him as God, and in myrrh—an indication of His death as a man.

Matthew 2:12. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. The wise men withdrew to the east “another way,” that is, they did not go north along the road that led to Jerusalem, but went east or south—in the latter case so as to turn again to the east.

Matthew 2:13. When they had left, behold, an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream and says: Rise, take the infant and His mother and flee into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you; for Herod is seeking the infant to destroy Him. Matthew 2:14. And he arose, and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; The angel of the Lord appears in a dream (the same word as in verse 12—κατ’ ὄναρ) to Joseph alone, not to the Mother of God, which was entirely natural, since Joseph in all cases appears here as the guardian of the Infant and His Mother. “Flee into Egypt.” Undoubtedly, of all the places where Mother and Her Infant could be hidden, Egypt was more convenient. From ancient times it was a place where Hebrew refugees found safety. At about the time of Christ’s birth, many Jews were living there. Egypt at that time was under Roman authority. The place where Joseph settled with Mary and the Infant is not indicated in the Gospel, and no details of their stay in Egypt are provided. Tradition indicates Matareia near Leontopolis in the Heliopolis district, and therefore in Lower Egypt at the very edge of the Nile delta. It is known that 150 years before the birth of Christ, in Leontopolis there was built a temple by a Hebrew refugee, the priest Onias. Leontopolis was beyond the Nile. Matareia is sometimes identified with On or Heliopolis. But where this city was located is not known with certainty. In the words: “wishes to seek the young child in order to destroy Him,” it is evident that there is an indication of Herod’s intention that manifested itself already after the departure of the wise men. Before he wished secretly to destroy the Infant; now he openly seeks Him in order to destroy Him.

Matthew 2:15. 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. Herod’s death occurred around April 12, 750 from the founding of Rome. If this is so, then one should assume that the Infant lived in Egypt for a short time, only a few months from the end of December 749 to the end of April 750 from the founding of Rome. The opinion that Joseph remained in Egypt for one or two years should be considered untenable. “Out of Egypt have I called my Son” (see Hos 11:1). As Israel was delivered by God from Egypt, so Christ was called out from there—but under new circumstances, different from the previous ones. The parallel between the stay of Israel and Christ in Egypt could have struck the mind of the evangelist, and he points to it, in order to place Christ in connection not only with the descent of Israel from Abraham, but also with the history of Israel itself. “The young Jesus was called out of Egypt, like the young Israeli people, to show us that He is the true seed of Abraham.”

Matthew 2:16. Then Herod, seeing himself mocked by the wise men, was very angry, and sent to kill all the male children in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time he had learned from the wise men. Herod’s crime is indicated, manifested in the slaying of the Bethlehem children. Against the authenticity of this passage, as well as the historical significance of the facts presented here, it is objected that Josephus knew nothing of the slaying of the children. Regarding this, it can be said that the slaying of the children is also passed over in silence by the evangelists, except for Matthew. Why this is the case, to this question it is impossible at the present time to give a fully satisfactory answer. However, the fact reported by Matthew does not lose its historical significance because of this, since it is fully consistent with the information we have about Herod’s character, which was distinguished by its cruelty and bloodthirstiness. At the present time, scholars agree that the number of children killed was not great, since Bethlehem was never a large city. References in the liturgical books to 14,000 and even to 144,000 children should be considered later, without any basis, and greatly exaggerated, likely arising from a desire to intensify Herod’s guilt. But his crime is neither diminished nor increased as a result of whether he killed 20 or 14,000 children, remaining equally shameful and inhumane in either case.

Matthew 2:17. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, who says: Matthew 2:18. A voice was heard in Rama, weeping and great mourning; Rachel weeping for her children and would not be comforted, because they are not. The words of the prophet Jeremiah are cited (Jer 31:15), which relate to the dreadful deed of Herod reported by the evangelist. A question arises as to why Rachel, weeping over the children killed by Herod, is specifically portrayed. In this case, the evangelist, as it were, personifies the contemporary weeping and wailing of the mothers and probably other persons at the slaying in one person—Rachel, the beloved wife of Jacob and ancestress of the tribes of Joseph and Benjamin. Although Bethlehem was located in the tribe of Judah, nevertheless the name of Rachel was closely connected with Bethlehem. The Bible tells that Jacob, after being reconciled with Esau, first settled in Shechem, then moved to Bethel, and from there reached Ephrath, that is, Bethlehem, where Rachel bore him Benjamin, died here, and was buried on the road to Ephrath, that is, Bethlehem (Gen 35:19). Jacob set up a memorial stone over her grave, and it is shown there to the present time. Thus, it was quite natural for the evangelist to speak of Rachel in connection with the events in Bethlehem. However, the prophet Jeremiah does not mention Bethlehem, but speaks of Rama. There were up to five cities named Rama (in the singular, or plural—Ramoth) in Palestine. It is not known with certainty whether the Rama of Benjamin (or in the tribe of Benjamin—Josh 18:25; in Judg 4:5 it is said of Rama that it was on the hill of Ephraim; Judg 19:13; Isa 10:29; Hos 5:8—in these places Rama is placed together with Geba, or Gibeah) and Rama, where Samuel was born and lived (1 Sam 1:19 and others), were identical. The basis for the connection of Rachel with Rama is found not in Matthew, but in Jeremiah. The evangelist only applied to the Bethlehem events a prophecy borrowed from Jeremiah, or rather, a figurative account of the events before the carrying away of the Jews into Babylonian captivity. According to the prophet, Nebuzaradan, the captain of Nebuchadnezzar’s guard, released him, the prophet, from Rama, where he had taken him bound in chains among other captive Jerusalemites and Judeans who were being taken into Babylon (Jer 40:1). If the prophet meant here the Rama of Benjamin, then it was natural for him to say that Rachel weeps for her children and would not be comforted concerning them, because they are not (Jer 31:15; according to the Hebrew text—Jer 31:14). The prophet wishes to say not that Rachel actually weeps because she was no longer living, but that if she had risen from the grave and come to Rama, she would have begun to weep for her descendants and would have been inconsolable, because they are not, they have been taken into Babylonian captivity. In exactly the same sense does the evangelist apply Rachel’s weeping to the male children killed in Bethlehem.

Matthew 2:19. And after Herod’s death, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream in Egypt, Matthew 2:20. saying, “Rise, take the Child and His mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the life of the Child are dead. Herod died, but it is spoken in the plural sense, in a general sense, both of Herod and of his accomplices and subordinates who carried out his wishes and intentions.

Matthew 2:21. And he rose, took the Child and His mother, and came to the land of Israel. Matthew 2:22. But hearing that Archelaus reigned over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there; but receiving a warning in a dream, he departed into the region of Galilee, It is thought that Joseph, hearing of Herod’s death, initially intended to go to Bethlehem and settle there. But this was prevented by the accession of Archelaus to the throne. Herod in his final will divided his kingdom among his sons Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Herod Philip. The first received in possession Judea, Samaria, and Idumea; the second—Galilee and Perea; and the last—the lands beyond the Jordan. Archelaus was distinguished by the same cruelty as his father, but did not possess his intelligence. Living in his territories would have been dangerous. Herod Antipas was characterized more by licentiousness than cruelty. The tyranny of Archelaus became so intolerable in a short time that he was deposed by Augustus and exiled to Gaul, the present-day France, where he died. Galilee means the land between the western shore of the Sea of Galilee and the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. This was the dwelling place of the tribes of Issachar, Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali. The population in it was mixed, consisting of Jews and Gentiles. The Jews living there spoke their own language, somewhat different from the Hebrew of that time. Josephus speaks of the division of Galilee into upper and lower (“The Jewish War,” III, 3, 1). He describes this region as fertile, cultivated, and very populous. According to his account, there were 204 cities and towns in it (“Life,” 45). The population in it was distinguished by boldness and was warlike.

Matthew 2:23. and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, so that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene. “Nazareth” is a small town three days’ journey from Jerusalem. If one draws a straight line on the map from the lower edge of the Sea of Galilee westward to the Mediterranean Sea, Nazareth is found almost in the middle of this line. Nazareth is located on the slope of a hill. White houses with flat roofs are built on the hill in the form of terraces. Mountains surround the city on all sides. The inhabitants are engaged in the cultivation of land, cattle-raising, shaving and hair-cutting, the sale of fruits and vegetables, shoe repair, blacksmithing, carpentry, and other trades. Their houses are built in the same way as they were built in ancient times: the walls are bare and furnished with benches on one side, the floors are earthen, a complete indifference is shown toward windows, with light usually entering through the open door. “So that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets.” If the evangelist had said that because of settling in Nazareth Jesus would be called a Nazarene, then the explanation of this expression would present almost no difficulties: then Nazarene (ναζωραῖος) would mean simply “a native of Nazareth,” “an inhabitant of the city of Nazareth.” Since Nazareth was an insignificant town and was located in Galilee, which was equally insignificant and despised, settling in Nazareth would have been one aspect of the earthly humiliation of Christ. The evangelist, in calling Christ a Nazarene, apparently looks at the matter in this way. Explanations in the sense of “Nazirite,” Nazarene, according to which the evangelist calls Christ a Nazarene in the Old Testament sense, as one who took upon himself the vows of Naziriteship, should be considered untenable, because the Hebrew “Nazir” (Nazarene) has no relation to the word Nazareth, and the root letters of both these words in the Hebrew language are different. The difficulty in explaining the passage in question lies in the addition made by the evangelist: “so that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,”—in that Matthew attributes the words “He shall be called a Nazarene” to the prophets. Which ones? This question has not yet been successfully answered, because the words attributed by the evangelist to the prophets do not appear in any of them. Jerome the Blessed says: “If the evangelist had pointed out a definite example from Scripture, he would never have said ‘which was spoken by the prophets,’ but simply: ‘which was spoken by the prophet.’ A Hebrew word similar to the name Nazareth (‘natsar’) appears as ‘nezer’ (branch) in the prophets Isaiah (Isa 11:1) and Daniel (Dan 11:7)—in the latter in the sense of ‘offspring’ (in the Russian translation—‘branch’) and does not have a messianic significance. In Isa 14:19 it does not have a messianic significance, and in Isa 60:21 the messianic significance is doubtful. Thus, messianic in the proper sense is only one of the mentioned places where the word ‘nezer’ is used—Isa 11:1. Meanwhile, the evangelist speaks not of one prophet, but of prophets. Exegetes have therefore attempted to connect the word ‘nezer’ with another Hebrew word ‘tsemah,’ which also means ‘branch’ and is used by Isaiah and other prophets (Isa 4:2; Jer 23:5; Zech 3:8). Thus, if in some prophets the future Deliverer was called ‘tsemah,’ which means ‘branch,’ and in Isaiah—‘nezer,’ also meaning ‘branch,’ then the evangelist, connecting the word ‘nezer’ with the name Nazareth, had every right to call Christ a Nazarene, that is, a Branch, and to point out that He was named so on the basis not of one Old Testament prophecy, but of several, that is, to write: “which was spoken by the prophets.” * * * Morison. A Practical Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew. London, 1899. P. 14. According to Zahn, however, the exegete cannot answer the question about the year and day of Christ’s birth.—Zahn. Das Evangelium des Matthäus. Leipzig, 1905. S. 98, note.