A verse by verse commentary on Matthew chapter 2 dealing with the visit of the Magi, and the actions of King Herod. The angel of the Lord warned Joseph and he fled to Egypt with his family.Herod was furious and ordered all the boy babies in the Bethlehem area to be killed.. After Herod died Joseph took his family back to Israel to the city of Nazareth.

1. MATTHEW 2 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
The Magi Visit the Messiah
1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea,
during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the
east came to Jerusalem
BAR ES, "When Jesus was born - See the full account of his birth in Luke 2:1-
20.
In Bethlehem of Judea - Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ, was a small town
about six miles south of Jerusalem. The word “Bethlehem” denotes “house of bread” -
perhaps given to the place on account of its great fertility. It was also called Ephrata, a
word supposed likewise to signify fertility, Gen_35:19; Rth_4:11; Psa_132:6. It was
called the city of David Luk_2:4, because it was the city of his nativity, 1Sa_16:1, 1Sa_
16:18. It was called Bethlehem of Judea, to distinguish it from a town of the same name
in Galilee, Jos_19:15. The soil of Bethlehem was noted for its fertility. Ancient travelers
frequently spoke of its productions. The town is situated on an eminence, in the midst of
hills and vales. At present (circa 1880’s) it contains about 200 houses, inhabited chiefly
by Christians and Muslims, who live together in peace. About 200 paces east of
Bethlehem the place is still shown where our Saviour is supposed to have been born.
There is a church and a convent there; and beneath the church a subterranean chapel,
which is lighted by 32 lamps, which is said to be the place where was the stable in which
Jesus was born, though no certain reliance is to be placed on the tradition which makes
this the birthplace of the Saviour.
Herod the king - Judea, where our Saviour was born, was a province of the Roman
Empire. It was taken about 63 years before his birth by Pompey, and placed under
tribute. Herod received his appointment from the Romans, and had reigned at the time
of the birth of Jesus for 34 years. Though he was permitted to be called king, yet he was,
in all respects, dependent on the Roman emperor. He was commonly called “Herod the
Great” because he had distinguished himself in the wars with Antigonus and his other
enemies, and because he had evinced great talents in governing and defending his
country, in repairing the temple, and in building and ornamenting the cities of his
kingdom. He was, however, as much distinguished for his cruelty and his crimes as he
was for his greatness. At this time Augustus was Emperor of Rome. The world was at
peace. A large part of the known nations of the earth was united under the Roman
emperor. Contact between different nations was easy and safe. Similar laws prevailed.
The use of the Greek language was general throughout the world. All these
circumstances combined to render this a favorable time to introduce the gospel, and to

2. spread it through the earth; and the providence of God was remarkable in preparing the
nations in this manner for the easy and rapid spread of the Christian religion.
Wise men - The original word here is µάγοι magoi, from which comes our word
magician, now used in a bad sense, but not so in the original. The persons here denoted
were philosophers, priests, or astronomers. They lived chiefly in Persia and Arabia. They
were the learned men of the Eastern nations. devoted to astronomy, to religion, and to
medicine. They were held in high esteem by the Persian court, were admitted as
counsellors, and followed the camps in war to give advice.
From the east - It is not known whether they came from Persia or Arabia. Both
countries might be denoted by the word East that is, east from Judea.
Jerusalem - The capital of Judea. As there is frequent reference in the New
Testament to Jerusalem; as it was the place of the public worship of God; as it was the
place where many important transactions in the life of the Saviour occurred, and where
he died; and as no Sunday school teacher can intelligently explain the New Testament
without some knowledge of that city, it seems desirable to present, a brief description of
it. A more full description may be seen in Calmet’s Dictionary, and in the common works
on Jewish antiquities. Jerusalem was the capital of the kingdom of Judah, and was built
on the line dividing that tribe from the tribe of Benjamin. It was once called “Salem”
Gen_14:18; Psa_76:2, and in the days of Abraham was the home of Melchizedek. When
the Israelites took possession of the promised land, they found this stronghold in the
possession of the Jebusites, by whom it was called Jebus or Jebusi, Jos_18:28.
The name “Jerusalem” was probably compounded of the two by changing a single
letter, and calling it, for the sake of the sound, “Jerusalem” instead of “Jebusalem.” The
ancient Salem was probably built on Mount Moriah or Acra - the eastern and western
mountains on which Jerusalem was subsequently built. When the Jebusites became
masters of the place, they erected a fortress in the southern quarter of the city, which
was subsequently called Mount Zion, but which they called “Jebus”; and although the
Israelites took possession of the adjacent territory Jos_18:28, the Jebusites still held this
fortress or upper town until the time of David, who wrested it from them 2Sa_5:7-9, and
then removed his court from Hebron to Jerusalem, which was thenceforward known as
the city of David, 2Sa_6:10, 2Sa_6:12; 1Ki_8:1. Jerusalem was built on several hills
Mount Zion on the south, Mount Moriah on the east, upon which the temple was
subsequently built (see the notes at Mat_21:12), Mount Acra on the west, and Mount
Bezetha on the north.
Mount Moriah and Mount Zion were separated by a valley, called by Josephus the
Valley of Cheesemongers, over which there was a bridge or raised way leading from the
one to the other. On the southeast of Mount Moriah, and between that and Mount Zion,
there was a bluff or high rock capable of strong fortification, called Ophel. The city was
encompassed by hills. On the west there were hills which overlooked the city; on the
south was the valley of Jehoshaphat, or the valley of Hinnom (see the notes at Mat_
5:22), separating it from what is called the Mount of Corruption; on the east was the
valley or the brook Kedron, dividing the city from the Mount of Olives. On the north the
country was more level, though it was a broken or rolling country. On the southeast the
valleys of the Kedron and Jehoshaphat united, and the waters flowed through the
broken mountains in a southeasterly direction to the Dead Sea, some 15 miles distant.
The city of Jerusalem stands in 31 degrees 50 minutes north latitude, and 35 degrees
20 minutes east longitude from Greenwich. It is 34 miles southeasterly from Jaffa - the
ancient Joppa which is its seaport, and 120 miles southwesterly from Damascus. The
best view of the city of Jerusalem is from Mount Olivet on the east (compare the notes at

3. Mat_21:1), the mountains in the east being somewhat higher than those on the west. The
city was anciently enclosed within walls, a part of which are still standing. The position
of the walls has been at various times changed, as the city has been larger or smaller, or
as it has extended in different directions. The wall on the south formerly included the
whole of Mount Zion, though the modern wall runs over the summit, including about
half of the mountain. In the time of the Saviour the northern wall enclosed only Mounts
Acra and Moriah north, though after his death Agrippa extended the wall so as to
include Mount Bezetha on the north.
About half of that is included in the present wall. The limits of the city on the east and
the west, being more determined by the nature of the place, have been more fixed and
permanent. The city was watered in part by the fountain of Siloam on the east for a
description of which, see the Luk_13:4 note, and Isa_7:3 note), and in part by the
fountain of Gihon on the west of the city, which flowed into the vale of Jehoshaphat; and
in the time of Solomon by an aqueduct, part of which is still remaining, by which water
was brought from the vicinity of Bethlehem. The “pools of Solomon,” three in number,
one rising above another, and adapted to hold a large quantity of water, are still
remaining in the vicinity of Bethlehem. The fountain of Siloam still flows freely (see the
note at Isa_7:3)}, though the fountain of Gihon is commonly dry. A reservoir or tank,
however, remains at Gihon. Jerusalem had, probably, its highest degree of splendor in
the time of Solomon. About 400 hundred years after, it was entirely destroyed by
Nebuchadnezzar. It lay utterly desolate during the 70 years of the Jewish captivity.
Then it was rebuilt, and restored to some degree of its former magnificence, and
remained about 600 years, when it was utterly destroyed by Titus in 70 a.d. In the reign
of Adrian the city was partly rebuilt under the name of AElia. The monuments of Pagan
idolatry were erected in it, and it remained under Pagan jurisdiction until Helena, the
mother of Constantine, overthrew the memorials of idolatry, and erected a magnificent
church over the spot which was supposed to be the place of the Redeemer’s sufferings
and bruial. Julian, the apostate, with the design to destroy the credit of the prophecy of
the Saviour that the temple should remain in ruins Matt. 24, endeavored to rebuild the
temple. His own historian, Ammianus Marcellinus (see Warburton’s Divine Legation of
Moses), says that the workmen were impeded by balls of fire coming from the earth, and
that he was compelled to abandon the undertaking.
Jerusalem continued in the power of the Eastern emperors until the reign of the
Caliph Omar, the third in succession from Mohammed, who reduced it under his control
about the year 640. The Saracens continued masters of Jerusalem until the year 1099,
when it was taken by the Crusaders under Godfrey of Bouillon. They founded a new
kingdom, of which Jerusalem was the capital, which continued eighty-eight years under
nine kings. At last this kingdom was utterly ruined by Saladin; and though the Christians
once more obtained possession of the city, yet they were obliged again to relinquish it. In
1217 the Saracens were expelled by the Turks, who have continued in possession of it
ever since . Jerusalem has been taken and pillaged 17 times, and millions of people have
been slaughtered within its walls. At present there is a splendid mosque - the mosque of
Omar - on the site of the temple . The present population of Jerusalem (circa 1880’s) is
variously estimated at from 15,000 to 30,000 Turner estimates it at 26,000; Richard
son, 20,000; Jowett, 15,000; Dr. Robinson at 11,000, namely, Muslims 4,500; Jews
3,000, Christians 3,500. - Biblical Researches, vol. ii. p. 83, 84.
The Jews have a number of synagogues. The Roman Catholics have a convent, and
have the control of the church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Greeks have twelve convents;
the Armenians have three convents on Mount Zion and one in the city; the Copts,
Syrians, and Abyssinians have each of them one convent. The streets are narrow, and the

4. houses are of stone, most of them low and irregular, with flat roofs or terraces, and with
small windows only toward the street, usually protected by iron grates. The above
description has been obtained from a great variety of sources, and it would be useless to
refer to the works where the facts have been obtained.
CLARKE, "Bethlehem of Judea - This city is mentioned in Jdg_17:7, and must be
distinguished from another of the same name in the tribe of Zebulon, Jos_19:15. It is
likewise called Ephrath, Gen_48:7, or Ephratah, Mic_5:2, and its inhabitants
Ephrathites, Rth_1:2; 1Sa_17:12. It is situated on the declivity of a hill, about six miles
from Jerusalem. ‫לחם‬ ‫בית‬ Beth-lechem, in Hebrew, signifies the house of bread. And the
name may be considered as very properly applied to that place where Jesus, the Messiah,
the true bread that came down from heaven, was manifested, to give life to the world.
But ‫לחם‬ lehem also signifies flesh, and is applied to that part of the sacrifice which was
burnt upon the altar. See Lev_3:11-16; Lev_21:6. The word is also used to signify a
carcass, Zep_1:17. The Arabic version has Beet lehem, and the Persic Beet allehem: but
lehem, in Arabic, never signifies bread, but always means flesh. Hence it is more proper
to consider the name as signifying the house of flesh, or, as some might suppose, the
house of the incarnation, i.e. the place where God was manifested in the flesh for the
salvation of a lost world.
In the days of Herod the king - This was Herod, improperly denominated the
Great, the son of Antipater, an Idumean: he reigned 37 years in Judea, reckoning from
the - time he was created - king of that country by the Romans. Our blessed Lord was
born in the last year of his reign; and, at this time, the scepter had literally departed
from Judah, a foreigner being now upon the throne.
As there are several princes of this name mentioned in the New Testament, it may be
well to give a list of them here, together with their genealogy.
Herod, the Great, married ten wives, by whom he had several children, Euseb. l. i. c. 9.
p. 27. The first was Doris, thought to be an Idumean, whom he married when but a
private individual; by her he had Antipater, the eldest of all his sons, whom he caused to
be executed five days before his own death.
His second wife was Mariamne, daughter to Hircanus, the sole surviving person of the
Asmonean, or Maccabean, race. Herod put her to death. She was the mother of
Alexander and Aristobulus, whom Herod had executed at Sebastia, (Joseph. Antiq. l. xvi.
c. 13. - De Bello, l. i. c. 17), on an accusation of having entered into a conspiracy against
him. Aristobulus left three children, whom I shall notice hereafter.
His third wife was Mariamne, the daughter of Simon, a person of some note in
Jerusalem, whom Herod made high priest, in order to obtain his daughter. She was the
mother of Herod Philippus, or Herod Philip, and Salome. Herod or Philip married
Herodias, mother to Salome, the famous dancer, who demanded the head of John the
Baptist, Mar_6:22. Salome had been placed, in the will of Herod the Great, as second
heir after Antipater; but her name was erased, when it was discovered that Mariamne,
her mother, was an accomplice in the crimes of Antipater, son of Herod the Great.
Joseph de Bello, lib. i. c. 18,19,20.
His fourth wife was Malthake, a Samaritan, whose sons were Archelaus and Philip.
The first enjoyed half his father’s kingdom under the name of tetrarch, viz. Idumea,
Judea, and Samaria: Joseph. Antiq. l. xvii. c. 11. He reigned nine years; but, being

5. accused and arraigned before the Emperor Augustus, he was banished to Vienna, where
he died: Joseph. Antiq. l. xvii. c. 15. This is the Archelaus mentioned in Mat_2:22.
His brother Philip married Salome, the famous dancer, the daughter of Herodias; he
died without children, and she was afterwards married to Aristobulus.
The fifth wife of Herod the Great was Cleopatra of Jerusalem. She was the mother of
Herod surnamed Antipas, who married Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, while he
was still living. Being reproved for this act by John the Baptist, Mat_14:3; Mar_6:17;
Luk_3:19, and having imprisoned this holy man, he caused him to be beheaded,
agreeable to the promise he had rashly made to the daughter of his wife Herodias, who
had pleased him with her dancing. He attempted to seize the person of Jesus Christ, and
to put him to death. It was to this prince that Pilate sent our Lord, Luk_13:31, Luk_
13:32. He was banished to Lyons, and then to Spain, where both he and his wife
Herodias died. Joseph. Antiq. l. xv. c. 14. - De Bello, l. ii. c. 8.
The sixth wife of Herod the Great was Pallas, by whom he had Phasaelus: his history is
no ways connected with the New Testament.
The seventh was named Phoedra, the mother of Roxana, who married the son of
Pheroras.
The eighth was Elpida, mother of Salome, who married another son of Pheroras.
With the names of two other wives of Herod we are not acquainted; but they are not
connected with our history, any more than are Pallas, Phoedra, and Elpida, whose
names I merely notice to avoid the accusation of inaccuracy.
Aristobulus, the son of Herod the Great by Mariamne, a descendant of the
Asmoneans, left two sons and a daughter, viz. Agrippa, Herod, and Herodias, so famous
for her incestuous marriage with Antipas, in the life-time of his brother Philip.
Agrippa, otherwise named Herod, who was imprisoned by Tiberius for something he
had inconsiderately said against him, was released from prison by Caligula, who made
him king of Judea: Joseph. Antiq. l. xviii. c. 8. It was this prince who put St. James to
death, and imprisoned Peter, as mentioned in 12. of Acts. He died at Caesarea, in the way
mentioned in the Acts, as well as by Josephus, Antiq. l. xix. c. 7. He left a son named
Agrippa, who is mentioned below.
Herod, the second son of Aristobulus, was king of Chalcis, and, after the death of his
brother, obtained permission of the emperor to keep the ornaments belonging to the
high priest, and to nominate whom he pleased to that office: Joseph. Antiq. l. xx. c. 1. He
had a son named Aristobulus, to whom Nero gave Armenia the lesser, and who married
Salome, the famous dancer, daughter to Herodias.
Agrippa, son of Herod Agrippa, king of Judea, and grandson to Aristobulus and
Mariamne; he was at first king of Chalcis, and afterwards tetrarch of Galilee, in the room
of his uncle Philip: Joseph. Antiq. l. xx. c. 5. It was before him, his sister Berenice, and
Felix, who had married Drusilla, Agrippa’s second daughter, that St. Paul pleaded his
cause, as mentioned Acts 26.
Herodias, the daughter of Mariamne and Aristobulus, is the person of whom we have
already spoken, who married successively the two brothers Philip and Antipas, her
uncles, and who occasioned the death of John the Baptist. By her first husband she had
Salome, the dancer, who was married to Philip, tetrarch of the Trachonitis, the son of
Herod the Great. Salome having had no children by him, she was married to
Aristobulus, her cousin-german, son of Herod, king of Chalcis, and brother to Agrippa
and Herodias: she had by this husband several children.
This is nearly all that is necessary to be known relative to the race of the Herods, in

6. order to distinguish the particular persons of this family mentioned in the New
Testament. See Basnage, Calmet, and Josephus.
There came wise men from the east - Or, Magi came from the eastern countries.
“The Jews believed that there were prophets in the kingdom of Saba and Arabia, who
were of the posterity of Abraham by Keturah; and that they taught in the name of God,
what they had received in tradition from the mouth of Abraham.” - Whitby. That many
Jews were mixed with this people there is little doubt; and that these eastern magi, or
philosophers, astrologers, or whatever else they were, might have been originally of that
class, there is room to believe. These, knowing the promise of the Messiah, were now,
probably, like other believing Jews, waiting for the consolation of Israel. The Persic
translator renders the Greek Μαγοι by mejooseean, which properly signifies a worshipper
of fire; and from which we have our word magician. It is very probable that the ancient
Persians, who were considered as worshippers of fire, only honored it as the symbolical
representation of the Deity; and, seeing this unusual appearance, might consider it as a
sign that the God they worshipped was about to manifest himself among men. Therefore
they say, We have seen his star - and are come to worship him; but it is most likely that
the Greeks made their Μαγοι magi, which we translate wise men, from the Persian mogh,
and moghan, which the Kushuf ul Loghat, a very eminent Persian lexicon, explains by
atush perest, a worshipper of fire; which the Persians suppose all the inhabitants of Ur in
Chaldea were, among whom the Prophet Abraham was brought up. The Mohammedans
apply this title by way of derision to Christian monks in their associate capacity; and by a
yet stronger catachresis, they apply it to a tavern, and the people that frequent it. Also, to
ridicule in the most forcible manner the Christian priesthood, they call the tavern-
keeper, peeri Mughan, the priest, or chief of the idolaters. It is very probable that the
persons mentioned by the evangelist were a sort of astrologers, probably of Jewish
extraction, that they lived in Arabia-Felix, and, for the reasons above given, came to
worship their new-born sovereign. It is worthy of remark, that the Anglo-saxon
translates the word Μαγοι by astrologers, from a star or planet, and to know or
understand.
GILL, "Now when Jesus was born,.... Several things are here related respecting the
birth of Christ, as the place where he was born,
in Bethlehem of Judea; so called to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in the
tribe of Zabulon, Jos_19:15. Here Christ was to be born according to a prophecy
hereafter mentioned, and accordingly the Jews expected he would be born here, Mat_
2:4 and so Jesus was born here, Luk_2:4 and this the Jews themselves acknowledge;
"Such a year, says a noted (l) chronologer of theirs, Jesus of Nazareth was born in
Bethlehem Juda, which is a "parsa" and a half, i.e. six miles, from Jerusalem.''
Benjamin (m) Tudelensis says it is two parsas, i.e. eight miles, from it; and according to
Justin Martyr (n) it was thirty five furlongs distant from it. Yea even they own this, that
Jesus was born there, in that vile and blasphemous book (o) of theirs, written on
purpose to defame him; nay, even the ancient Jews have owned that the Messiah is
already born, and that he was born at Bethlehem; as appears from their Talmud (p),

7. where we meet with such a passage.
"It happened to a certain Jew, that as he was ploughing, one of his oxen bellowed; a
certain Arabian passed by and heard it, who said, O Jew, Jew, loose thy oxen, and loose
thy ploughshare, for lo, the house of the sanctuary is destroyed: it bellowed a second
time; he said unto him, O Jew, Jew, bind thy oxen, and bind thy ploughshare, for lo ‫יליד‬
‫משיחא‬ ‫מלכא‬ "the king Messiah is born". He said to him, what is his name? Menachem (the
comforter); he asked again, what is his father's name? Hezekiah; once more he says,
from whence is he? He replies ‫יהודה‬ ‫ביתלחם‬ ‫מלכא‬ ‫בירת‬ ‫מן‬ "from the palace of the king of
Bethlehem Judah"; he went and sold his oxen and his ploughshares, and became a seller
of swaddling clothes for infants; and he went from city to city till he came to that city,
(Bethlehem,) and all the women bought of him, but the mother of Menachem bought
nothing.''
Afterwards they tell you, he was snatched away by winds and tempests. This story is told
in much the same manner in another (q) of their writings. Bethlehem signifies "the
house of bread", and in it was born, as an ancient writer (r) observes, the bread which
comes down from heaven: and it may also signify "the house of flesh", and to it the
allusion may be in 1Ti_3:16 "God manifest in the flesh". The time of Christ's birth is here
expressed,
in the days of Herod the king. This was Herod the great, the first of that name: the
Jewish chronologer (s) gives an account of him in the following manner.
"Herod the first, called Herod the Ascalonite, was the son of Antipater, a friend of king
Hyrcanus and his deputy; him the senate of Rome made king in the room of Hyrcanus
his master. This Herod whilst he was a servant of king Hyrcanus (so in the (t) Talmud
Herod is said to be ‫חשמונא‬ ‫דבית‬ ‫עבדא‬ a servant of the family of the Asmonaeans) king
Hyrcanus saved from death, to which he was sentenced by the sanhedrim of Shammai;
that they might not slay him for the murder of one Hezekiah, as is related by Josephus, l.
6. c. 44. and Herod took to him for wife Miriam, the daughter of Alexander the son of
Aristobulus, who was the daughter's daughter of king Hyrcanus.''
This writer tacitly owns afterwards (u) that Jesus was born in the days of this king; for
he says, that in the days of Hillell and Shammai (who lived in those times) there was one
of their disciples, who was called R. Joshua ben Perachiah, and he was, adds he, ‫הנוצרי‬ ‫רבו‬
"the master of the Nazarene", or of Jesus of Nazareth. Herod reigned, as this same
author observes, thirty seven years; and according to Dr. Lightfoot's calculation, Christ
was born in the thirty fifth year of his reign, and in the thirty first of Augustus Caesar,
and in the year of the world three thousand nine hundred and twenty eight, and the
month Tisri, which answers to part of our September, about the feast of tabernacles;
which indeed was typical of Christ's incarnation, and then it may reasonably be thought
that "the word was made flesh", and εσκηνωσεν "tabernacled among us", Joh_1:14.
Another circumstance relating to the birth of Christ is, that
when Jesus was born--behold, there came wise men from the East to
Jerusalem; these wise men in the Greek text are called µαγοι, "Magi", a word which is

8. always used in a bad sense in the sacred writings; hence they are thought by some to be
magicians, sorcerers, wizards, such as Simon Magus, Act_8:9 and Elymas, Act_13:8 and
so the Jewish writers (w) interpret the word ‫מגוש‬ a wizard, an enchanter, a blasphemer of
God, and one that entices others to idolatry; and in the Hebrew Gospel of Munster these
men are called ‫מכשפים‬ "wizards". Some have thought this to be their national name.
Epiphanius (x) supposes that these men were of the posterity of Abraham by Keturah,
who inhabited a country in some part of Arabia, called Magodia: but could this be
thought to be the name of their country, one might rather be induced to suppose that
they were of the µαγοι, "Magi", a nation of the Medes mentioned by Herodotus (y); since
both the name and country better agree with these persons; but the word seems to be
rather a name of character and office, and to design the wise men, and priests of the
Persians. An Eastern (z) writer says the word is of Persic original, and is compounded of
two words, "Mije Gush", which signifies "a man with short ears"; for such was the first
founder of the sect, and from whom they were so called. But in the Arabic Persic
Nomenclator (a) it is rendered "a worshipper of fire", and such the Persian priests were;
and to this agrees what Apuleius (b) says, that "Magus", in the Persian language, is the
same as "priest" with us: and Xenophon (c) says, that the Magi were first appointed by
Cyrus, to sing hymns to the gods, as soon as it was day, and to sacrifice to them. The
account given of them by Porphyry (d) is, that
"among the Persians they that were wise concerning God, and worshipped him, were
called µαγοι, "Magi", for so "Magus" signifies in their country dialect; and so august and
venerable were this sort of men accounted with the Persians, that Darius, the son of
Hystaspis, ordered this, among other things, to be inscribed on his monument, that he
was the master of the Magi.''
From whence we may learn in some measure who these men were, and why the word is
by our translators rendered "wise men"; since the Magi, as Cicero (e) says, were
reckoned a sort of wise men, and doctors among the Persians: who further observes, that
no man could be a king of the Persians before he understood the discipline and
knowledge of the Magi: and the wisdom of the Persian Magi, as Aelianus (f) writes,
among other things, lay in foretelling things to come. These came
from the east, not from Chaldea, as some have thought, led hereunto by the multitude
of astrologers, magicians, and soothsayers, which were among that people; see Dan_2:2
for Chaldea was not east, but north of Judea, as appears from Jer_1:14 Jer_6:22. Others
have thought they came from Arabia, and particularly Sheba, induced hereunto by Psa_
72:10. But though some part of Arabia lay east, yet Sheba was south of the land of Israel,
as is evident from the queen of that place being called the "queen of the south", Mat_
12:42. The more generally received opinion seems to be most right, that they came from
Persia, which as it lies east of Judea, so was famous for this sort of men, and besides the
name, as has been seen, is of Persic original. The place whither they came was
Jerusalem, the "metropolis" of Judea, where they might suppose the king of the Jews
was born, or where, at least, they might persuade themselves they should hear of him;
since here Herod the king lived, to whom it seems they applied themselves in the first
place. The time of their coming was, "when Jesus was born"; not as soon as he was born,
or on the "thirteenth" day after his birth, the sixth of January, as it stands in our
Calendar; or within the forty days before Mary's Purification; since this space of time
does not seem to be sufficient for so long a journey, and which must require a

9. considerable preparation for it; nor is it probable if they came so soon as this, that after
such a stir at Jerusalem, after Herod's diligent search and inquiry concerning this
matter, and his wrath and anger at being disappointed and deluded by the wise men,
that Joseph and Mary should so soon bring the child into the temple, where, it was
declared to be the Messiah by Simeon and Anna. Besides, immediately after the
departure of the wise men, Joseph with his wife and child were ordered into Egypt,
which could not be done before Mary's Purification. But rather this their coming was
near upon two years after the birth of Christ; since it is afterwards observed, that "Herod
sent and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from
two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the
wise men", Mat_2:16. This was the opinion of Epiphanius (g) formerly, and is embraced
by Dr. Lightfoot (h), to whom I refer the reader for further proof of this matter.
HE RY, "It was a mark of humiliation put upon the Lord Jesus that, though he was
the Desire of all nations, yet his coming into the world was little observed and taken
notice of, his birth was obscure and unregarded: herein he emptied himself, and made
himself of no reputation. If the Son of God must be brought into the world, one might
justly expect that he should be received with all the ceremony possible, that crowns and
sceptres should immediately have been laid at his feet, and that the high and mighty
princes of the world should have been his humble servants; such a Messiah as this the
Jews expected, but we see none of all this; he came into the world, and the world knew
him not; nay, he came to his own, and his own received him not; for having undertaken
to make satisfaction to his Father for the wrong done him in his honour by the sin of
man, he did it by denying himself in, and despoiling himself of, the honours undoubtedly
due to an incarnate Deity; yet, as afterward, so in his birth, some rays of glory darted
forth in the midst of the greatest instances of his abasement. Though there was the
hiding of his power, yet he had horns coming out of his hand (Hab_3:4) enough to
condemn the world, and the Jews especially, for their stupidity.
The first who took notice of Christ after his birth were the shepherds (Luk_2:15, etc.),
who saw and heard glorious things concerning him, and made them known abroad, to
the amazement of all that heard them, Luk_2:17, Luk_2:18. After that, Simeon and Anna
spoke of him, by the Spirit, to all that were disposed to heed what they said, Luk_2:38.
Now, one would think, these hints should have been taken by the men of Judah and the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, and they should with both arms have embraced the long-
looked-for Messiah; but, for aught that appears, he continued nearly two years after at
Bethlehem, and no further notice was taken of him till these wise men came. Note,
Nothing will awaken those that are resolved to be regardless. Oh the amazing stupidity
of these Jews! And no less that of many who are called Christians! Observe,
I. When this enquiry was made concerning Christ. It was in the days of Herod the
king. This Herod was an Edomite, made king of Judea by Augustus and Antonius, the
then chief rulers of the Roman state, a man made up of falsehood and cruelty; yet he was
complimented with the title of Herod the Great. Christ was born in the 35th year of his
reign, and notice is taken of this, to show that the sceptre had now departed from
Judah, and the lawgiver from between his feet; and therefore now was the time for
Shiloh to come, and to him shall the gathering of the people be: witness these wise men,
Gen_49:10.
II. Who and what these wise men were; they are here called Magou - Magicians. Some
that it in a good sense; the Magi among the Persians were their philosophers and their
priests; nor would they admit any one for their king who had not first been enrolled
among the Magi; others think they dealt in unlawful arts; the word is used of Simon, the

10. sorcerer (Act_8:9, Act_8:11), and of Elymas, the sorcerer (Act_13:6), nor does the
scripture use it in any other sense; and then it was an early instance and presage of
Christ's victory over the devil, when those who had been so much his devotees became
the early adorers even of the infant Jesus; so soon were trophies of his victory over the
powers of darkness erected. Well, whatever sort of wise men they were before, now they
began to be wise men indeed when they set themselves to enquire after Christ.
This we are sure of, 1. That they were Gentiles, and not belonging to the
commonwealth of Israel. The Jews regarded not Christ, but these Gentiles enquired him
out. Note, Many times those who are nearest to the means, are furthest from the end.
See Mat_8:11, Mat_8:12. The respect paid to Christ by these Gentiles was a happy
presage and specimen of what would follow when those who were afar off should be
made nigh by Christ. 2. That they were scholars. They dealt in arts, curious arts; good
scholars should be good Christians, and then they complete their learning when they
learn Christ. 3. That they were men of the east, who were noted for their soothsaying,
Isa_2:6. Arabia is called the land of the east (Gen_25:6), and the Arabians are called
men of the east, Jdg_6:3. The presents they brought were the products of that country;
the Arabians had done homage to David and Solomon as types of Christ. Jethro and Job
were of that country. More than this we have not to say of them. The traditions of the
Romish church are frivolous, that they were in number three (though one of the ancients
says that they were fourteen), that they were kings, and that they lie buried in Colen,
thence called the three kings of Colen; we covet not to be wise above what is written.
III. What induced them to make this enquiry. They, in their country, which was in the
east, had seen an extraordinary star, such as they had not seen before; which they took
to be an indication of an extraordinary person born in the land of Judea, over which land
this star was seen to hover, in the nature of a comet, or a meteor rather, in the lowers
regions of the air; this differed so much from any thing that was common that they
concluded it to signify something uncommon. Note, Extraordinary appearances of God
in the creatures should put us upon enquiring after his mind and will therein; Christ
foretold signs in the heavens. The birth of Christ was notified to the Jewish shepherds
by an angel, to the Gentile philosophers by a star: to both God spoke in their own
language, and in the way they were best acquainted with. Some think that the light which
the shepherds saw shining round about them, the night after Christ was born, was the
very same which to the wise men, who lived at such a distance, appeared as a star; but
this we cannot easily admit, because the same star which they had seen in the east they
saw a great while after, leading them to the house where Christ lay; it was a candle set up
on purpose to guide them to Christ. The idolaters worshipped the stars as the host of
heaven, especially the eastern nations, whence the planets have the names of their idol-
gods; we read of a particular star they had in veneration, Amo_5:26. Thus the stars that
had been misused came to be put to the right use, to lead men to Christ; the gods of the
heathen became his servants. Some think this star put them in mind of Balaam's
prophecy, that a star should come out of Jacob, pointing at a sceptre, that shall rise out
of Israel; see Num_24:17. Balaam came from the mountains of the east, and was one of
their wise men. Others impute their enquiry to the general expectation entertained at
that time, in those eastern parts, of some great prince to appear. Tacitus, in his history
(lib. 5), takes notice of it; Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis
contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret oriens, profectique Judaea rerum
potirentur - A persuasion existed in the minds of many that some ancient writings of
the priests contained a prediction that about that time an eastern power would prevail,
and that persons proceeding from Judea would obtain dominion. Suetonius also, in the
life of Vespasian, speaks of it; so that this extraordinary phenomenon was construed as

11. pointing to that king; and we may suppose a divine impression made upon their minds,
enabling them to interpret this star as a signal given by Heaven of the birth of Christ.
JAMISO , "Mat_2:1-12. Visit of the Magi to Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
The wise men reach Jerusalem - The Sanhedrim, on Herod’s demand, pronounce
Bethlehem to be Messiah’s predicted birthplace (Mat_2:1-6).
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea — so called to distinguish it
from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun, near the Sea of Galilee (Jos_19:15);
called also Beth-lehem-judah, as being in that tribe (Jdg_17:7); and Ephrath (Gen_
35:16); and combining both, Beth-lehem Ephratah (Mic_5:2). It lay about six miles
southwest of Jerusalem. But how came Joseph and Mary to remove thither from
Nazareth, the place of their residence? Not of their own accord, and certainly not with
the view of fulfilling the prophecy regarding Messiah’s birthplace; nay, they stayed at
Nazareth till it was almost too late for Mary to travel with safety; nor would they have
stirred from it at all, had not an order which left them no choice forced them to the
appointed place. A high hand was in all these movements. (See on Luk_2:1-6).
in the days of Herod the king — styled the Great; son of Antipater, an Edomite,
made king by the Romans. Thus was “the sceptre departing from Judah” (Gen_49:10), a
sign that Messiah was now at hand. As Herod is known to have died in the year of Rome
750, in the fourth year before the commencement of our Christian era, the birth of Christ
must be dated four years before the date usually assigned to it, even if He was born
within the year of Herod’s death, as it is next to certain that He was.
there came wise men — literally, “Magi” or “Magians,” probably of the learned
class who cultivated astrology and kindred sciences. Balaam’s prophecy (Num_24:17),
and perhaps Daniel’s (Dan_9:24, etc.), might have come down to them by tradition; but
nothing definite is known of them.
from the east — but whether from Arabia, Persia, or Mesopotamia is uncertain.
to Jerusalem — as the Jewish metropolis.
HAWKER, "We have here related to us the birth of Christ; the visit of the Wise Men
from the East, led by a star to worship him; the consternation induced in the minds of
Herod, and the whole city of Jerusalem, at the event of Christ’s birth; the ministry of an
angel to Joseph, and the flight of Joseph, with his family, into Egypt.
Mat_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,
I detain the Reader at the very entrance on this Chapter, to remark several very
interesting particulars in this short, but sweet account of the birth of the LORD Jesus
after the flesh. Bethlehem, which signifies the house of bread, had been expressly
declared by one of the Prophets to be the place which should be rendered sacred to this
great event. Mic_5:2. And what place so proper to give birth to Jesus, who is himself the
bread of life and the living bread? Joh_6:41-58. And as our misery and leanness arose
from originally leaving this Bethlehem, as was typified. Rth_1:1-6. So the LORD JESUS,
CHRIST begins his salvation at the very spot where our ruin began. Moreover, the
humbleness of the place became most highly suited for the humble SAVIOR to make his
first appearance, in substance of our flesh. For this Bethlehem was about five or six miles
from Jerusalem, and a little city in Judah. Jos_17:7. There was another Bethlehem in
Zebulon. Jos_19:5. But as our Lord sprang out of Judah, so from Judah, in the midst of
the tribes, he will arise. It was said of him, that he should grow out of his place. Zec_

12. 6:12. And here it is. I should not forget also to observe, that some have called Bethlehem
the house of flesh; for Lechem may be so rendered. And if so, the beauty of the
expression is doubled. CHRIST calls his body the flesh, which he wilt give for the life of
the world. And both John and Paul, use the same. Joh_1:14; 1Ti_3:16. Reader! shall not
you, and I, join the disciples’ prayer! LORD! evermore give us this bread! 2Sa_23:15;
Luk_2:4-20; Hag_2:7-9; Mal_3:1; Joh_6:51-57.
CALVIN, "1.Now when Jesus had been born How it came about that Jesus was born in
Bethlehem, Matthew does not say. The Spirit of God, who had appointed the Evangelists
to be his clerks, (177) appears purposely to have regulated their style in such a manner,
that they all wrote one and the same history, with the most perfect agreement, but in
different ways. It was intended, that the truth of God should more clearly and strikingly
appear, when it was manifest that his witnesses did not speak by a preconcerted plan,
but that each of them separately, without paying any attention to another, wrote freely
and honestly what the Holy Spirit dictated.
This is a very remarkable narrative. God brought Magi from Chaldea, to come to the land
of Judea, for the purpose of adoring Christ, in the stable where he lay, amidst the tokens,
not of honor, but of contempt. It was a truly wonderful purpose of God, that he caused
the entrance of his Son into the world to be attended by deep meanness, and yet
bestowed upon him illustrious ornaments, both of commendation and of other outward
signs, that our faith might be supplied with everything necessary to prove his Divine
Majesty.
A beautiful instance of real harmony, amidst apparent contradiction, is here exhibited. A
star from heaven announces that he is a king, to whom a manger, intended for cattle,
serves for a throne, because he is refused admittance among the lowest of the people.
His majesty shines in the East, while in Judea it is so far from being acknowledged, that
it is visited by many marks of dishonor. Why is this? The heavenly Father chose to
appoint the star and the Magi as our guides, to lead directly to his Son: while he stripped
him of all earthly splendor, for the purpose of informing us that his kingdom is spiritual.
This history conveys profitable instruction, not only because God brought the Magi to
his Son, as the first-fruits of the Gentiles, but also because he appointed the kingdom of
his Son to receive their commendation, and that of the star, for the confirmation of our
faith; that the wicked and malignant contempt of his nation might not render him less
estimable in our eyes.
Magi is well known to be the name given by the Persians and Chaldees to astrologers and
philosophers: and hence it may readily be conjectured that those men came from Persia.
(178) As the Evangelist does not state what was their number, it is better to be ignorant
of it, than to affirm as certain what is doubtful. Papists have been led into a childish
error, of supposing that they were three in number: because Matthew says, that they
brought gold, frankincense, and myrrh, (Matthew 2:11.) But the historian does not say,
that each of them separately presented his own gift. He rather says, that those three gifts
were presented by them in common. That ancient author, whoever he may be, whose
imperfect Commentary on Matthew bears the name of Chrysostom, and is reckoned
among Chrysostom’s works, says that they were fourteen. This carries as little

13. probability as the other. It may have come from a tradition of the Fathers, but has no
solid foundation. But the most ridiculous contrivance of the Papists on this subject is,
that those men were kings, because they found in another passage a prediction, that
the kings of Tarshish, and of the Isles, and of Sheba,
would offer gifts to the Lord, (Psalms 72:10.)
Ingenious workmen, truly, who, in order to present those men in a new shape, have
begun with turning the world from one side to another: for they have changed the south
and west into the east! Beyond all doubt, they have been stupified by a righteous
judgment of God, that all might laugh at the gross ignorance of those who have not
scrupled to adulterate “and, change the truth of God into a lie,” (Romans 1:25.)
The first inquiry here is: Was this star one of those which the Lord createdin the
beginning (Genesis 1:1) to “garnish the heavens?” (Job 26:13.) Secondly, Were the magi
led by their acquaintance with astrology to conclude that it pointed out the birth of
Christ? On these points, there is no necessity for angry disputation: but it may be
inferred from the words of Matthew, that it was not a natural, but an extraordinary star.
It was not agreeable to the order of nature, that it should disappear for a certain period,
and afterwards should suddenly become bright; nor that it should pursue a straight
course towards Bethlehem, and at length remain stationary above the house where
Christ was. Not one of these things belongs to natural stars. It is more probable that it
resembled (179) a comet, and was seen, not in the heaven, but in the air. Yet there is no
impropriety in Matthew, who uses popular language, calling it incorrectly a star.
This almost decides likewise the second question: for since astrology is undoubtedly
confined within the limits of nature, its guidance alone could not have conducted the
Magi to Christ; so that they must have been aided by a secret revelation of the Spirit. I do
not go so far as to say, that they derived no assistance whatever from the art: but I
affirm, that this would have been of no practical advantage, if they had not been aided by
a new and extraordinary revelation.
SBC 1-2, "I. We have, as it were, three classes gathered about us in this narrative, and
the central figure of them all is Christ Himself. As we think of this story in connection
with our Master, the first thought that strikes us is that we have here a distinct fulfilment
of prophecy. It had been prophesied that to Him should the gathering of the people be.
The Gentile and the Jew were found by His cradle; in Him all national distinctions are,
as it were, wiped out; there is to be neither Barbarian, Scythian, bond, nor free. Round
His cradle are not only the representatives of various lands, but they are brought to do
homage to Him as a Child. Out of the childlike King there would arise a childlike
character of all His followers.
II. Turn next from the spiritual to the temporal king. When the news of the new-born
Christ was brought to Herod, "he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." He feared
for the stability of his throne. His heart was centred in the kingdom which he ruled, the
possessions that were brought under his control. The man whose mind is fixed upon

14. possessions as such is troubled at the thought of a righteous ruler. The man whose
thoughts are fixed upon the abundance of things that he possesses, necessarily quakes
when he thinks of Him whose return must strike every one of them into the abyss away
from Himself.
III. Look at the character of the wise men. They were great men. But their greatness is
magnified by the greatness of their faith and their moral courage. Faith is, after all, a
kind of heaven-born insight. These men saw the star. There were thousands about them
who looked upon the same star, and saw no meaning in it. It led them through the long
desert to kneel before the Satisfier of their hopes. So it is with Christ’s children in this
world. They see by an insight of faith what other men do not see. There is a light that
others do not see, there is a hand that others cannot perceive, there is a voice that others
cannot hear, that calls them to go forward.
Bishop Boyd Carpenter, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 36.
VWS, "Bethlehem
Hebrew, House of Bread, probably from its fertility. The birthplace of him who calls
himself the Bread of Life (Joh_6:35), and identified with the history of his human
ancestry through Ruth, who was here married to Boaz, and was the ancestress of David
(Mat_1:5, Mat_1:6), and through David himself, who was born there, and anointed king
by Samuel (compare Luk_2:11, city of David).
Wise men, or Magi (µάµάµάµάγοιγοιγοιγοι)
Wycliffe renders kings. A priestly caste among the Persians and Medes, which
occupied itself principally with the secrets of nature, astrology, and medicine. Daniel
became president of such an order in Babylon (Dan_2:48). The word became
transferred, without distinction of country, to all who had devoted themselves to those
sciences, which were, however, frequently accompanied with the practice of magic and
jugglery; and, under the form magician, it has come to be naturalized in many of the
languages of Europe. Many absurd traditions and guesses respecting these visitors to our
Lord's cradle have found their way into popular belief and into Christian art. They were
said to be kings, and three in number; they were said to be representatives of the three
families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and therefore one of them is pictured as an
Ethiopian; their names are given as Caspar, Balthasar, and Melchior, and their three
skulls, said to have been discovered in the twelfth century by Bishop Reinald of Cologne,
are exhibited in a priceless casket in the great cathedral of that city.
RWP, "Now when Jesus was born (tou de Iēsou gennēthentos). The fact of the
birth of Jesus is stated by the genitive absolute construction (first aorist passive
participle of the same verb gennaō used twice already of the birth of Jesus, Mat_1:16,
Mat_1:20, and used in the genealogy, Mat_1:2-16). Matthew does not propose to give
biographic details of the supernatural birth of Jesus, wonderful as it was and disbelieved
as it is by some today who actually deny that Jesus was born at all or ever lived, men who
talk of the Jesus Myth, the Christ Myth, etc. “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: reception by the Gentiles, rejection
by the Jews” (Bruce).

15. In Bethlehem of Judea (en Bēthleem tēs Ioudaias). There was a Bethlehem in
Galilee seven miles northwest of Nazareth (Josephus, Antiquities XIX. 15). This
Bethlehem (house of bread, the name means) of Judah was the scene of Ruth’s life with
Boaz (Rth_1:1.; Mat_1:5) and the home of David, descendant of Ruth and ancestor of
Jesus (Mat_1:5). David was born here and anointed king by Samuel (1Sa_17:12). The
town came to be called the city of David (Luk_2:11). Jesus, who was born in this House
of Bread called himself the Bread of Life (Joh_6:35), the true Manna from heaven.
Matthew assumes the knowledge of the details of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem which
are given in Luk_2:1-7 or did not consider them germane to his purpose. Joseph and
Mary went to Bethlehem from Nazareth because it was the original family home for both
of them. The first enrolment by the Emperor Augustus as the papyri show was by
families (kat' oikian). Possibly Joseph had delayed the journey for some reason till now it
approached the time for the birth of the child.
In the days of Herod the King (en hēmerais Hērōidou tou Basileōs). This is the only
date for the birth of Christ given by Matthew. Luke gives a more precise date in his
Gospel (Luk_2:1-3), the time of the first enrolment by Augustus and while Cyrenius was
ruler of Syria. More will be said of Luke’s date when we come to his Gospel. We know
from Matthew that Jesus was born while Herod was king, the Herod sometimes called
Herod the Great. Josephus makes it plain that Herod died b.c. 4. He was first Governor
of Galilee, but had been king of Judaea since b.c. 40 (by Antony and Octavius). I call him
“Herod the Great Pervert” in Some Minor Characters in the New Testament. He was
great in sin and in cruelty and had won the favour of the Emperor. The story in Josephus
is a tragedy. It is not made plain by Matthew how long before the death of Herod Jesus
was born. Our traditional date a.d. 1, is certainly wrong as Matthew shows. It seems
plain that the birth of Jesus cannot be put later than b.c. 5. The data supplied by Luke
probably call for b.c. 6 or 7.
Wise men from the east (magoi apo anatolōn). The etymology of Magi is quite
uncertain. It may come from the same Indo-European root as (megas) magnus, though
some find it of Babylonian origin. Herodotus speaks of a tribe of Magi among the
Medians. Among the Persians there was a priestly caste of Magi like the Chaldeans in
Babylon (Dan_1:4). Daniel was head of such an order (Dan_2:48). It is the same word as
our “magician” and it sometimes carried that idea as in the case of Simon Magus (Act_
8:9, Act_8:11) and of Elymas Barjesus (Act_13:6, Act_13:8). But here in Matthew the
idea seems to be rather that of astrologers. Babylon was the home of astrology, but we
only know that the men were from the east whether Arabia, Babylon, Persia, or
elsewhere. The notion that they were kings arose from an interpretation of Isa_60:3;
Rev_21:24. The idea that they were three in number is due to the mention of three kinds
of gifts (gold, frankincense, myrrh), but that is no proof at all. Legend has added to the
story that the names were Caspar, Balthasar, and Melchior as in Ben Hur and also that
they represent Shem, Ham, and Japhet. A casket in the Cologne Cathedral actually is
supposed to contain the skulls of these three Magi. The word for east (apo anatolōn)
means “from the risings” of the sun.
BARCLAY, "THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE KING (Matthew 2:1-2)
2:1-2 When Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judaea, in the days of Herod the King,
behold there came to Jerusalem wise men from the East. "Where," they said, "is the
newly born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in its rising and we have come to

16. worship him."
It was in Bethlehem that Jesus was born. Bethlehem was quite a little town six miles to
the south of Jerusalem. In the olden days it had been called Ephrath or Ephratah. The
name Bethlehem means The House of Bread, and Bethlehem stood in a fertile
countryside, which made its name a fitting name. It stood high up on a grey limestone
ridge more than two thousand five hundred feet in height. The ridge had a summit at
each end, and a hollow like a saddle between them. So, from its position, Bethlehem
looked like a town set in an amphitheatre of hills.
Bethlehem had a long history. It was there that Jacob had buried Rachel, and had set up
a pillar of memory beside her grave (Genesis 48:7; Genesis 35:20). It was there that
Ruth had lived when she married Boaz (Ruth 1:22), and from Bethlehem Ruth could see
the land of Moab, her native land, across the Jordan valley. But above all Bethlehem was
the home and the city of David (1 Samuel 16:1; 1 Samuel 17:12; 1 Samuel 20:6); and it
was for the water of the well of Bethlehem that David longed when he was a hunted
fugitive upon the hills (2 Samuel 23:14-15).
In later days we read that Rehoboam fortified the town of Bethlehem (2 Chronicles 11:6).
But in the history of Israel, and to the minds of the people, Bethlehem was uniquely the
city of David. It was from the line of David that God was to send the great deliverer of his
people. As the prophet Micah had it: "O Bethlehem Ephratah, who are little to be among
the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose origin is from old, from ancient days" (Micah 5:2).
It was in Bethlehem, David's city, that the Jews expected great David's greater Son to be
born; it was there that they expected God's Anointed One to come into the world. And it
was so.
The picture of the stable and the manger as the birthplace of Jesus is a picture indelibly
etched in our minds; but it may well be that that picture is not altogether correct. Justin
Martyr, one of the greatest of the early fathers, who lived about A.D. 150, and who came
from the district near Bethlehem, tells us that Jesus was born in a cave near the village of
Bethlehem (Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, 78, 304); and it may well be that
Justin's information is correct. The houses in Bethlehem are built on the slope of the
limestone ridge; and it is very common for them to have a cave-like stable hollowed out
in the limestone rock below the house itself, and very likely it was in such a cave-stable
that Jesus was born.
To this day such a cave is shown in Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus and above it the
Church of the Nativity has been built. For very long that cave has been shown as the
birthplace of Jesus. It was so in the days of the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, for Hadrian,
in a deliberate attempt to desecrate the place, erected a shrine to the heathen god Adonis
above it. When the Roman Empire became Christian, early in the fourth century, the
first Christian Emperor, Constantine, built a great church there, and that church, much
altered and often restored, still stands.
H. V. Morton tells how he visited the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. He came to a

17. great wall, and in the wall there was a door so low that he had to stoop to enter it; and
through the door, and on the other side of the wall, there was the church. Beneath the
high altar of the church is the eave, and when the pilgrim descends into it he finds a little
cavern about fourteen yards tong and four yards wide, lit by silver lamps. In the floor
there is a star, and round it a Latin inscription: "Here Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin
Mary."
When the Lord of Glory came to this earth, he was born in a cave where men sheltered
the beasts. The cave in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem may be that same cave,
or it may not be. That we will never know for certain. But there is something beautiful in
the symbolism that the church where the cave is has a door so low that all must stoop to
enter. It is supremely fitting that every man should approach the infant Jesus upon his
knees.
THE HOMAGE OF THE EAST (Matthew 2:1-2 continued)
When Jesus was born in Bethlehem there came to do him homage wise men from the
East. The name given to these men is Magi, and that is a word which is difficult to
translate. Herodotus (1: 101,132) has certain information about the Magi. He says that
they were originally a Median tribe. The Medes were part of the Empire of the Persians.
They tried to overthrow the Persians and substitute the power of the Medes. The attempt
failed. From that time the Magi ceased to have any ambitions for power or prestige, and
became a tribe of priests. They became in Persia almost exactly what the Levites were in
Israel. They became the teachers and instructors of the Persian kings. In Persia no
sacrifice could be offered unless one of the Magi was present. They became men of
holiness and wisdom.
These Magi were men who were skilled in philosophy, medicine and natural science.
They were soothsayers and interpreters of dreams. In later times the word Magus
developed a much lower meaning, and came to mean little more than a fortune-teller, a
sorcerer, a magician, and a charlatan. Such was Elymas, the sorcerer (Acts 13:6; Acts
13:8), and Simon who is commonly called Simon Magus (Acts 8:9; Acts 8:11). But at
their best the Magi were good and holy men, who sought for truth.
In those ancient days all men believed in astrology. They believed that they could foretell
the future from the stars, and they believed that a man's destiny was settled by the star
under which he was born. It is not difficult to see how that belief arose. The stars pursue
their unvarying courses; they represent the order of the universe. If then there suddenly
appeared some brilliant star, if the unvarying order of the heavens was broken by some
special phenomenon, it did look as if God was breaking into his own order, and
announcing some special thing.
We do not know what brilliant star those ancient Magi saw. Many suggestions have been
made. About 11 B.C. Halley's comet was visible shooting brilliantly across the skies.
About 7 B.C. there was a brilliant conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter. In the years 5 to 2
B.C. there was an unusual astronomical phenomenon. In those years, on the first day of
the Egyptian month, Mesori, Sirius, the dog star, rose helically, that is at sunrise, and
shone with extraordinary brilliance. Now the name Mesori means the birth of a prince,
and to those ancient astrologers such a star would undoubtedly mean the birth of some

18. great king. We cannot tell what star the Magi saw; but it was their profession to watch
the heavens, and some heavenly brilliance spoke to them of the entry of a king into the
world.
It may seem to us extraordinary that those men should set out from the East to find a
king, but the strange thing is that, just about the time Jesus was born, there was in the
world a strange feeling of expectation of the coming of a king. Even the Roman
historians knew about this. Not so very much later than this Suetonius could write,
"There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at
that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world" (Suetonius: Life of Vespasian,
4: 5). Tacitus tells of the same belief that "there was a firm persuasion ... that at this very
time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers coming from Judaea were to acquire
universal empire" (Tacitus: Histories, 5: 13). The Jews had the belief that "about that
time one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth" (Josephus:
Wars of the Jews, 6: 5, 4). At a slightly later time we find Tiridates, King of Armenia,
visiting Nero at Rome with his Magi along with him (Suetonius: Life of Nero, 13: 1). We
find the Magi in Athens sacrificing to the memory of Plato (Seneca: Epistles, 58: 3 1).
Almost at the same time as Jesus was born we find Augustus, the Roman Emperor,
being hailed as the Saviour of the World, and Virgil, the Roman poet, writing his Fourth
Eclogue, which is known as the Messianic Eclogue, about the golden days to come.
There is not the slightest need to think that the story of the coming of the Magi to the
cradle of Christ is only a lovely legend. It is exactly the kind of thing that could easily
have happened in that ancient world. When Jesus Christ came the world was in an
eagerness of expectation. Men were waiting for God and the desire for God was in their
hearts. They had discovered that they could not build the golden age without God. It was
to a waiting world that Jesus came; and, when he came, the ends of the earth were
gathered at his cradle. It was the first sign and symbol of the world conquest of Christ.
EBC 1-23, "HIS RECEPTION
THIS one chapter contains all that St. Matthew records of the Infancy. St. Mark and St.
John tell us nothing, and St. Luke very little. This singular reticence has often been
remarked upon, and it certainly is most noteworthy, and a manifest sign of genuineness
and truthfulness: a token that what these men wrote was in the deepest sense not their
own. For if they had been left to themselves in the performance of the task assigned
them, they could not have restrained themselves as they have done. The Jews of the time
attached the greatest importance to child-life, as is evident from the single fact that they
had no less than eight different words to mark the successive stages of development
from the new-born babe up to the young man; and to omit all reference to these stages,
except the slight notice of the Infancy in this chapter, was certainly not "according to
Matthew" the Jew, -not what would have been expected of him had he been left to
himself. It can only be explained by the fact that he spoke or was silent according as he
was moved or restrained by the Holy Ghost. This view is strikingly confirmed by
comparison with the spurious Gospels afterwards published, by men who thought they
could improve on the original records with their childish stories as to what the boy Jesus
said and did. These awkward fictions reflect the spirit of the age; the simple records of
the four Evangelists mirror for us the Spirit of Truth. To the vulgar mind they may seem
bare and defective, but all men of culture and mature judgment recognise in their
simplicity and naturalness a note of manifest superiority.

19. Much space might be occupied in setting forth the advantages of this reticence, but a
single illustration may suggest the main thought. Recall for a moment the well-known
picture entitled, "The Shadow of the Cross," designed and executed by a master, one who
might surely be considered qualified to illustrate in detail the life at Nazareth. We have
nothing to say as to the merit of the picture as a work of art: let those specially qualified
to judge speak of this; but is it not generally felt that the realism of the carpenter’s shop
is most painful? The eye is instinctively averted from the too obtrusive details; while the
mind gladly returns from the startling vividness of the picture to the vague impressions
made on us by the mere hints in the sacred Scriptures. Was it not well that our blessed
Saviour should grow in retirement and seclusion; and if so, why should that seclusion be
invaded? If His family life was withdrawn from the eyes of the men of that time, there
remains the same reason why it should be withdrawn from the eyes of the men of all
time; and the more we think of it, ‘the more we realise that it is better in every way that
the veil should have been dropped just where it has been, and that all should remain just
as it was, when with unconscious skill the sacred artists finished their perfect sketches of
the child Jesus.
Perhaps, however, the question may be asked: If St. Matthew would tell us so little, why
say anything at all? What was his object in relating just what he has set down in this
chapter? We believe it must have been to show how Christ was received. It seems, in
fact, to correspond to that single sentence in the fourth Gospel, "He came unto His own,
and His own received Him not"; only St. Matthew gives us a wider and brighter view; he
shows us not only how Jerusalem rejected Him, but how the East welcomed Him and
Egypt sheltered Him. Throughout the entire Old Testament our attention is called, not
merely to Jerusalem, which occupied the centre of the ancient world, but to the
kingdoms round about, especially to the great empires of the East and South-the empire
of the East represented in succession by Ancient Chaldea, Assyria, Babylonia, Media,
and Persia; and that of the South-the mighty monarchy of Egypt, which under its thirty
dynasties held on its steady course alongside these. How natural, then, for the Evangelist
whose special mission it was to connect the old with the new, to take the opportunity of
showing that, while His own Jerusalem rejected her Messiah, her old rivals of the East
and of the South gave Him a welcome. In the first chapter the Child Jesus was set forth
as the Heir of the promise made to Abraham and his seed, and the fulfilment of the
prophecy given to the chosen people; now He is further set forth as the One who satisfies
the longings of those whom they had been taught to regard as their natural enemies, but
who now must be looked upon as "fellow-heirs" with them of God’s heritage, and
"partakers of His promise in Christ by the Gospel." It will be seen, then, how the second
chapter was needed to complete the first, and how the two together give us just such a
view of the Advent as was most needed by the Jews of the period, while it is most
instructive and suggestive to men of all countries and of all time. As, then, the last
paragraph began with, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise," we may regard
this as beginning with, "Now the reception of Jesus Christ was on this wise."
According to the plan of these expositions, we must disregard details, and many
interesting questions, for the consideration of which it is surely enough to refer to the
many well-known and widely-read books on the Life of Christ; and confine ourselves to
those general thoughts and suggestions which seem best fitted to bring out the spirit of
the passage as a whole.
Let us, then, look first at the manner of His reception by Jerusalem, the city which as
Son of David He could claim as peculiarly His own. It was the very centre of the circle of
Old Testament illumination. It had all possible advantages, over every other place in the
world, for knowing when and how the Christ should come. Yet, when He did come, the

20. people of Jerusalem know nothing about it, but had their first intimation of the fact from
strangers who had come from the far East to seek Him. And not only did they know
nothing about it till they were told, but, when told, they were troubled. (Mat_2:3)
Indifference where we should have expected eagerness, trouble where we should have
looked for joy!
We have only to examine the contemporary accounts of the state of society in Jerusalem
to understand it thoroughly, and to see how exceedingly natural it was. Those
unacquainted with these records can have no idea of the gaiety and frivolity of the
Jewish capital at the time. Every one, of course, knows something of the style and
magnificence in which Herod the Great lived; but one is not apt to suppose that
luxurious living was the rule among the people of the town. Yet so it seems to have been.
Dr. Edersheim, who has made a special study of this subject, and who quotes his
authorities for each separate statement, thus describes the state of things: "These
Jerusalemites-townspeople as they called themselves-were so polished, so witty, so
pleasant. And how much there was to be seen and heard in those luxuriously furnished
houses, and at these sumptuous entertainments! In the women’s apartments friends
from the country would see every novelty in dress, adornments, and jewellery, and have
the benefit of examining themselves in looking-glasses And then the lady-visitors might
get anything in Jerusalem, from a false tooth to an Arabian veil, a Persian shawl, or an
Indian dress!" Then, after furnishing what he calls "too painful evidence of the
luxuriousness at Jerusalem at that time, and of the moral corruption to which it led," he
concludes by giving an account of what one of the sacred books of the time describes as
"the dignity of the Jerusalemites," mentioning particulars like these: "the wealth which
they lavished on their marriages; the ceremony which insisted on repeated invitations to
the guests to a banquet, and that men inferior should not be bidden to it; the dress in
which they appeared; the manner in which the dishes were served, the wine in white
crystal vases; the punishment of the cook who failed in his duty," and so on.
If things of that kind represented the dignity of the people of Jerusalem, we need not ask
why they were troubled when they heard that to them had been born in Bethlehem a
Saviour who was Christ the Lord. A Saviour who would save them from their sins was
the very last thing people of that kind wanted. A Herod suited them better, for it was he
and his court that set the example of the luxury and profligacy which characterised the
capital. Do not all these revelations as to the state of things in the capital of Israel set off
more vividly than ever the pure lustre of the quiet, simple, humble, peaceful
surroundings of the Babe of Bethlehem and Boy of Nazareth? Put the "dignity" and
trouble of Jerusalem over against the humility and peace of Bethlehem, and say which is
the more truly dignified and desirable. When We look at the contrast we cease to wonder
that, with the exception of a very few devout Simeons and Annas, waiting for the
consolation of Israel, Jerusalem, as a whole, was troubled to hear the rumour of the
advent of her Saviour-King.
Herod’s trouble we can so readily understand that we need not spend time over it, or
over what he did to get rid of it, so thoroughly in keeping as it was with all that history
tells us of his character and conduct. No wonder that the one thought in his mind was
"Away with Him!"
But who are these truly dignified men, who are now turning their backs on rich and gay
Jerusalem, and setting their faces to the obscurity and poverty of the village of
Bethlehem? They are men of rank and wealth and learning from the far East-
representatives of all that is best in the old civilisations of the world. They had only the
scantiest opportunities of learning what was the Hope of Israel, and how it should be

21. realised; but they were earnest men; their minds were not taken up with gaiety and
frivolity; they had studied the works of nature till their souls were full of the thought of
God in His glory and majesty; but their hearts still yearned to know if He, Whose glory
was in the heavens, could stoop to cure the ills that flesh is heir to. They had heard of
Israel’s hope, the hope of a child to be born of David’s race, who should bring divine
mercy near to human need; they had a vague idea that the time for the fulfilment of that
hope was drawing near; and, as they mused, behold a marvellous appearance in the
heavens, which seemed to call them away to seek Him whom their souls desired! Hence
their long journey to Jerusalem and their eager entrance into Bethlehem. Had their
dignity been the kind of dignity which was boasted of in Jerusalem, they would no doubt
have been offended by the poverty of the surroundings, the poor house with its scanty
furniture and its humble inmates. But theirs was the dignity of mind and soul, so they
were not offended by the poor surroundings; they recognised in the humble Child the
object of their search; they bowed before Him, doing Him homage, and presented to
Him gifts as a tribute from the East to the coming King of righteousness and love.
What a beautiful picture; how striking the contrast to the magnificence of Herod the
Great in Jerusalem, surrounded by his wealthy and luxurious court. Verily, these were
wise men from the East, wise with a wisdom not of this world-wise to recognise the hope
of the future, not in a monarch called "the Great," surrounded by the world’s pomp and
luxury, but in the fresh young life of the holy heaven-born Child. Learned as they were,
they had simple hearts-they had had some glimpse of the great truth that it is not
learning the world needs so much as life, new life. Would that all the wise men of the
present day were equally wise in heart! We rejoice that so many of them are; and if only
all of them had true wisdom, they would consider that even those who stand as high in
the learning of the new West as these men did in the learning of the old East, would do
themselves honour in bowing low in presence of the Holy Child, and acknowledge that
by no effort of the greatest intellect is it possible to reach that truth which can alone
meet the deepest wants of men-that there is no other hope for man than the new birth,
the fresh, pure, holy life which came into the world when the Christ was born, and which
comes into every heart that in simple trustfulness gives Him a welcome as did these wise
men of old. There, at the threshold of the Gospel, we see the true relation of science and
religion.
"Let knowledge grow from more to more, But more of reverence in us dwell; That mind
and soul, according well, May make one music as before."
All honour to these wise men for bending low in presence of the Holy Child; and thanks
be to God for allowing His servant Matthew to give as a glimpse of a scene so beautiful,
so touching, so suggestive of pure and high and holy thought and feeling.
The gifts of the East no doubt provided the means of securing a refuge in the South and
West. That Egypt gave the fugitives a friendly welcome, and a safe retreat so long as the
danger remained, is obvious; but here again we are left without detail. The one thing
which the Evangelist wishes to impress upon us is the parallel between the experience of
Israel and Israel’s Holy One. Israel of the Old Testament, born in Palestine, had to flee
into Egypt. When the time was ripe for return, the way was opened for it; and thus the
prophet speaks of it in the name of the Lord: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him,
and called My son out of Egypt." Now that the Holy One of Israel has come to fulfil old
Israel’s destiny, the prophetic word, which had been only partially realised in the history
of the nation, is fulfilled in the history of the Anointed One. Hence, just as it happened
with the nation, so did it happen with the nation’s representative and King; born in His
own land, He had to flee into Egypt, and remain there till God brought Him out, and set

22. Him in His land again.
Other points of agreement with the prophetic word are mentioned. It is worthy of note
that they are all connected with the dark side of prophecy concerning the Messiah. The
reason for this will readily appear on reflection. The Scribes and Pharisees were insistent
enough on the bright side, the side that favoured their ideas of a great king, who should
rescue the people from the Roman yoke, and found a great world-kingdom, after the
manner of Herod the Great or of Caesar the mighty. So there was no need to bring
strongly out that side of prophecy which foretold of the glories of the coming King. But
the sad side had been entirely neglected. It is this, accordingly, which the Evangelist is
prompted to illustrate.
It was, indeed, in itself an occasion of stumbling that the King of Israel should have to
flee to Egypt. But why should one stumble at it, who looked at the course of Israel’s
history as a nation, in the light the prophets threw upon it? It was an occasion of
stumbling that His birth in Bethlehem should bring with it Such sorrow and anguish;
but why wonder at it when so great a prophet as Jeremiah so touchingly speaks of the
voice heard in Ramah, "Rachel weeping for her children and would not be comforted,"-a
thought of exquisite beauty and pathos as Jeremiah used it in reference to the banished
ones of his day, but of still deeper pathos as now fulfilled in the sorrow at Ramah, over
the massacre of her innocents, when not Israel but Israel’s Holy One is banished from
the land of His birth. Again, it was an occasion of stumbling that the King of Israel,
instead of growing up in majesty in the midst of the Court and the capital, should retire
into obscurity in the little village of Nazareth, and for many years be unheard of by the
great ones of the land; but why wonder at it when the prophets again and again
represent Him as growing up in this very way, as "a root out of a dry ground," as a twig
or "shoot out of the stem of Jesse," growing up "out of His place," and attracting no
attention while He grew. Such is the meaning of the words translated, "He shall be called
a Nazarene." This does not appear in our language; hence the difficulty which many have
found in this reference, there being no passage in any of the prophets where the Christ is
spoken of as a Nazarene; but the word to Hebrew ears at once suggests the Hebrew for
"Branch," continually applied to Him in the prophets, and especially connected with the
idea of His quiet and silent growth, aloof from the throng and unnoticed by the great.
This completes, appropriately, the sketch of His reception. Unthought of by His own, till
strangers sought Him; a source of trouble to them when they heard of Him; His life
threatened by the occupant, for the time, of David’s, throne, He is saved only by exile,
and on returning to His people passes out of notice: and the great world moves On, all
unconscious and unconcerned, whilst its Saviour-King is preparing, in the obscurity of
His village home, for the great work of winning a lost world back to God.
COFFMAN, "Bethlehem of Judaea distinguishes between the two Bethlehems in Israel.
One of them was in Zebulun (Joshua 19:15,16) and the other in Judaea. Micah had firmly
foretold the birth of the Messiah in the Judean Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). The word
BETHLEHEM means "place of bread"; and it seems quite appropriate that "The Bread of
Life" should have been born in a place with such a name. Located six miles south of
Jerusalem on the road to Hebron, it has existed since 1,500 years before Christ and has
boasted many great names among its citizens, including that of David the king.
In the days of Herod the king is as near as Matthew comes to giving the date of Jesus'
birth, a point on which there is much difference of opinion among scholars and

23. commentators. H. Leo Boles makes the date 4 B.C. Dummelow makes it not later than 6
B.C. Encyclopedias usually date the reign of Herod the Great as 37 B.C. to 4 B.C. Now, if
it could be ascertained with accuracy that Herod died the year our Lord was born, then
the date would lie approximately 4 B.C. However, some scholars like Dummelow,
understand Matthew 2:16 as a reference to a period of waiting and searching while
Herod tried to find the wise men and get a report from them. The two years thus lost
would move the birth of Christ back to 6 B.C. H. Leo Boles and others refer the "two
years" to the time the wise men lost finding Christ. This would suppose the star to have
appeared two years before Christ was born. Slight difficulty is encountered by either
position. No one can say certainly exactly when the birth of Christ occurred. Fortunately,
this is not an important difficulty.
Herod the king was Herod I, called the Great, no less than nine members of whose
family are mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures. He was, in short, a monster. Josephus
details his pride, cruelty, and blood-lust, as they supported his merciless and implacable
ambition. It was indeed "night" when our Lord was born with such a man upon the
throne. Others of Herod's dynasty mentioned in the Bible are: his four sons, (1) Herod
Philip I, the first husband of Herodias (Matthew 14:3; Mark 6:17); (2) Herod Antipas,
the second husband of Herodias, who was rebuked for his incestuous marriage by John
the Baptist (Mark 6:17); (3) Herod Archelaus (Matthew 2:22); (4) Herod Philip II (Luke
3:1); (5) a grandson, Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1); (6) a great-grandson, Herod Agrippa
II, before whom Paul made his defense in Acts 25 and Acts 26; (7) a great-
granddaughter, Bernice, common law wife of her own brother, Agrippa II, and a
mistress of both Vespasian and Titus (Acts 25; Acts 26); (8) Drusilla, another great-
granddaughter, the wife of Felix (Acts 24:24); and (9) Herodias, wife of Herod Philip I,
by whom she had Salome, and later, wife of Herod Antipas who was rebuked by John the
Baptist. The numerous mentions of Herod's name in this wondrous second chapter of
Matthew which details the birth of the Saviour is like an oft-repeated sour note in what
is otherwise a perfect orchestral rendition.
There came wisemen ... These were MAGI, that is, astrologers. Boles pointed out that
Daniel "was made president of this order in Babylon (Daniel 2:48), and that Jeremiah
spoke of this class among Babylonians."[1] The number of the wise men who came to
visit Jesus is not known. The conjecture that there were "three" probably rose from the
fact that three kinds of gifts are mentioned - gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Dummelow,
among many, noted the spiritual implications of the worship from the wise men and
called it: "A prophecy of the succeeding centuries, in which the chosen people have
persistently rejected the Messiah, and the Gentiles have accepted him."[2] The
translation "wise men" is a fortunate rendition of the Greek term "magi," since the truly
wise of all ages are indeed those who bow down and worship the Lord Jesus Christ. The
coming of those wise men to Christ has been compared to the experience of certain ones
who come to Christ now: (1) They followed a little light, the star. (2) They arrived at the
wrong place. (3) They asked for more light. (4) They did not received it from men but
from God's word, the Bible. (5) They followed the additional light which they obtained
from Micah 5:2. (6) They found the Lord in Bethlehem, (7) Lo, the star came; and it
appeared that they had not lost any light but kept all they previously had. (8) They
worshipped him. (9) They returned another way! Many, in groping their way out of
denominational strife and error, have retraced the steps of those original wise men.
Martin Luther loved the spiritual lesson derived from this incident. He said, "When the

24. wise men relied upon their judgment and went straight to Jerusalem without consulting
the star, God lifted it out of heaven and left them bewildered to make inquiry of Herod
who then called his wise men, and they searched the Scriptures. And that is what we
must do when we are bereft of the star."[3]
[1] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Matthew (Nashville, Tennessee: Gospel Advocate
Company, 1961), p. 37.
[2] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: Macmillan Co., 1937), p.
627.
[3] R. H. Bainton, Here I Stand (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1950), p.
368.
COKE, "Matthew 2:1. Bethlehem of Judea—wise men, &c.— Bethlehem was a small town
in the tribe of Judah, which lay on the southof Jerusalem; there was a city of the same
name in Galilee, which belonged to the tribe of Zebulun, Joshua 19:15 andthis is the
reason why the former is here called Bethlehem of Judea. In the days of Herod the king,
is an Hebraism for the time of king Herod the Great; who was at first tetrarch or
governor of Judaea, and afterwards declared king of the same country. See Joseph. Hist.
Jude 1:1. xiv. c. 3. and 1. xvii. c. 10. . The evangelical and apostolical history begins with
Herod the Great, and ends with Agrippa, the last king of the Jews. Concerning these wise
men, four things are pretty generally agreed; that they were Persians, or Parthians; that
they were priests, or ministers of religion; that they frequently travelled into different
countries; and that they applied themselves very much to the contemplation of the stars.
As to the title here given them, it is certain that the word ΄αγοι, Magi, was not
appropriated in ancient times to such as practised wicked arts, but frequently was used
to express philosophers or men of learning; and those particularly who were curious in
examining the works of nature, and in observing the motions of the heavenly bodies.
Compare Daniel 2:2; Daniel 2:27 and Daniel 5:11 and the Septuagint; and see Wetstein
and Doddridge.
BURKITT, "Observe here, 1. The place of our Lord's birth, Bethlehem; he was born, not
at Athens, not at Rome, not at Jerusalem, not in any opulent or magnificent city, but in
the meanest cities of Judah; thereby showing us, that his kingdom was not of this world,
and that he little regarded pomp and outward greatness. O how can we be abased
enough for Christ, that thus neglected himself for us!
Observe, 2. The time of our Lord's birth, In the days of Herod the king. This Herod being
a foreigner, and made king by the Romans, which now reigned over the Jews, in him was
fulfilled Jacob's prophecy, That the sceptre should not depart from Judah; Genesis 49:10
that is, the Jews should have governors of their own nation, until Shiloh come; that is,
until Christ the promised Messiah come in the flesh. So that considering the
circumstance of time and place, where and when Christ was born, it was and is willful
obstinacy in the Jews to deny that the Messiah is come in the flesh.

25. Observe, 3. That tribute of honour which was paid unto our Savior at his birth; the wise
men of the east came and worshipped him, that is. the Chaldean, Arabian, or Persian
astronomers, who, as the first-fruits of the Gentiles, seek after Christ, whilst the Jews,
his own people, rejected him. O how will their coming so far as the east to seek Christ,
rise up another day in judgement against us, if we refuse to be found by Christ,who came
from heaven to seek us!
BROADUS, "Having spoken of the birth of Jesus (compare on Matthew 1:18,) the
Evangelist now adds (Matthew 2) two incidents of his infancy, viz., the visit of the Magi
(Matthew 2:1-12), and closely connected therewith the flight into Egypt and return.
(Matthew 2:13-23) The first tends to show that Jesus was the Messiah, and to honour
him, in bringing out the signal respect paid him by distinguished Gentiles, (as often
predicted of the Messiah, e. g., Isaiah 60:3) and in stating the appearance of a star in
connection with his birth; the second incident exhibits God's special care of the child.
Both are connected with extraordinary divine communications (Matthew 2:12-13,
Matthew 2:19), designed for his protection, and with the fulfilment of prophecies
concerning the Messiah, such as the birth at Bethlehem (5), the calling out of Egypt (15),
the disconsolate mourners (18), and the residence at Nazareth (23). Comparing this
section with Luke, Matthew 2, we see that Matthew records such incidents of the infancy
as furnish proofs that Jesus is the Messiah—to prove which is a special aim of his
impel. One of these proofs, to a Jew, was he homage of Gentiles; while Luke, writing
more for Gentiles, who knew that the majority of the Jews had rejected Jesus as their
Messiah, mentions the recognition of the child by the conspicuously devout Jews,
Simeon and Hannah.
Matthew 2:1. The narrative goes right on. The preceding sentence ended with the name
Jesus, and this begins: Now when Jesus was born, etc. Literally, the Jesus, the one just
mentioned; 'this Jesus' would be too strong a rendering, but it may help to show the
close connection.
Bethlehem is a very ancient but always small village, prettily situated on a hill about five
miles south of Jerusalem. Its original name was Ephrath or Ephratah, (Genesis 35:16,
Genesis 35:19, Genesis 48:7) probably applied to the surrounding country, as well as to
the town. The Israelites named it Beth-lehem, 'house of bread,' or, as we should say,
'bread-town,' which the Arabs retain as Beit-lahm. This name was doubtless given
because of the fruitfulness of its fields which is still remarkable. It was called Bethlehem
Ephratah, or Bethlehem Judah, to distinguish it from another Bethlehem not far from
Nazareth in the portion of Zabulon. (Joshua 19:15) Judea here must consequently be
understood, not as denoting the whole country of the Jews, Palestine, but in a narrower
sense, Judea as distinguished from Galilee (see on "Matthew 2:22"). A beautiful picture
of life at Bethlehem is found in the Book of Ruth It was the birthplace of David, but he
did nothing to increase its importance; nor did the 'Son of David,' who was born there
ever visit it, so far as we know, during his public ministry, which appears not to have
extended south of Jerusalem. In like manner the present population is only about 4,000,
some of whom cultivate the surrounding hills and beautiful deep valleys, while many
make their living by manufacturing trinkets to sell to pilgrims and travellers. In itself,
Bethlehem was from first to last "little to be among the thousands of Judah" (Micah,

26. Rev. Ver.); yet in moral importance it was "in no wise least" among them (Matt., Rev.
Ver.), for from it came the Messiah. The traditional localities of particular sacred events
which are now pointed out there are all more or less doubtful; but the general locality is
beyond question that near to which Jacob buried his Rachel, where Ruth gleaned in the
rich wheat fields, and David showed his youthful valour in protecting his flock, and
where valley and hill-side shone with celestial light and echoed the angels' song when the
Saviour was born.
Matthew here first mentions a place. Ha does not refer to a previous residence of Joseph
and Mary at Nazareth, (Luke 1:26-27) but certainly does not in the least exclude it; and
in fact his way of introducing Bethlehem seems very readily to leave room for what we
learn elsewhere, viz., that the events he has already narrated (Matthew 1:18-25) did not
occur at that place.
Herod the king would be well known, by this simple description, to Matthew's first
readers, who knew that the other royal Herods (Antipas and Agrippa) belonged to a later
period. (Luke also, Luke 1:5, places the birth of Jesus in his reign.) The Maccabean or
Hasmonean(1) line of rulers, who had made the second century B. C., one of the most
glorious periods in the national history, had rapidly degenerated, and after the virtual
conquest of Judea by the Romans (B. C., 63), an Idumean named Antipater attained, by
Roman favour, a gradually increasing power in the State, and his son Herod was at
length (B. C., 40) declared, by the Senate at Rome, to be king of the Jews. Aided by the
Roman arms, Herod overcame the opposition of the people, and in B. C. 37, established
his authority, which he sought to render less unpopular by marrying the beautiful
Mariamne, the heiress of the Maccabean line. Adroit and of pleasing address, Herod was
a favourite successively of Antony and Augustus, and even the fascinating Cleopatra was
unable to circumvent him. Amid the confusion of the Roman civil wars, he appears to
have dreamed of founding a new Eastern empire; and possibly with this view he made
costly presents to all the leading cities of Greece and secured the appointment of
President of the Olympic Games. Meantime he strove to please his own people, while
also gratifying his personal snares, by erecting many splendid buildings in various cities
of his dominions; among others rebuilding the Temple in a style of unrivalled
magnificence. That he could command means for such lavish expense at home and
abroad, at the same time courting popularity by various remissions of taxes, shows that
his subjects were numerous and wealthy, and his administration vigorous. But besides
being a usurper,—not of the Davidic nor of the Maccabean line—supported by the
hated Romans, and a favourer of foreign ideas and customs, and even of idolatry, he was
extremely arbitrary and cruel, especially in his declining years. Mariamne herself, whom
he loved with mad fondness, and several of his sons, with many other persons, fell
victims to his jealousy and suspicion. Bitterly hated by the great mass of the Jews, and
afraid to trust even his own family, the unhappy old tyrant was constantly on the watch
for attempts to destroy him, or to dispose of the succession otherwise than he wished.
These facts strikingly accord with the perturbation at hearing of one 'born king of the
Jews,' and the hypocrisy, cunning, and cruelty, which appear in connection with the visit
of the Magi. (See on "Matthew 5:20; Mat_5:22", and read the copious history of Herod
in Josephus, "Antiquities Ancient History of the Jews," Book XIV. XVIII., a history
which throws much light on the New Testament times.)

27. The wise men, or Magi (see margin Rev. Ver.) were originally the priestly tribe or caste
among the Medes, and afterwards the Medo-Persians, being the recognized teachers of
religion and of science.(1) In the great Persian Empire they wielded the highest influence
and power. As to science, they cultivated astronomy, especially in the form of astrology,
with medicine, and every form of divination and incantation. Their name gradually came
to he applied to persons of similar position and pursuits in other nations, especially to
diviners enchanters. It is used in the Greek translation of Daniel 1:20; Daniel 2:27,
Daniel 5:7, Daniel 5:11, Daniel 5:15, to render a word signifying 'diviner,' etc. So in the
New Testament it is employed to describe Barjesus, (Acts 13:6, Acts 13:8, translated
'sorcerer') and words derived from it applied to, Simon at Samaria, (Acts 8:9, Acts 8:11,
'sorceries') who is commonly spoken of as Simon Magus (cutup. also Wisdom of
Solomon 17:7); and from it come our words magic, magician, etc. It is however probable
that these magi from the East were not mere ordinary astrologers or diviners, but
belonged to the old Persian class, many members of which still maintained a high
position and an elevated character. (Compare Upham.) So it is likely, but of course not
certain, that they came from Persia or from Babylonia;(2) in the latter region Jews were
now very numerous and influential, and in Persia also they had been regarded with
apical interest, as far hack as the time of Cyrus. However this may be, the visit and
homage of 'magi from the East' would be esteemed by the Jews, and was in fact, a most
impressive tribute to the infant Messiah. The tradition that they were kings, found as
early as Tertullian, doubtless grew out of the supposed prophecy that kings should do
homage to Messiah (Psalms 68:29, Psalms 68:31; Psalms 72:10);(3) and the traditional
number three was apparently drawn from the number of their gifts. These, with the
traditional names, are of no authority, and of no consequence except as connected with
modern Christian art.—Wise men from the East. The Greek is ambiguous, but more
probably means this than "wise men came from the East." To Jerusalem, the capital of
the country, these strangers would naturally come, as there they could most readily
obtain information concerning the new-born king. (As to Jerusalem, see on "Matthew
21:10".)
NISBET, "Let us try to see what the Story of the Magi is meant to teach us.
I. Christ’s condescension.—In the largeness of the plan of His salvation, Christ not only
breaks over all the narrow notions of national, family, and social prejudice, but He
permits every heart to come to Him, in spite of its imperfections and errors, by the best
light and the best feeling it has. These astrologers were all wrong about the stars
presiding over the destinies of men, and foretelling the birth of kings. Yet,
condescending to them, taking them up at that low point of their childish superstition,
this testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy, made use of their astrological
credulity to guide them to Christian knowledge, shaping the miracle even to their
mistake, by all means to bring them out into ‘the truth as it is in Jesus.’ This patience
and condescension, beginning there at the cradle, ran through our Lord’s personal
ministry among men. He always gains persons, just as He gains the world, by going
down to them. If fishermen are to be converted, He gets into a boat, or sits down by
them as they are mending their nets. When wicked women are to be purified, He allows
them to come in the wild earnestness of their impulsive devotion, and lets them wash
His feet with tears. If the cure of disease, or raising the dead, or stilling the sea, will turn
men’s hearts to Him, He works the outward wonder for the inward blessing. The Gospel
goes forward, becoming all things to all men, taking men as it finds them, suiting the