Глава 2

1–12. Adoration of the Magi to the Savior. – 13–15. Flight of Joseph and Mary with the Child to Egypt. – 16–18. Herod massacres the infants in Bethlehem. – 19–23. Return from Egypt to Nazareth. Matthew 2:1. When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem and said: In explaining this verse, we must first of all pay attention to the likelihood of a rapid change in the events of the Savior’s initial childhood. We can hardly assume that His stay in Bethlehem after His birth was long, that a lot of time passed from His birth to His bringing to the church and from the flight to Egypt to the return from this country. Most likely, all these events took only a few months. The currently generally accepted opinion about the order of events of the Nativity of Christ is as follows: the departure of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4–5); Nativity of Christ (Matthew 1:18–25; Luke 2:6–7); the adoration of the shepherds and the meeting (Luke 2:8–39); the worship of the Magi and flight to Egypt (Matthew 2:1–18), and then return to Nazareth (Matthew 2:19–23; Luke 2:39). The words: “when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod, they came to Jerusalem” ... could be understood in two ways in the Greek text if it corresponded to the Russian one, i.e. that either Jesus was born in the days of Herod, or the wise men came in the days of Herod. But the latter understanding is hindered by the word ἰδού - “here” (missed in the Russian translation; in the Slavic - “se”), which divides the speech and forces the words “in the days of King Herod” to be attributed to the word “born”. We do not know why the word “here” or “behold” was released in the Russian translation. There is no basis for such an omission in existing codes. "In Bethlehem of Judea". That Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea - two evangelists agree on this - Matthew and Luke (Luke 2:4). Bethlehem, where the Savior was born, is called Jewish in the Gospel, in contrast to the other Bethlehem, which was located in the tribe of Zebulun near Lake Galilee (Joshua 19:15), although the evangelist did not want to provide geographical information here. Bethlehem was called in ancient times by another name - Ephrath (Gen.35:16, 19, 48:7; Mic.5:2 and in many other places of the Old Testament). Here Rachel gave birth to Jacob Benjamin, “her labor was difficult” (Gen. 35:16), she died and was buried on the road to Ephrath, i.e. to Bethlehem. Ruth came here with Naomi (Ruth.1:19), gathered ears of corn here in Boaz's field, married him and bore him Obed, who had a son, Jesse, the father of David (Ruth 4:17). Since David was born and lived initially in Bethlehem, it is also called “the city of David” (Luke 2:4, 11). Currently, Bethlehem is the same small town as it always was before, three hours’ journey from Jerusalem (10–12 versts), on the road to Hebron, located away from this road, a verst and a half to the east. In the spring, when the grass emerges, the trees bloom and the fragrant anemones bloom, the area around Bethlehem is very picturesque. From the flat roofs of Bethlehem's houses one can see the area sloping greatly to the southeast, where there are many rounded white-yellowish hills, and in the distance one can see the Dead Sea, which lies thousands to four feet below the area on which Bethlehem is located. There are no rivers or streams in Bethlehem, and water is usually taken from cisterns that are filled with rainwater. But on the plain a little further south of Bethlehem there flows a stream, where there is a lot of water from the “ponds of Solomon.” The residents are hardworking, mainly engaged in making and selling various items to travelers and cultivating the land, which has long been distinguished by its fertility. At the birthplace of Christ, there is still a cave hung with expensive lamps. “In the days of King Herod” – i.e. Herod, called "the great." He was the son of the Edomite Antipater, and his mother was an Arab. He was crowned king of the Jews in Rome and after that he had to conquer the kingdom with weapons. The Jews hated him, despite the fact that, to please them, he rebuilt the Jerusalem temple with great splendor. Herod was very cruel and did not disdain anything, wanting to strengthen his kingdom. He executed his brother-in-law (brother of his wife Mariamne), father-in-law, mother-in-law, three sons and many other persons, suspecting them of plotting against himself. According to fairly accurate calculations, he died in 750 from the founding of Rome, shortly after the birth of the Savior, in the 38th year of his reign and in the 70th year of his life. Detailed information about his reign is reported by Josephus in his work “Jewish Antiquities” (books 14–17). "Magi from the East". Nothing definite is known about the origin of the Magi who came to worship the Savior, except that they came from eastern countries relative, of course, to Jerusalem. There are many indications that the Magi, who were called “magi” in both Hebrew and Greek, lived in many countries and among many peoples - in Arabia, Persia, Chaldea and Parthia. Recently, based on the latest discoveries of Assyro-Babylonian wedge-shaped inscriptions, the German exegete Zahn and others have proposed a hypothesis about the origin of the magicians, which seems to be the most probable. Briefly, it is as follows. The expression “from the east” (ἀπ’ ἀνατολῶν), without an article and in the plural, conveys the idea of ​​an indefinite distance in the eastern direction from Palestine and by this alone eliminates the thought of Arabia - even if the kingdom of the Nabataeans, which in Gal. 1:17 (cf. 2 Cor. 11:32) is called Arabia, was to the east of Judean region, and extended to Damascus. If you pay attention to the fact that the expressions of the Evangelist Matthew point primarily to magicians as astrologers (the Gospel of Matthew does not at all say that these were some kind of magicians and sorcerers, of whom there were many in the Roman Empire at that time), then there is no doubt that the magicians came from some area of the Parthian kingdom, which then dominated almost all of Mesopotamia either directly or through those dependent on it, subordinate to the Parthians kings, as was the case in Edessa and Adiabene. Thus, the Magi came either from Babylonia, or from some other part of Mesopotamia, or from areas adjacent to them. The Babylonian magicians are mentioned several times in the Bible. Thus, Jer. 39:3, 13 mentions a slave-magician (“chief of magicians”) as the title of a nobleman who accompanied Nebuchadnezzar. In the book of the prophet Daniel the word “magician” is not found, but various sages, spellcasters, dream-interpreters, etc. are listed. – they are called Kasdim-Chaldeans as a special class (Dan.2:2, 10, 4:4, 5:11). In other places they are called “the wise men of Babylon” (Dan.2:12, 48), and also the Chaldeans (Dan.2:4, 10). The Greeks and Romans usually used the word “Chaldeans” to designate the caste of priests and scholars among the Babylonians, and their studies in astronomy and astrology were constantly considered to be their characteristic. Gifts brought by magicians abound not only in Arabia. This is Tsang's opinion. As proof that these eastern magicians were interested in Palestine, they quote the following sayings of the “magicians and astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon”: “when the star is on its (the constellation Virgo) left horn, there will be an eclipse of the ring of Agarru” (Phoenicia and Palestine); “when Leo is dark, Agarru’s trade will be hindered”; “when Venus appears in Virgo, the harvest of Agarru will be good”; “when Jupiter enters the middle of the moon, there will be a need for Agarra”; “When Saturn, the star of Agarru, becomes dim, it is bad for Agarru; there will be a hostile attack on Agarra.” It should be remembered that Balaam lived in Mesopotamia, who prophesied about the star of Jacob. The name of the Magi “kings” should be considered a later invention, as well as their names Belshazzar, Caspar, or Iaspar, and Melchior, first indicated (by Bede) only in the 7th century AD, as well as the definition of their number (three - according to the three gifts they brought or according to the number of persons of the Holy Trinity) and dignity, as representatives of the three main nationalities descended from Shem, Ham and Japheth. Only one thing can be considered reliable: the Magi were not Jews. This is evident from their question: “Where is he who has been born King of the Jews” (and not “our” king)? (verse 2), as well as from their obvious unfamiliarity with Herod, to whom and during which it was impossible to safely ask questions like the one proposed by the magicians, the Magi’s ignorance of where Bethlehem was, and so on. Matthew 2:2. Where is he who has been born King of the Jews? for we saw His star in the east and came to worship Him. There are several opinions and assumptions regarding the star of the Magi. 1. They think that the star that appeared to the Magi was not ordinary, but miraculous. This is what St. John Chrysostom believes, whose opinion is shared by many exegetes, including the newest. Thus, the English commentator on the Gospel of Matthew Morison, objecting to Kepler’s opinion (see below), says that this opinion is untenable either from the scientific or from the exegetical side. “From verse 2 we conclude that the star that the magicians saw was not a star that appeared in the sky in the modern and scientific sense of the term star. It was neither a permanent star located at a great distance from the earth, nor a planet revolving around our solar center. Sorcerers never thought of the stars as distant worlds. The star was for them only a luminous point in the sky. And such a luminous point appeared to them in the west of them when they observed the vault of heaven. She appeared to them, pointing to Judea, and called them there. Why couldn't she be a wonderful star? Jesus Christ was the center of a huge circle of supernatural beings, and this circle intersected at many points with many other circles, both in external and human nature. Hence the preparations for His appearance not only among the Jews, but also among the surrounding pagans... Hence the concentration of miracles at and around His birth, life and death. Hence (why not?) the star of the Magi” 2. It can be objected against this opinion that neither from the Gospel nor from any other sources (which, by the way, do not exist) is it at all clear that the star of the Magi guided them on their way to Jerusalem. If the journey of the Magi was carried out under the guidance of a star, then the question is, why did it lead them to Jerusalem, and not directly to Bethlehem? Doesn’t the very question of the Magi about the birthplace of the King of the Jews contradict such assumptions? It is further clear that the Magi went to Bethlehem not because the way there was shown to them by a star, but because they learned about the place of Christ’s birth, even if not personally, but through others, from “the chief priests and scribes” (verse 4). When the star appeared to the Magi again on the way to Bethlehem, it was only a confirmation of the information they had previously received, which they would not have needed at all (and there would have been no need to mention it) with exceptionally miraculous guidance. Finally, Morison’s opinion that the star appeared to the Magi “in the west” of them and in the direction of Jerusalem is completely arbitrary and contradicts the clear statement of the Magi themselves that the star appeared to them “in the east.” If you remove everything natural from these and similar phenomena, then this means not only perverting the Gospel text, but also belittling the miraculous significance of the Gospel events themselves. What is the use of a miracle if we explain it by another miracle? Does any miracle gain clarity and become understandable from such explanations? A miracle is not an action or event performed with the help of other miracles, but a miracle in itself. In the present case, a miracle is the appearance of God in the flesh. Nature could testify to this miracle in a natural way, without in any way diminishing the main miracle, just as the sun does not receive any diminishment or increase in its brilliance if we turn off or light a lamp in our room during the day. True, the coming of the Redeemer into the world was accompanied by miracles, but next to them there were also such phenomena and events that we can and should classify as natural and even abnormally natural (ugly, such as the beating of infants) events. 2. The second opinion belongs to the famous astronomer Kepler (1571–1630), who observed in 1603–1604. a conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, which were joined the following year by the planet Mars, so that the three planets formed one planet, which shone for some time. This connection was, of course, only visible, optical; in fact, the planets were just as distant from each other as at other times; Only to the eye did it seem that they had merged or connected. Using mathematical calculations, Kepler found that such a conjunction of planets occurs once every 800 years. If we subtract 800 years from 1604 and then another 800 years, it turns out that the time of the conjunction of the planets falls exactly at the time of the Nativity of Christ. Based on these considerations, Kepler determined the year of Christ's birth to be 748 from the founding of Rome. But subsequent scientists found this date inaccurate and not entirely consistent with the gospel stories (Christ was born shortly before the death of Herod in 750 from the founding of Rome 3 and determined the year of Christ’s birth as 749 from the founding of Rome. The determination of the time of the birth of Christ on December 25, 749 is in good agreement with some other data by which the year of birth can be determined; it also explains the circumstance why Herod ordered the killing of infants in Bethlehem from two years old and below - because the new star appeared, according to the calculations of Kepler and others, two years before Christ, in 747 from the founding of Rome. However, the objection raised against this interpretation is that verse 9 obviously speaks of the same star as in verse 2, which in Greek is called ἀστήρ. If the “star” of verse 9 was formed from the conjunction of three planets, how did it happen that it “walked” before the wise men and stopped over the house where the Child was? Further they point out one more circumstance. If the star of the Magi, they say, was a conjunction of three planets, it would be called ἄστρον - “constellation”, and not ἀστήρ - “star”, and this consideration is given decisive importance in the present case. But such objections are hardly strong. In Russian, we distinguish “constellation” from “star” in that by “constellation” we mean a group of stars that are not connected either optically or in nature (for example, the constellations Ursa Major or Ursa Minor). One might think that the Greeks also understood precisely such constellations by ἄστρον. But if several stars, for example, the Big Dipper, were united into one, then both the Greeks and we would call such a connection a star (ἀστήρ), which would be an imprecise scientific term, but completely understandable in everyday language. To this we add that Tsang refers to every good Greek dictionary, from which one can learn that the best Greek writers do not make a distinction between ἄστρον and ἀστήρ. In the New Testament, Luke 21:25 ἄστροις corresponds to Matthew 24:29 – ἀστέρες. Thus, the objection based on distinguishing a constellation from a star disappears. But how can we explain the circumstances that this star walked before the Magi and stopped over the house where the Child was? It was said above that the Magi were sent to Bethlehem not by a star, but by people. When they left Jerusalem, the same star that they had seen before acquired a new and more definite meaning for them, and it “seemed” to them that it was walking before them. In other words, it was simply an optical phenomenon. This interpretation, however, is accepted only by a few scientists (by the way, the famous apologist Ebrard and Tsang), but there is nothing unnatural and arbitrary in it. When we walk or drive, it constantly seems to us that, for example, the moon is moving in front of us and we cannot overtake it. Why wasn't the same with the Magi? “The star moved while they moved; when they stopped, and the star stopped” (Tsang). Kepler's opinion is now accepted by many serious interpreters, and it can be said that this is the best and most reasonable opinion. If we accept it, then there is no need to resort to further assumptions, for example, that the star that the wise men saw on the way to Bethlehem was not the one they saw before, but another. The expression “in the east” is also controversial and requires explanation. Some think that this expression means “as she ascends,” others object to it on the grounds that then the Greek would be: “as she ascends” (ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ αὐτοῦ). This objection is not convincing. By saying “as it rises,” the Magi indicate not only that they saw this star rise or rise, but indirectly the very time of its appearance. They saw the star at the very beginning, when it was just rising or rising. A much more difficult question is how the Magi learned from the star that it was the King who had been born, and, moreover, the King of the Jews. Here we can only talk about probabilities, and we must somewhat abandon modern ideas about the starry sky and enter, as far as possible, into the psychology of the Magi. And to a modern person, accustomed as a result of the successes of astronomy to look at the starry sky differently than the ancients looked at it, it may seem that the vault of heaven is dotted with writings that not a single person could yet read and explain. There is some special language here, the language of the stars. There are some special written signs here, which are much more sophisticated than any Egyptian hieroglyphs. These letters, visible to us on the firmament, are not fused with each other. With the exception of the Milky Way, where the stars only seem to be merged and present to our eyes an almost continuous nebula, not a single star closer to us blocks another or merges with it. This could not have happened if chaos reigned in the stellar world. In this way, the stars can also tell us about the order in which they move according to the orders and regulations of the Almighty. But the ancients could read what was written in the stars differently than we do. To their eyes, the firmament of heaven was not a collection of many worlds separated from each other by a long distance, but a series of brilliant points, with the movements of which our earthly life was in one way or another consistent. There were people who devoted themselves to studying these shiny dots and using them to try to predict the fate of individual people, peoples and kingdoms. Heavenly knowledge was thus not scientific, but rather served practical and earthly purposes. However, the matter could not do without science. Counting the stars, their distribution among the constellations, comparing some stars with others, studying their movements - we owe all this to the ancient and mainly Arab astrologers. The star that appeared to the Magi was noticed in the sky only by them and, perhaps, by a few other people who were interested in celestial phenomena. While the Magi were worried due to the extraordinary celestial phenomenon they saw, thousands and millions of other people at that time did not notice anything special in the sky, because the star, in any case, was not so large as to attract the eyes of those who did not know astrology. Even at the time when astrology turned into astronomy and became a science, almost only Kepler saw the star and described it, and many others were perhaps indifferent to this phenomenon. An extraordinary star, according to the concepts of the Magi, should have foreshadowed an extraordinary event. If she appeared about two years before Christ, then the Magi could talk about her among themselves, and perhaps, encountering the Jews at that time, who were then scattered throughout the world, they learned from them that a great King was expected in Jerusalem, and went there to worship Him. The word “to prostrate” in Greek almost always has the same meaning – to fall on your face to the ground and bow to someone. Here there is an indication of purely eastern, and, moreover, only pagan, customs. The Jews, remembering the second commandment, did not bow to earthly rulers, but only to God. The Jewish writer Philo (De Sos. 28) justifies what is told in Genesis 42:6 by ancient custom. Worship of people caused protests (Acts 10:26; Rev. 19:10). It was different for the pagans. Among them, according to Herodotus, “instead of greeting others, they kiss them on the mouth, but if the other is a little worse, they kiss him on the cheeks; and if someone is much smaller than another, then he worships him, falling down (προσκυνέει).” The word “worship” thus denoted respect on the part of an inferior person to a superior one, and the same word also means the worship of gods or God. But speaking of their intention to worship Christ, the Magi hardly represented Him as God; there is no doubt only that they represented Him as a King, and, moreover, an extraordinary one, whose birth was announced by a star. Matthew 2:3. Hearing this, King Herod became alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him. Herod probably heard news of the arrival of the Magi from others. “King Herod was alarmed.” The word “to worry” (Greek) is used about sea waves and means to worry. In a figurative sense, it means any kind of emotional unrest and anxiety. If you pay attention to how much work Herod put into acquiring the throne for himself, remember how he traveled to Rome for this purpose, his murders, executions of suspected persons, and then the restless state of Judea and Jerusalem, where there were enough of the most unimportant reasons for strong unrest, then Herod’s anxiety becomes understandable. It became, one might say, a habit with him and, apparently, did not leave him even before his death. There was some kind of crazy, painful desire in him to secure the throne for himself and for his offspring and, what is most surprising, this desire occurred, apparently, not so much out of love for offspring, but out of ambition or some other motives. All of Jerusalem became alarmed with Herod. Commentators agree that the cause of Jerusalem's alarm was Herod's alarm. And this is quite natural. But when applied to Jerusalem, the word probably points to slightly different phenomena. Jerusalem became alarmed due to fears that Herod might do something. The word "all" may be taken as a hyperbolic general expression used to denote the prevailing, prevailing mood, or public opinion. Similar expressions are used often. So: the whole city was horrified, although, of course, there were people in it who were free from horror. The word Jerusalem in the Gospel of Matthew (Greek text) is usually found in the neuter plural, in the feminine singular only here and, perhaps, in Matthew 3:5. Once (Matthew 23:37) Matthew has a special form (Ἱερουσαλήμ instead of Ἱεροσόλυμα). Matthew 2:4. And, having gathered all the high priests and scribes of the people, he asked them: where should Christ be born? Matthew 2:5. And they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written through the prophet: The high priests and scribes were not able to provide Herod with any precise and definite information and only referred to an ancient prophecy, perhaps in the hope that Herod, who tried to appear to be a Jew, would believe their words and their answer would seem satisfactory to him. Matthew 2:6. and you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are no less than the rulers of Judah, for from you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel. The prophecy of Micah (according to the Hebrew text Mic.5:1, according to the Russian Bible Mic.5:2) according to the literal translation from the Hebrew reads like this: “and you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small to be among the tribes of Judah, from you will come to me a leader for Israel and His descent from the ages, from the days of eternity.” According to the translation of the Seventy, the verse of Micah 5:2 reads: “And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrath, are the least to be among the thousands of Judah; from you will come out to me a leader (archon, according to another reading, leader ἡγούμενος) of Israel and His goings-out from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” The differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Seventy depended on the fact that the Hebrew word "elef", used here, has different meanings, meaning both beginning, tribe, family, and thousand. From what has been said, it is clear that the words of the Evangelist Matthew are not similar either to the Hebrew text or to the translation of the Seventy. Whether such a change was made by the evangelist himself, or whether he only literally conveyed the words of the high priests and scribes, does not seem to be of great importance. The digression is explained as follows: the words of the prophet Micah are given not according to the Hebrew original and not according to the translation of the Seventy because at that time interpretations of the holy book and translations were common, which were not allowed to be written down. They were a kind of exegetical translation: “At that time, everyone made a targum (interpretation) for himself.” This is a common occurrence in the New Testament. In the interpretation of Micah 5:1 (according to the Hebrew text) it was written “Bethlehem, the land of Judah” instead of “Ephrathah”; and “voivodships” instead of “thousands”. However, no matter how we translate the words of Micah 5:1 (according to the Hebrew text), they contained a prophecy about Christ, or the Messiah, and that He would be born in Bethlehem. The translation through ἡγεμόσιν clearly shows that the evangelist read from Micah not “beelefe” (tribe, family), but “bealuf” (chiefs and main residences of the tribes, province). Bethlehem in this expression is personified as “the land of Judah,” the actual land of Judah. There is no need to mean only the city of Bethlehem by land, but rather the land itself on which it stood, or, even better, the district, the outskirts of Bethlehem. Matthew 2:7. Then Herod, secretly calling the wise men, found out from them the time of the appearance of the star Herod did not hope that the Magi would tell him any exact information about the King, but he could learn for sure from the Magi about the time of the appearance of the star. Accurate information about the star could help him navigate this dark issue for him, figure out how to proceed next, because the time of the appearance of the star coincided, in his opinion (like the Magi), with the time of the birth of the new Tsar. The words: “the appearance of a star” can be translated differently (from Greek) as follows: “the time of the appearance of a star”; the translation: “the time when the star appeared” is considered inaccurate. Some interpreters think that Herod already at that time began to suspect that the Magi would not return to him, and in this case he inquired from them about the star in order to resolve the matter without them. Matthew 2:8. and, sending them to Bethlehem, he said: go, carefully scout about the Child, and when you find him, notify me, so that I too can go and worship Him. Matthew 2:9. After listening to the king, they left. [And] behold, the star that they saw in the east was walking before them, when it finally came and stood over the place where the Child was. Matthew 2:10. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with great joy, The star that appeared to the Magi was the same one that they saw at home and, perhaps, during their trip to Jerusalem. We are convinced of this by the evangelist’s message, which is not subject to reinterpretation, about the star “which the Magi saw in the east.” But it now received a different meaning for them. Previously, they knew it only as a star that announced the birth of some great King. Now they were sure that this King had already been born and it was in Bethlehem. New knowledge about the King was added. If you pay attention to the difference that exists in people’s views on certain and the same objects, depending on the enlightenment and development of their spirit, it is easy for them to understand the psychological state of the Magi. It now seemed to them that the star was walking before them, rejoicing with them, showing them the place (i.e. Bethlehem) where the Baby was born. The Magi were like sea travelers sailing on the stars, showing the way among the excitement and storms - what a joy to see a star pointing to a quiet pier! Matthew 2:11. and entering the house, they saw the Child with Mary His Mother, and, falling down, they worshiped Him; and having opened their treasures, they brought Him gifts: gold, frankincense and myrrh. The Evangelist does not say how the Magi found the house where the Child was. This seems difficult to explain if we assume that the star that went before them was a natural star. But the difficulty is eliminated if we remember that they had already begun to talk about the Child in Bethlehem. It is hardly possible to doubt that the worship of the Bethlehem shepherds took place earlier than the worship of the Magi; The shepherds talked about what the Angels had told them about the Child, “and all who heard were amazed at what the shepherds told them” (Luke 2:18). It is very likely that those who heard were initially few, but this does not in the least eliminate the appearance of even a hundred-year-old rumor about the Child, at least in Bethlehem. We also find confirmation of this in the fact that the Mother and Child were now placed “in the house”, and not in the previous inn or cave (as in Justin Martyr E.J. Goodspeed. Die ältesten Apologeten, Göttingen, 1915, p. 78, 5). Russian and Slavic translations: “having opened his treasures” are not accurate. In all likelihood, the word “treasure” was used in Russian in accordance with the Slavic translation and also because the Greek word θησαυρός in some cases really means treasure (Matt. 6:19–21; Luke 12:33; Heb. 11:26, etc.). But in some cases it means “a place where precious things are stored,” and here it is this latter that is designated. Because it would be incomprehensible how the Magi could reveal (the exact meaning of the Greek word ἀνοίγνυμι cf. Matthew 17:27) their treasures, i.e. gold, frankincense and myrrh. Thus, instead of the word "treasures" one should take "treasuries" and the meaning will be clear. The Magi brought Christ “gold, frankincense and myrrh” according to the Eastern custom, observed during presentations to kings, embassies to them, etc. Sending his sons to Egypt, Jacob orders them to take gifts to “that man” (Joseph) “some balm and some honey, styrax and frankincense, pistachios and almonds” (Gen. 43:11). Sending his son David to Saul, Jesse took “a donkey with bread and a bottle of wine and one kid, and sent it with David his son to Saul” (1 Sam. 16:20). These examples are typical. From them it is clear that gifts were presented according to the wealth of those who brought them. In this case, the Magi brought the products of their land to Christ. They themselves hardly connected any symbolic meaning with their offering. But this meaning became clear to subsequent interpreters, who saw in the gold brought to Christ an indication of His royal dignity, in incense - the veneration of Him as God, and in myrrh - an indication of His death as a man. Matthew 2:12. And having received a revelation in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by a different route. The Magi retired to the east “another way”, i.e. they did not go north along the road that led to Jerusalem, but went east or south - in the latter case, in order to turn east again. Matthew 2:13. When they departed, behold, the Angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream and says: get up, take the Child and His Mother and flee to Egypt, and be there until I tell you, for Herod wants to look for the Child in order to destroy Him. Matthew 2:14. He arose, took the Child and His Mother by night and went to Egypt, The Angel of the Lord appears in a dream (the same word as in the 12th verse - κατ’ ὄναρ) to Joseph alone, but not to the Mother of God, which was completely natural, since Joseph in all cases is the guardian of the Child and His Mother. "Run to Egypt". There is no doubt that of all the places where the Mother and Her Child could hide, Egypt was the most convenient. It has long been a place where Jewish fugitives escaped. Many Jews lived there around the time of the birth of Christ the Savior. Egypt at that time was under Roman rule. The place where Joseph settled with Mary and the Child is not indicated in the Gospel, just as no details are given about their stay in Egypt. Tradition points to Matareya near Leontopolis in the Iliopolis district, therefore, in Lower Egypt near the Nile delta. It is known that 150 years BC. A church was built in Leontopolis by the Jewish fugitive, priest Onias. Leontopolis was located across the Nile. Matareya is sometimes identified with He or Iliopolis. But where this city was located is not known exactly. The words: “he wants to look for the Baby in order to destroy Him” obviously indicate Herod’s intention, which manifested itself after the removal of the Magi. Previously, he secretly wanted to destroy the Baby, now he openly seeks Him in order to destroy him. Matthew 2:15. and there he was until the death of Herod, so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: Out of Egypt I called my Son. Herod's death occurred around April 12, 750 from the founding of Rome. If so, then we must assume that the Child did not live long in Egypt, only a few months from the end of December 749 to the end of April 750 from the founding of Rome. The opinion that Joseph stayed in Egypt for a year or two should be considered unfounded. “Out of Egypt I called My son” (cf. Hos. 11:1). Just as Israel was delivered by God from Egypt, so Christ was called out from there, but under new circumstances, different from the previous ones. A parallel between the sojourn of Israel and Christ in Egypt could have presented itself to the mind of the evangelist, and he points to it in order to connect Christ not only with the origin of Israel from Abraham, but also with the history of Israel itself. “The Child Jesus was called out of Egypt like the young Israelites to show us that He is the true seed of Abraham.” Matthew 2:16. Then Herod, seeing himself ridiculed by the Magi, became very angry, and sent to kill all the babies in Bethlehem and throughout its borders, from two years old and below, according to the time that he found out from the Magi. The atrocity of Herod, shown by him in the beating of the Bethlehem infants, is pointed out. It is objected to the authenticity of this passage, as well as the historical significance of the facts here depicted, that nothing was known to Josephus about the massacre of the infants. Regarding this, we can say that the evangelists, except Matthew, are silent about the beating of infants. Why this is so, this question cannot at present be given a completely satisfactory answer. However, the fact reported by Matthew does not lose its historical significance because of this, because it is completely consistent with the information we have about the character of Herod, outstanding in its cruelty and bloodthirstiness. Scholars now agree that the number of infants killed was not large since Bethlehem was never a large city. The references in the liturgical books to 14 thousand and even 144 thousand babies should be considered later, not based on anything and extremely exaggerated, probably arising from the desire to increase Herod’s guilt. But his crime is in no way diminished or increased by whether he killed 20 or 14,000 babies, remaining equally shameful and inhuman in both cases. Matthew 2:17. Then what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled, saying: Matthew 2:18. a voice is heard in Rama, weeping and weeping and a great cry; Rachel cries for her children and does not want to be consoled, for they are not there. The words of the prophet Jeremiah are quoted (Jer. 31:15), which relate to the terrible act of Herod as conveyed by the evangelist. The question arises as to why Rachel is shown crying over the babies killed by Herod. In the present case, the evangelist seems to personify the contemporary beating cry and cry of mothers and, probably, other persons in one person - Rachel, the beloved wife of Jacob and the foremother of the tribes of Joseph and Benjamin. Although Bethlehem was in the tribe of Judah, the name of Rachel was closely associated with Bethlehem. The Bible says that Jacob, after reconciliation with Esau, initially settled in Shechem, then moved to Bethel and from there reached Ephrath, i.e. Bethlehem, where Rachel bore him Benjamin, died here and was buried on the road to Ephrath, i.e. Bethlehem (Gen.35:19). Jacob erected a monument over her tomb, and it is shown there to this day. Thus, it was quite natural for the evangelist to speak of Rachel in connection with the events in Bethlehem. But the prophet Jeremiah does not mention Bethlehem, but speaks of Rama. There were up to five cities in Palestine with the name Rama (singular or plural - Ramoth). It is not known with certainty whether Rama of Benjamin (or in the tribe of Benjamin - Joshua 18:25; in Judges 4:5 it is said about Rama that she was on Mount Ephraim; Judges 19:13; Isa.10:29; Hos.5:8 - in these places Rama is placed together with Geba, or Gibeah) and Rama, where Samuel was born and lived ( 1 Samuel 1:19, 2:11, 7:17, etc.). The basis for the connection between Rachel and Rama is found not in Matthew, but in Jeremiah. The evangelist only added to the Bethlehem events the prophecy he borrowed from Jeremiah, or, better, a figurative presentation of the events before the Jews were taken into captivity in Babylon. According to the prophet, Nebuzaradan, the chief of Nebuchadnezzar's bodyguards, released him, the prophet, from Ramah, where he took him bound in chains among other captives of Jerusalem and Jews being resettled in Babylon (Jer. 40: 1). If the prophet here means Rama Benjamin, then it was natural for him to say that Rachel weeps for her children and does not want to be comforted for them, because they are not (Jer. 31:15; according to the Hebrew text - Jer. 31:14). The prophet wants to say not that Rachel is really crying, because she was no longer alive, but that if she had risen from the grave and arrived in Rama, she would have started crying for her descendants and would have been inconsolable, because they are no longer there, they were taken into Babylonian captivity. In exactly the same sense, the evangelist applies Rachel's lament to the babies killed in Bethlehem. Matthew 2:19. After the death of Herod, behold, the Angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in Egypt in a dream. Matthew 2:20. and says: Arise, take the Child and His Mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the soul of the Child are dead. Herod died, but it is spoken in the plural, in a general sense, about Herod and his like-minded people and subordinates who fulfilled his desires and intentions. Matthew 2:21. He stood up, took the Child and His Mother and came to the land of Israel. Matthew 2:22. Having heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea instead of Herod, his father, he was afraid to go there; but having received a revelation in a dream, he went into the region of Galilee They think that Joseph, having heard about the death of Herod, initially intended to go to Bethlehem and settle there. But this was prevented by the accession to the throne of Archelaus. Herod, in his last testament, divided his kingdom between his sons Archelaus, Herod Antipas and Herod Philip. The first received Judea, Samaria and Idumea into possession, the second - Galilee and Perea, and the last - the Trans-Jordanian lands. Archelaus was as cruel as his father, but did not have his intelligence. Staying in his domain would be dangerous. Herod Antipas was distinguished by lust rather than cruelty. The tyranny of Archelaus in a short time became so intolerable that he was deposed by Augustus and imprisoned in Gaul, present-day France, where he died. Galilee refers to the country between the western shore of Lake Galilee and the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It was the residence of the tribes of Issachar, Zebulun, Asher and Naphtali. Its population was mixed, consisting of Jews and pagans. The Jews who lived in it spoke their own language, somewhat different from the Jewish language of that time. Josephus speaks of the division of Galilee into upper and lower (“War of the Jews,” III, 3, 1). He describes the country as fertile, cultivated and highly populated. According to him, there were 204 cities and towns (“Life”, 45). Its population was bold and warlike. Matthew 2:23. and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarite. "Nazareth" is a small town three days' journey from Jerusalem. If you draw a straight line on the map from the lower limit of Lake Galilee west to the Mediterranean Sea, then Nazareth is located almost in the middle of this line. Nazareth is located on the slope of a mountain. White houses with flat roofs are built on the mountain in the form of terraces. Mountains surround the city on all sides. Residents are engaged in cultivating the land, raising livestock, shaving and haircuts, selling fruits and vegetables, herbs, mending shoes, blacksmithing, carpentry and other crafts. Their houses are built in the same way as they were built in distant centuries, the walls are bare and provided with rubble on one side, the floors are earthen, complete indifference is revealed to the windows, light usually enters through an open door. “Let what was spoken through the prophets be fulfilled.” If the evangelist had said that because of his settlement in Nazareth, Jesus would be called a Nazarene, then the explanation of this expression would present almost no difficulties: then Nazarene (ναζωραῖος) would simply mean “Nazarene,” “resident of the city of Nazareth.” Since Nazareth was an insignificant city and was located in Galilee, which was equally insignificant and despised, then settlement in Nazareth would be one of the sides of the earthly humiliation of Christ. This is, apparently, how the evangelist looks at the matter, calling Christ a Nazarene. Explanations in the sense of “Nazir”, Nazirite, according to which the evangelist calls Christ a Nazarene in the Old Testament sense, a person who took upon himself the vows of a Nazirite, should be considered untenable, because the Hebrew “Nazir” (Nazarene) has nothing to do with the word Nazareth and the root letters of both of these words in the Hebrew language are different. The difficulty in explaining the passage in question lies in the addition made by the evangelist: “that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled” - in the fact that Matthew attributes the words: “He will be called a Nazarite” to the prophets. Which one? This question has not yet been answered, because none of them have the words attributed by the evangelist to the prophets. Blessed Jerome says: “If the evangelist had pointed out a specific example from Scripture, he would never have said “spoken through the prophets,” but simply: “spoken through the prophet.” The Hebrew word “netzer” (branch), similar to the name Nazareth (“nazar”), is found in the prophets Isaiah (Is. 11:1, 14:19, 60:21) and Daniel (Dan. 11:7) - in the latter it means “offspring” (in Russian translation - “branch”) and has no messianic meaning. Isaiah 14:19 has no messianic meaning, and Isaiah 60:21 has doubtful messianic meaning. Thus, only one of the indicated places where the word “netzer” is used is messianic in the proper sense - Is. 11:1. Meanwhile, the evangelist speaks not about the prophet, but about prophets. Exegetes therefore tried to connect the word “netzer” with another Hebrew word “tsema”, which also means “branch” and is used in Isaiah and other prophets (Is. 4:2; Jer. 23:5, 33:15; Zech. 3:8, 6:12). If, therefore, some prophets called the future Deliverer “tsema”, which means “branch”, and Isaiah called “netzer”, also meaning “branch”, then the evangelist, bringing the word “netzer” closer to the name Nazareth, had every right to call Christ a Nazarene, i.e. Branch, and indicate that He was named so on the basis of not one Old Testament prophecy, but several, i.e. write: “spoken through the prophets.” Morison. A practical Commentary on the Gospel according to the Matthew. London, 1899. P. 14. According to Tsang, however, the exegete cannot answer the question about the year and day of Christ’s birth. – Zahn. Das Evangelium des Matthäus. Leipzig, 1905. S. 98, approx. You might be interested in: