Verse 1. When Jesus, therefore, was born in Bethlehem of Juda
THE
Evangelist, according to the laws of history, describes the place,
time, and circumstances of the event: The place—Bethlehem; the time—in
the days of Herod the king; the circumstances—wise men came from the
East.
Why
Christ was born in Bethlehem is plain.—I. Because Michcas the Prophet
had so foretold (v. 2), and He must be born on native soil to prove
Himself the Ruler of whom the Prophet spoke. 2. Because David was born
in the same place (1 Kings 16:1; 17:12), and Christ came as his
successor, the restorer of His kingdom, and the flower of the root of
Jesse. He must necessarily spring up where the root was. When,
therefore, He was as yet scarce born, He compelled His enemies, the
chief priests and scribes, if not to believe Him to be Christ, yet in a
manner to profess so (verse 5). Hence, as Joseph and Mary lived not in
Bethlehem, but in Nazareth, they came to Bethlehem on the enrolling of
Augustus (S. Luke 2:1), as if the whole world were so described, for no
other reason than that the Lord of it might not be born out of His own
country, (extra), God thus ordering it that the imperial edict should
serve the cause of truth.
Juda.
Many
copies have Judæa, and so S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and many others
seem to read it on the authority of the greater number of copies. S.
Jerome, however, with good reason, in this passage and on Micheas v.,
thinks that Judæa is incorrectly read for Juda. For Judæa included the
whole territory of the twelve tribes, but Juda only that of the tribe of
Juda. As there were two Bethlehems, one in the tribe of Juda, where
David and Christ were born, and another in the tribe of Zabulon (Joshua
19:15), the Evangelist clearly desired to distinguish the Bethlehem of
Juda from that of Zabulon, which he would not have done if he had said
Bethlehem of Judaea, for both were in Judaea, but only one in Juda.
Herod.
This
was not Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee (S. Luke 1:5), who put
John Baptist to death and mocked Christ, nor the Herod who slew James
and bound Peter, but the father of the former and the grandfather of the
latter; who was called “Herod the Great,” “Ascalonita,” “Antipater,”
and to whom the Romans first gave the title of King of Judæa (Josephus,
Antiq., xiv. 18; Hegesippus, i. 36; Eusebius, i. 6). The years were now
first numbered according to the Caesars (as in S. Luke 3:1; Acts 11:28),
but S. Matthew, as speaking of the kingdom of Herod, makes mention of
him rather than of Cæsar.
The King.
To
distinguish him from the tetrarch. The Evangelist seems to wish to show
that the time was now come when Christ should be born; for, as it had
been foretold that the sceptre should not depart from Juda, he shows
that, by the rule of a stranger, it had done so, and that the time had
arrived when, according to the prophecy of Jacob, Christ should be born.
So say S. Chrysostom and Theophylact.
Behold.
This
particle (ecce) has here a twofold force. It shows that the Magi came
immediately on Christ’s birth, as we shall shortly explain, and that
they came unexpectedly, when, as is shown in verse 3, the city was
troubled.
There came wise men from the East.
Four
questions may here be asked—1. Who they were? 2. How many were there?
3. Whence did they come? 4. When? For, of the star, whatever it was, and
how they knew by it of the birth of Christ, we will speak here after.
The
first question seems to depend on another. Did S. Matthew write in
Greek or in Hebrew? If in Hebrew the meaning of the word חרטמי will have
to be followed; if in Greek, that of the word μάγοι. In the Preface,
chap. 5, it is proved that he wrote in Hebrew. We must see, then, who
they are who are called in Hebrew חרטמי the word found in this passage.
The Hebrews call חרטמי what the Latins term præstigiatores; that is,
those who by incantations or some other art change the appearance of
things so that they seem to be other than they are. Such were the
magicians of Pharaoh, who by diabolical arts imitated the divine acts of
Moses in transforming things (Exod. 7:11, 22; 8:7). But neither our
version nor the LXX. calls these Magi, but the former in every case
calls them malefici, the latter φάρμακοι or φαρμακεῦς (Exod. 7:11; Deut.
18:10; 2 Paralip. 33:6; Jerem. 27:9; Dan. 2:2; Malach. 3:5). But both
our version and the LXX. call those Magi whom the Hebrew terms מנשף that
is, those who, by inspecting the stars, foretell the future, interpret
dreams (Dan. 1:20; 2:10, 27; 4:4; 5:7, 11, 15). The ancient writer calls
them Magi, the Hebrews האבת Pythones, the LXX. ἐγγαστριμίθαι (Levit.
19:31; 20:6; 1 Sam. 28:3, 9). We scarcely believe those of whom S.
Matthew speaks to have been præstigiatores—a name infamous among all
nations—since the Evangelist appears to call them Magi, a title of
honour.
Magi
are so called from three causes. They who practise the arts, not only
of natural but diabolical magic, are so termed (Levit. 19:31; 20:6; Acts
8:9; 13:6), and in Strabo it is the name, not of any art or condition,
but of a nationality; for among the five nations who inhabited Media, he
mentions the Magi. S. Epiphanius, in his Epitome of the Catholic Faith,
does the same, except that he gives them another origin and abode; for
he says that they were the sons of Abraham by Keturah, and when sent out
of the country by Abraham, they came to Magodia, a region of Arabia,
and there took up their abode—hence, he thinks, they received their
name. But the more ordinary meaning of the word is, that the Magi were
called by the Persians, in their mother tongue, Sapientes (wise men), as
among the Greeks are Philosophers; among the Italians of Hetruria,
Aruspices and Pontifices; among the Indians, Brachmans or Gymnosophists;
among the Babylonians, Chaldæans; among the Egyptians, Hierophants;
among the Gauls, Druids, as stated by Cicero (lib. i., De Divin.),
Strabo (xvi.), and Tertullian (Against Marciori); in which sense, as
seems very probable, and is most commonly believed, the Magi are
mentioned here: both as they came from the East, where the name of Magi
was famous, and were led by a star, like men who governed the whole
course of their lives by the observation of the stars, in which all
their wisdom consisted; and because the Evangelist seems to have termed
them Magi for reasons of honour.
Whether
or not they were kings is less certain. A heretic—Beza—derides the
Catholic Church because she believes them to have been such—as if Psalm
71:10, 11, had been wrongly understood. He must, therefore, laugh at
Tertullian (i., Against the Jews), and (lib. iii., Against Marcion); at
S. Cyprian (Serm. de Bapt.), at S. Chrysostom (Hom. vi. on S. Matt.), at
S. Hilary, S. Basil, Idacius, S. Jerome or his contemporary (on Ps.
xxi.), S. Augustin, or the author of bk. iii. on The Miracles of
Scripture, Isidore, Bede, Strabus, and others. All these believe that
they were kings, and put faith in that Psalm. Not that they believe them
to have actually ruled over Tharsis, for that word is used for Gentile
kings in general, but they think that David mentioned them exempli
gratia, as Tertullian shows from many other examples. The Church does
the like, using this Psalm in the same sense, on the feast of Epiphany,
often adapting, not in ignorance but wisely and designedly, to one
person what was originally said of another. She applies, for instance,
the words of S. Luke (10:42) of Mary Magdalene, the sister of Lazarus,
to Mary the mother of Christ, on her festival, because she herself was a
Mary, and had also chosen the best part.
That
the Magi were actually kings is held, not as a certain article of the
Catholic faith, but as a probable opinion; and some learned and devout
men, not scoffingly but earnestly, have held the contrary opinion. They
say that if they had been kings, the Evangelist would not have forborne
to mention their names, for these would have added to the honour of the
worship of Christ, and that kings would have been received with greater
state by Herod.
This
may be granted, and still the opinion be held that they were kings; not
Persian nobles, but genuine princes who merited the titles of kings or
princes; chiefs (regulorum), as the man mentioned by S. John (4:46, 49),
and as the friends of Job are called (Tobit 2:15), and as S. Mark
(6:14) called Herod, the son of Herod the Great, a king when he was not
such, but tetrarch of Galilee (SS. Matt. 14:1, Luke 3:1). The poet
Juvencus says that they were not kings, but he admits them to have been
the chiefs and nobles of their race.
We
may suppose them to have been kings—(1) as they came from the East,
whence private philosophers would not have taken so long a journey; (2)
as they came to worship one born a king, which only princes do; (3) as
they brought treasures; (4) as they were not seized by Herod as soon as
they came, and dragged off to the cross; (5) it cannot be that Herod
said falsely that he also would come to worship as soon as he knew where
the infant was, yet he certainly pretended to be true, as if all kings
ought, after the example of the Magi, to worship the new king; whereas
private persons would not venture to confess before the reigning
sovereign that he was born a lawful king.
But
why did not the Evangelist call them kings? Why did not the author of
the Book of Job call his friends kings, but the author of the Book of
Tobias did? If another Evangelist had written the account of the
marriage of Cana, he might perhaps have given some other name to him
whom S. John called a ruler. S. Matthew might have called them Magi
instead of kings, when they were both, for some other reason. He desired
to give the tacit reason for their knowing from the star that it was
Christ who was born. For this was the work of Magi, not of kings.
Their
number is less certain. The common opinion, not only of the vulgar, but
of great authorities (S. Augustin, Serms. xxix.–xxxiii. de Tempore; S.
Leo, Serms. i., iv.–viii., de Epiphania; Rupertus, Comment), is that
they were three in number, which appears the most likely of any. It is
certain that there were more than one, or even two, for the Evangelist
always speaks of them as many, and he does not even use the dual number
of them, but always the plural. That they were three is not a matter of
certainty, but from the number of their gifts it is a probable
conjecture; for it is more likely that they all gave different gifts
than that all should have given the same—for this was more usual, and
was considered more honourable both to giver and receiver. This opinion
has some reason at least to support it; the other has none.
Whence
did they come? This is the third question. Although it is in great part
answered by the Evangelist, there is yet some room for conjecture. Many
ancient authors think that they came from Arabia (S. Justin Mart., Adv.
Tryph.; Tertullian, Adv. Jud., and iii., Adv. Marc.; S. Cyprian, Serm.
de Stella et Magis; S. Epiphanius, Epitome). They are justly influenced
in this belief by David (Ps. 71:10): “The kings of the Arabians and of
Saba shall bring gifts”; and that country produces these things, Arabia
and Saba having even been celebrated by the poets for their abundance of
gold, perfumes, and frankincense. Others, S. Chrysostom among them,
suppose them to have been Chaldæans. Their chief argument is, that it
was impossible for them to have come from Persia and Arabia in the space
of thirteen days. But this is scarcely tenable, for although Chaldæa
lies between the North and East, it is the custom of Scripture to call
it the North. The ordinary opinion, that they came from Persia, seems
the best, both as having more authority, and because the word magi
itself is a Persian one, and the Evangelist says that they came from the
East. They also displayed Persian manners; for the Persians adore their
kings and approach them only with gifts, as all writers on the subject
inform us. How they could have performed the journey in thirteen days
shall be explained hereafter.
The
fourth question remains: When did they arrive, and when did they set
out? For the question consists of these two parts. S. Epiphanius (Hær.,
30, 31) affirms, on the authority of verse 6, and vehemently contends
for it, that they arrived two years after the birth of Christ. So too
Eusebius in his Chronicon. The opinion of the Church is much more
truth-like, that they came on the thirteenth day after the birth of
Christ. So said S. Augustin (De Epiph., i., ii., iii), and S. Leo (Serm.
Oct). It certainly appears that they arrived not many days after. This
the Evangelist signifies when he says, “When Jesus was born, behold
there came wise men”. For both the connection of the sentence and the
word “behold” show that the arrival of the Magi followed immediately
after the birth of Christ (as in Gen. 24:15, 29:9), and because it is
certain that Joseph and Mary did not remain in Bethlehem beyond the
forty days of her Purification as ordered by the Law (Levit. 12:2). For
they immediately came to Jerusalem, “to present Him to the Lord” (Luke
2:22), and then returned at once to Galilee (v. 39). But the Magi found
Christ in Bethlehem (S. Matt. 2:9). They therefore came before the
fortieth day from His birth.
2.
When did they set out from their country? The opinion of S. Augustin
(Serm. xxxii.) seems the best, that they did not leave their country
till after the birth of Christ. Their words, “We have seen His star in
the East,” seem to imply this. But when it is proved that they offered
their worship thirteen days after, it follows that they could not have
been longer than eight or nine days on the road; for they did not set
out on the same day as that on which they saw the star, and it seems
most likely that at least two days passed whilst Herod was questioning
them and consulting with the scribes and priests. This makes it much
more wonderful that they were able to come from Persia in so short time.
But two circumstances lessen this wonder: (1) It is probable that they
may have come, not from the furthest, but from the nearest parts of
Persia, which are scarcely more than two hundred leagues from Jerusalem
(2) That they may have travelled on camels, which, although loaded, are
said to perform a journey of forty leagues a day. It is not necessary to
adopt the opinion of Remigius, that the journey was performed by divine
power.
Jerusalem.
It
is strange that the wise men should have come to Jerusalem when they
were led by the star to Bethlehem. Some think that the star disappeared
near Jerusalem, that the Magi might relate that a King was born in the
Royal City, lest the Jews should appear ignorant of what they had learnt
from the testimony of the Gentiles. So S. Ambrose (lib. ii., On S.
Luke, chap. ii.), S. Augustin (Serms. xxx., xxxi., xxxv., de Temp.), S.
Chrysostom (Hom. vii. on S. Matt.), S. Basil Hom. de Hum. Gen. Chti.),
Theophylact, and S. Bernard on this passage. This is the more probable
because the people of Jerusalem did not see the star; for if they had,
the Evangelist would not have passed it over in silence, and if it had
not disappeared, all the city must have seen it. The Evangelist seems to
signify this in verse 9—as if while they were at Jerusalem they had not
seen the star, but as soon as they left the city, they began to see it
again. S. Bernard thinks that the Magi desired to come to Jerusalem
first, to ask about the new-born King, and therefore that the star hid
itself that they who sought for human counsel might lose the divine
guidance. Their coming to Jerusalem would appear to have been caused not
so much by their desire for knowledge as by the will of God—partly that
the Jews might be without excuse, as S. Jerome says: partly that Christ
being born a King might be announced by the Gentiles before it was so
by the Jews, lest the testimony of the Jews to their own King might
appear matter of suspicion, as S. Basil suggests in his Homily de Hum.
Gen. Christi; for human reason required that one who came to seek a
new-born King should come to the Royal City.
Verse 2. That is born
The
assertion of the Magi is notable, for they did not ask, as men in
doubt, whether He were born, but, like men instructed by God, they
asserted decidedly that He was so. They seem to speak as if all would
affirm that He was so, and all knew it. Who, indeed, could suppose that
men of Persia would know this, but that the Jews would be ignorant of
it? It may be, too, that they inquired for a new King, of whom, when
they knew nothing, they came to Jerusalem, to learn in the Royal City
what they could not discover in other cities.
King of the Jews.
These
words may be taken in two ways: either the King of the Jews who is
born, or who is born King of the Jews. Either meaning is probable, but
the second seems the better as being the more forcible; nor could the
Magi be ignorant that Herod was not the lawful and natural King, but a
factitious one given by the Romans. They place the natural King in
opposition to the factitious one.
For we have seen His star.
The star being the index of His birth, five questions may be asked about this star:
1. Of what nature it was (qualis fuerit)?
2. When was it first seen (quando)?
3. Where (ubi)?
4. How did the Magi know by it that Christ was born (quomodo)?
5. Why were they taught by it rather than by any other means (cur)?
S.
Gregory Nyss. thinks that it was one of the other stars, and that it
came down to render the Magi obedience (Hom. de Incarn.). Almost all
others suppose that it was not an actual star, but only had the
appearance of one (S. Chrysostom, On Matt. vi.; S. Basil, Hom. de Hum.
Gen. Christi; S. Ambrose, 1. ii., On S. Luke; S. Augustin, Serm. xxx. de
Temp.; Fulgentius, Hom. de Epiph.; author of work De Mirabil. Nat.,
ascribed to S. Augustin, iii. 4). They prove this by many arguments: (1)
It was never seen before; (2) never after; (3) it was not in the
heavens, or it could not have shown the way; (4) it travelled from east
to west, contrarily to the natural course of stars; (5) it shone not
only by night, but also by day; (6) it sometimes concealed itself, as
has been said on verse 1; (7) it stood over the house where the Child
was. All these are probable but not conclusive arguments; for He who at
one time caused the sun to stand still, and at another to go back, could
cause the star to leave its natural station and perform acts beyond its
ordinary nature. But because God is not accustomed to work miracles
without necessity, and as we ought not to receive them as miracles
without proof, it is more credible that it was not a true star, though
it could bear the resemblance of one, and it was sufficient for the
Evangelist to give it that name from its resemblance to a real star and
not because it really was one, as we call a comet a star.
What
it was has caused much discussion among the learned. Some suppose it to
have been the Holy Ghost, who, as He appeared after the baptism in the
form of a dove, so now He descended in the appearance of a star to point
out Christ. Others think that it was an angel who assumed the form of a
star; for the angels are called stars (Apoc. 1:20). Many others suppose
it to have been a comet. I have said that it was either a comet or an
angel.
2.
When it appeared is not so certain; some say that it was seen two years
before Christ was born; they conclude this from the words “two years
and under” (verse 16), as Euthymius says. The Author and Nicephorus (i.
13) think the same, as at one time did S. Augustin (Serm. xxxvi. de
Temp.), though he afterwards altered his opinion. Others prefer to say
one year. S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylact, and others, put the
appearance on the same day as that of Christ’s birth (S. Augustin, Serm.
iv. de Epiph.). This seems the most probable; for there is this force
in the words, “We have seen His star in the east,” that is, the star
which shows us that He is born; and in the others, “Where is He who is
born?” as if they certainly knew from the star, not that Christ was to
be born, but that He actually was born. Why Herod slew the infants from
two years and under shall be explained on verse 16.
3.
Where the Magi saw the star is not certain; for the words are
ambiguous, “We have seen His star in the east”. The meaning may be
either that when they were in the east they saw the star in the west, or
that they saw the star which appeared in the east. Some think that the
star appeared, not in the east, but in the west. But it does not seem
doubtful that it first appeared in the east, and became the guide of
their journey. For when they said, “We have seen His star in the east,”
they meant to describe not so much the place whence they came as the
motive which induced them to come—namely, their having seen the star;
the meaning, therefore, is that the star appeared in the east; for the
question was, not whence they themselves were, but where they had seen
it. For if it had appeared in the west, that is, in Judaea, it would
have been seen by the Jews: a circumstance which the Evangelist could
not have passed over in silence. Besides, although he does not say that
the star went before the Magi the whole way, yet, as he says (verse 9)
that it went before them after they went out of Jerusalem, until “it
came and stood over where the Child was,” we must believe that it had
previously done the same thing as they journeyed from the east to the
west.
4.
How the Magi knew that Christ was born from the sight of the star is
difficult to be explained. It is certain that no man by natural
knowledge could ever discover that, not to say, God, but even man, was
born. It remains, therefore, that the Magi knew it by revelation from
God. But how or when this was made may be matter of question. S. Jerome
(On Isaiah xix.) thinks it to have been done by the devils; and Origen
(i., Cont. Cels.) seems to have been of the same opinion. Others
consider the angels to have been the means employed; others, again, that
it was the work of God by inward inspiration.
But
it is the most prevalent opinion of almost all the Ancients that the
Magi had long known from the prophecy of Balaam that a star should arise
on the birth of Christ (Numbers 24:7); and the Magi were either the
descendants of Balaam or they received the tradition from such of them
as were living in their neighbourhood (Origen, Hom. xiii. in Numbers; S.
Ambrose, ii., On S. Luke; S. Chrysostom, Hom. i. in Evangel.; S.
Epiphanius, Epit.; S. Basil, Hom. de Hum. Gen. Chti.). This, as well
from the great number of witnesses in its favour as from its intrinsic
probability, seems extremely likely. The Magi, when they said, “We have
seen His star in the east,” seem to speak of a thing that was known to
the Jews, supposing that they could not be ignorant of a prophecy which
they themselves, as Gentiles, knew. For they did not say, We have seen a
star, but His star; speaking of that star, which, as all knew, would
appear when Christ was born. It increases the probability of this that
Herod believed that Christ would be shown by this star as a thing known
to all the people; for he did not ask the chief priests whether a star
should appear when Christ was born, but where Christ should be born.
The
objection of some to that prophecy, that Balaam calls Christ Himself a
star, when it had been said that a star should arise out of Jacob
(Levit. 24:17), cannot be denied. But it is common, especially in the
Prophets, for the same word to signify both Christ Himself and the
figure of Christ, as in verse 15. This at least appears certain, that,
either from this Prophet, or from some other source, the Magi had a
divine revelation; for they say, persistently, and like men taught by
God, “Where is He that is born King of the Jews?”
5.
The last question is, Why did God teach the Magi by means of a star? It
is not difficult to answer. S. Gregory says that God willed to instruct
them in accordance with their own knowledge, that they who had passed
their lives in the observation of the stars might learn Christ from the
stars. In all things we can both seek and find God.
And are come to adore Him.
They
who see nothing here but the worship of Urbanity seem to me themselves
too urbane! For why did none but these Magi come with toil to worship
any of the numerous kings of the Jews? as S. Athanasius asks in his book
De Incarnatione. How would they worship one in a stable, and lying in a
manger, if they thought Him nothing more than man? and how did Herod
say that he also would come and worship Him? God would, in truth, to no
purpose, have taught them by a great miracle to worship a man only, and
not God also.
Verse 4. And assembling together all the chief priests
It
is clear from many places that there was only one chief priest (S.
Matt. 26:59, 61, 65; S. Mark 1:44; 2:26; S.Luke 22:50, 54; Acts 4:6;
5:17, 21, 27; 9:1; 22:5; 23:2; 24:1). It may therefore be rightly asked
how they are called chief priests, as if they were many? The same
expression is found in other places also (S. Matt. 16:21; 20:18, et
al.). Some say that all who had once held the office of high priest were
called chief priests; for the office had been annual and venal (S. John
11:49; 18:13) from the time of Pompey’s taking the city and bringing
the office into his own power and that of the Romans (Josephus, Antiq.,
xviii. 6; Eusebius, Hist., i. 6). So S. Chrysostom and Euthymius on
chap. 24:5, and Theophylact on S. Mark 14. Their opinion is answered as
follows: Even before the office was annual, and while it was still held
for life, we read of many called chief priests (2 Paralip. 36:14). They
were therefore one and many—one supreme, who was termed absolutely the
chief priest or pontifex. There were many who were heads of priestly
families, as in Paralip. 15:6, 12; 24:6. Herod therefore calls the
priests because it was their duty to answer for the law (Malach. 2:7);
but he did not call all of them, because their number would have been
infinite, but the chiefs, who were fewer and more learned, and of the
number of the ordinary judges of the Sanhedrim, and in a manner
councillors, as 1 Paralip. 23:4; S. Matt. 26:3; S. Mark 11:18; Acts
4:26, and many other places, where without the chief priests no council
is assembled.
And the scribes of the people.
The
scribes were properly the public notaries, whose duty it was not only
to prepare public instruments, but also to keep the holy writings
incorrupt, and to explain their meaning; as we learn from 4 Kings 22:8,
9, 10; 1 Esdras 7:10, 11; S. Matt. 7:29; 17:10, et al. They are called
lawyers, therefore (S. Luke 7:30; 11:46), but they were not legislators,
as some say. Their rank was high, as among the Greeks the grammarians
were placed in the first order as knowing letters, that is, how to read
and write. They corrected their authors and interpreted them, and were
the judges in all questions of history, fables, the doubtful meaning of
writers. They were therefore summoned by Herod, and also because they
formed a great part of the council (S. Mark 14:53; 15:1; S. Luke 22:66).
Verse 6. And thou, Bethlehem
A
difference, which at first sight appears great, between the Evangelist
and Prophet renders this passage one of difficulty. They appear to be at
variance on four points:
1. The Evangelist says—“Thou Bethlehem, the land of Juda”; the Prophet—“Thou, Bethlehem Ephrata”.
2. The Evangelist—“Art not the least”; the Prophet—“Thou art the least”.
3. The Evangelist—“Out of thee shall come a Governor”; the Prophet does not name a Governor.
4.
The Evangelist says—“Who shall rule (regat) or feed (ποιμανεῖ) my
people”. The Prophet says—“Who shall rule” (dominetur, מושל).
5. “The Evangelist,” says S. Jerome, “seems in no way to agree either with the Prophet or the LXX.”
Some
reply, too readily, that the Evangelists, from lapse of memory,
frequently cite passages of Scripture, not only in other words, but in a
different and even contrary sense to that of the text. They cite S.
Jerome, in his Epistle to Pammachius, as the author of this opinion. To
say that the Evangelists ever quote Scripture in a contrary sense I hold
to be blasphemous; nor does S. Jerome ever say this. The meaning of
what he does say on this passage in the letter mentioned is opposite to
that which these assert it to be. He does not say that the meaning of
the passage in the Evangelist is contrary to that of the Prophet, but
that the meaning of one word of the Evangelist compared with that in the
Prophet, if considered per se, is contrary. For “thou art the least,”
and “thou art not the least,” taken per se, are altogether contrary;
but, as said by the Evangelist and Prophet, they are not contrary, but
one and the same, as shall shortly be shown. But let those who ascribe a
lapse of memory to the Evangelists, by whose mouths the Holy Ghost
spoke, although they excuse it as a human failing, consider whether they
do not excuse in the Evangelists that for which, if a man excused it in
himself, they would think him an object of ridicule. It seems, too, to
be blasphemy, or very closely bordering upon it. S. Jerome was more
careful; for he thought that the priests and scribes should be blamed
rather than the Evangelist. He says, in his Commentary on the Fifth
Chapter of Micheas, that the Evangelist intended to show not what the
Prophet said, but what the priests and scribes answered, that he might
show their ignorance of Scripture. But it can hardly be supposed that
the priests, however ignorant, cited the words of the Prophet
incorrectly, especially when it was probable that, in a question of so
much weight, the book itself would be produced. The Evangelist seems,
moreover, to have repeated their answer rather to praise than blame
them, that he might show, even from the opinion of His enemies, that
Christ was to be born in Bethlehem. Some think that the Prophet is to be
understood interrogatively, and that the words, “Art thou the least”
and “Thou are not the least,” have the same meaning; but this could not
be received even if it could be proved. Others maintain that צעיר is put
by the Prophet in the neuter gender, so that the sense may be: It is
little that thou art among the thousands of Juda; that is: Thou art the
greatest, that thou may be among the princes of Juda, as the Evangelist
says.: “Thou art by no means the least”. It seems no objection to this
view that the Hebrews do not generally use צעיר in this sense, but מעט
as in Gen. 30:15; Isa. 7:13. The explanation of the passage probably
depends upon another point—whether they are the words of the priests and
scribes, or of the Evangelist. Some commentators think them the words
of the Evangelist. It is not easy to see how they explain the question,
but the context and connection of the words seem to confute them. They
are then, it may be thought, the words of the priests, faithfully
repeated by the Evangelist. It appears that the Evangelist’s intention
was not to recite the words of the Prophet, but the interpretation of
the priests and scribes, which was something as follows: “And thou,
Bethlehem Ephrata,” that is, “the land of Juda”. For this Bethlehem was
formerly called Ephrata (Gen. 35:16, 19; 48:7). For there was another
Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulon (Josh. 19:15; Judges 12:8), which was
not called Ephrata; and the Prophet added this epithet to distinguish it
from the other. The priests wished to explain this by a name still more
clear: “And thou, Bethlehem Ephrata”; that is, who art in the land of
Juda, not Zabulon, to teach Herod that the meaning of the Prophet was
that, not in the Bethlehem of Zabulon, but in the Bethlehem of Juda,
Christ should be born; for Herod thought it of the greatest consequence
to his interests that he should know this. The words that follow, “Thou
art the least,” they explain as if the Prophet had spoken ironically:
“Thou seemest to be the least, if the circuit of thy walls be regarded;
but thou art by no means the least, for out of thee shall come forth the
Captain that shall rule My people”. “Among the thousands” (in millibus,
אלפים they interpret “Among the princes” (in ducibus) that is, among
leaders, or in the production of leaders; for the word אלפים signifies
both leaders and a thousand: for leaders are mostly over a thousand men,
hence they are called chiliarchs by the Greeks. For the people were
divided into thousands, as everyone is aware, and as is plain from Exod.
18:25, and 1 Paralip. 23:4. The same, as we have seen from Aristotle
and Plato, was the order of the ancient Greek republic. It is certain
that the Prophet not only looked forward to the future coming of Christ,
but also alluded to the past of David, signifying that a small city had
already produced one most eminent chief—David, and would shortly
produce another far more excellent—Christ; and, as it was a question
about the birth of Christ, the priests appositely rendered יהודה באלפי
among the leaders of Juda מושל. Their substitution of ποιμανεῖ (feeding)
for dominetur (ruling) came from their wish to show His manner of
ruling, signifying that Christ would not rule His people with an iron
rod, like the Gentiles, but with the crook of a kind shepherd, whose
sheep were his own. At the same time, they probably allude to David, the
figure of Christ, who was brought from feeding his sheep to the feeding
of the people of God, as in Ps. 77:70, 71, 72. Our version reads reget,
more properly, perhaps, than pascet; for they did not call Christ
ποιμένα, a shepherd, as Homer calls his kings, but ἡγέμονα (ducem). And
the word “ruling” applies better to Him than “feeding”. S. Chrysostom
and The Author blame the priests because they did not give the full
testimony of the Prophet. For there follows: “And His going forth is
from the beginning, from the days of eternity”. But they seem to have
been silent, not from malignity so much as from prudence, because the
words had nothing to do with Herod’s question of where Christ was born.
Verse 7. Then Herod privately calling the wise men
He called them privately because he was preparing a snare for Christ.
What time the star.
The time when the star appeared, that is, when it first began to be seen by them.
Verse 10. When they saw the star
They
who conclude from these words that the star had not led the Magi the
whole of their journey, because they now rejoiced at it as if rendering
them a new service, do not appear to observe that in the same way it
might be proved that it had never been seen before at all. When the Magi
were at Jerusalem it disappeared, as has been said on verse 1. But they
seem not to have understood the force of the above words, for the
Evangelist does not appear to mean that the Magi were rejoiced at the
sight of the star, which seems to have vanished before, for if he meant
this he would have said “before” and not “now”. “And behold the star
which they had seen in the east went before them, until it came and
stood where the Child was. And seeing the star they rejoiced with
exceeding great joy” (verses 9, 10). He signifies that they were glad to
see the star (as he had just said) standing over where the Child was.
They rejoiced, not because they saw the star, which they had often seen
before, but because they had found Christ, for whom they had been
seeking.
Verse 11. And when they were come into the house
A
question has arisen, from the Magi being said to have entered a house
and not the stable, as to whether or not they found Christ lying in the
manger. Almost all the Ancients say that they found Him in the inn and
worshipped Him (S. Just. Mart., Cont. Tryph.; S. Chrys., Hom. vii.; S.
Aug., Serms. i., ii., on Epiph.). His having been placed in a stable was
partly a mystery, and partly from necessity, because as all who were of
the family of David came from all parts to Bethlehem, because of the
taxing, there would not have been room in the inn (S. Luke 2:7). The
mystery was thus fulfilled.
With Mary His Mother.
That
Joseph was not mentioned was perhaps by chance: or he might not have
been in the house: or the omission of his name was by mystery, that the
Magi might not suppose him to have been the father of Christ; for the
shepherds are said to have found the Babe with Joseph and Mary (S. Luke
2:16).
They offered Him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
In
which the East abounds; yet the mystery, acknowledged with one consent
by all ancient authors, should by no means be left out of sight—that
gold is given to kings, frankincense to God, myrrh to men. It seems a
less mystery that a woman should have poured ointment on Christ, which,
however, was an Eastern custom; yet Christ said it was done to signify
His burial, of which the woman perhaps had no thought (S. Matt. 26:12).
Of this mystery we have not Christ Himself, indeed, as a witness, but
all the ancient Fathers as authorities (S. Irenæus, i. 3, 10; S.
Cyprian, Serm. de Stell. et Mag.; Origen, i., Cont. Cels.; S. Basil,
Hom. de Hum. Generat.; S. Greg. Nyss., De Nativ.; S. Cyprian, i., De
Evang.; S. Ambrose, i., De Fid.; S. Aug., Serm. i. de Epiph., and Serm.
xxxvii.; S. Jerome, Comment.; Juvencus and Sedulius in their poems).
Comments
Post a Comment