II.

_HIS RECEPTION._

MATT. ii.

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.

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 realize 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 people of Jerusalem knew 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 (ver. 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[3] 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 civilizations of the world. They had only the

scantiest opportunities of learning what was the Hope of Israel, and

how it should be 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

us 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 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 Cæsar

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.

[3] _Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_, vol. i., p. 130.