Monday of the 29th week after Pentecost

The Sadducees were a particular sect of the Jews that did not believe in the resurrection. When the Sadducees posed this problem, the Jews were uncertain, hesitant and could not really answer it, because they assumed that flesh and blood could possess the kingdom of God, that is, the perishable could possess imperishability. Along comes Truth. The misguided and misguiding Sadducees questioned him and posed that problem to the Lord. The Lord, who knew what he was saying and who wished us to believe what we did not know, gives an answer by his divine authority which we are to hold by faith. The apostle, for his part, explained it to the extent that it was granted him. We must try to understand this as fully as we can.

Then some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, came forward. There were two heresies among the Jews, one of the Pharisees and the other of the Sadducees. The Pharisees upheld the justice of traditions and observations, which they call deuterosis. Hence they were called divided by the people. The Sadducees, however, who are interpreted as just, claimed for themselves what they were not. The former believing in the resurrection of both body and soul, and confessing angels and spirits, while the latter, according to the Acts of the Apostles, denied everything.

There were two heresies among the Jews, one of the Pharisees, who boasted in the righteousness of their traditions, and hence they were called by the people, "separated;" the other of the Sadducees, whose name signified "righteous," claiming to themselves that which they were not. When the former went away, the latter came to tempt Him.

But certain ones came forward. After he confuted the faithlessness of those erring from malice, here secondly he confutes the unbelief of those erring from ignorance; and this part has two sections. In the first he confutes the error concerning the resurrection; in the second, concerning the incarnation, at the place: But he said to them. In describing the confutation of the error of the Sadducees concerning the final resurrection, he proceeds in this order: for first he sets forth the erroneous question; secondly he adjoins the truthful response, at the place: And Jesus said to them: The children of this, etc. Concerning the erroneous question, the Sadducees are introduced as denying the truth, as alleging a precept, as proposing a case, as raising a doubt, through which they were cast headlong into the aforesaid error.

First, therefore, regarding the error of the Sadducees denying the truth, he says: But some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, came forward, and consequently they were destroying the foundation of divine worship. Whence Chrysostom: "In every matter or act, the driving force of action is the hope of future reward. For he who plows, plows that he may reap; and he who fights, fights that he may conquer." And afterwards: "Take away therefore the hope of the resurrection, and the entire observance of piety is dissolved"; First Corinthians fifteen: "What shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for them? Why do we also stand in danger every hour?" The Sadducees denied the resurrection both on account of the mortality of souls, which they believed—whence the Gloss: "The Sadducees believed that souls perish with the body"—and also on account of the irreparability of bodies. And in their favor seems to be what is said in the Psalm: "His spirit shall go forth, and he shall return to his earth," etc.; likewise: "Their sepulchres shall be their houses forever"; and Job fourteen: "Man, when he shall have fallen asleep, shall not rise again until the heavens be worn away," etc. But here they do not say that there will be no resurrection, but rather that it is to be deferred until the end of judgment.

For that spirits are immortal, this is proved by their very intellect, appetite, and virtuous activity; but that bodies shall be restored, this is made manifest at once by divine justice, divine clemency, and divine power. Whence against such persons it is said in First Corinthians fifteen: "But someone will say: How do the dead rise? Or with what manner of body shall they come? Foolish one, what you sow is not quickened unless it first die. And what you sow, you sow not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, as of wheat, or of some of the rest. For God gives it a body as he wills, and to each of the seeds its proper body"; and afterwards: "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

"The Sadducees came and were saying to him, 'There is no resurrection of the dead.' " They are called Sadducees, that is "the just," because they say, "We do not serve God for the sake of reward." They do not await the resurrection, and for this reason they call themselves "the just," since they say, "We should love God without a reward."

The heresy of the Sadducees not only denies the resurrection of the dead, but also believes the soul to die with the body. Watching then to entrap our Saviour in His words, they proposed a question just at the time when they observed Him teaching His disciples concerning the resurrection; as it follows, And they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote to us, If a brother, &c.

God forbid, then, that we should expect from Christ conduct which would be unfit even to an ordinary man! The Sadducees, who said there was no resurrection, in a discussion on that subject, had proposed to the Lord a case of law touching a certain woman, who, in accordance with the legal prescription, had been married to seven brothers who had died one after the other. The question therefore was, to which husband must she be reckoned to belong in the resurrection? This, (observe, ) was the gist of the inquiry, this was the sum and substance of the dispute.

Their specious inquiry concerned the flesh, whether or not it would be subject to marriage after the resurrection; and they assumed the case of a woman who had married seven brothers, so that it was a doubtful point to which of them she should be restored. Now, let the purport both of the question and the answer be kept steadily in view, and the discussion is settled at once.

Therefore no solicitude arising from carnal jealousy will, in the day of the resurrection, even in the case of her whom they chose to represent as having been married to seven brothers successively, wound any one of her so many husbands; nor is any (husband) awaiting her to put her to confusion. The question raised by the Sadducees has yielded to the Lord's sentence.

The Sadducees, basing their speculations on a weak foundation, did not believe in the teaching of the resurrection. Assuming that after the resurrection there would be a bodily life, they naturally fell into error. Therefore, mocking the teaching of the resurrection as absurd, they invented the present senseless story.

Now the Sadducees resting upon a weak foundation, did not believe in the doctrine of the resurrection. For imagining the future life in the resurrection to be carnal, they were justly misled, and hence reviling the doctrine of the resurrection as a thing impossible they invent the story, There were seven brothers, &c.

According to the letter of the law, a woman is compelled to marry, however unwilling, in order that a brother may raise up seed to his brother who is dead. The letter therefore killeth, but the Spirit is the master of charity.

And they asked him, saying: Teacher, Moses wrote to us, if anyone's brother dies having a wife, and he is without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother. See the difference between the letter and the spirit. According to the letter, one is compelled to marry in life, so that the brother may raise up seed for the deceased; the spirit, however, is the measure of chastity.

Second, regarding the inquiry of the Sadducees alleging the precept, it is added: And they asked him, saying: Master, Moses wrote for us, that is, in authentic and just scripture, according to that of Ecclesiasticus twenty-four: "Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justices"; whence Deuteronomy thirty-one: "After Moses had written the words of this Law in a volume and completed it, he commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant, saying: Take this book and place it at the side of the ark," etc. Whatever therefore Moses wrote is authentic, and so they put forward his scripture as authoritative.

On account of which it is added: If the brother of anyone shall have died having a wife, and he shall have been without children, that his brother should take her as wife and raise up seed for his brother. This is written in Deuteronomy twenty-five: "When brothers shall have dwelt together, and one of them shall have died without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry another, but his brother shall take her and shall raise up the seed of his brother, and the firstborn son from her he shall call by the name of his brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel."

The literal reason for this was to foster charity among relatives, to restrain cupidity, to preserve fidelity, and to maintain carnal generation. According to the spiritual understanding, our brother is Christ: Song of Songs eight: "Who will give you to me as my brother, nursing at the breasts of my mother," etc.; and the Psalm: "I will declare your name to my brothers." His wife is the Church; Revelation nineteen: "The marriage of the Lamb has come, and his wife has prepared herself." He died before the multitude of the faithful, who are the children of God: John one: "He gave them the power to become children of God," etc., and this in death: John eleven: "Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not only for the nation, but that he might gather into one the children of God who were dispersed." As the brother of this one, he who bears the care of the Church takes his wife, not to beget carnal children, but spiritual ones, as Paul says, First Corinthians four: "In Christ Jesus through the Gospel I have begotten you." And he ought to call them not by his own name, but by that of the brother, because he ought to baptize them not in his own name, but in Christ's, according to that passage of First Corinthians one: "Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" But upon him who neglects to fulfill this, the penalty of unshoeing ought to be imposed, according to that passage of Deuteronomy twenty-five: "If he shall answer: 'I do not wish to take her as wife,' the woman shall approach him before the elders of the people and shall remove the shoe from his foot and shall spit in his face and shall say: 'Thus shall it be done to the man who does not build up the house of his brother'"; because from him who does not wish to raise up the seed of Christ, the authority of preaching ought to be taken away, which is understood through the removal of the shoe, according to that passage of Ephesians six: "Having your feet shod in the preparation of the Gospel of peace." On account of which, Deuteronomy twenty-three: "A eunuch, with crushed or cut off testicles, shall not enter the Church of the Lord." On the contrary, it is said of holy men in Ecclesiasticus forty-four: "With their seed good things remain, a holy inheritance their descendants."

Mystically, this woman is the synagogue, which had seven husbands, as it is said to the Samaritan, Thou hadst five husbands, (John 4:18.) because the Samaritan follows only the five books of Moses, the synagogue for the most part seven. And from none of them has she received the seed of an hereditary offspring, and so can have no part with her husbands in the resurrection, because she perverts the spiritual meaning of the precept into a carnal. For not any carnal brother is pointed at, who should raise seed to his deceased brother, but that brother who from the dead people of the Jews should claim unto himself for wife the wisdom of the divine worship, and from it should raise up seed in the Apostles, who being left as it were unformed in the womb of the synagogue, have according to the election of grace been thought worthy to be preserved by the admixture of a new seed.

Therefore, there were seven brothers, and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her, and he too died without children. And the third took her. Similarly, all seven, and they left no seed, and died. Last of all, the woman also died. Those who did not believe in the resurrection of bodies, judging that the soul perishes with the bodies, rightly fabricate such a story, which accuses as madness those who assert the resurrection of the dead. However, it is possible that this truly happened at some time among their people.

They devise this story in order to convict those of folly, who assert the resurrection of the dead. Hence they object a base fable, that they may deny the truth of the resurrection.

Or these seven brothers answer to the reprobate, who throughout the whole life of the world, which revolves in seven days, are fruitless in good works, and these being carried away by death one after another, at length the course of the evil world, as the barren woman, itself also passes away.

Third, regarding the allegation of those introducing the case, it is added: Therefore there were seven brothers, and the first took a wife and died without children. And the next took her, and he himself died without a son. And the third took her. Likewise also all seven, and they did not leave seed and died. Last of all the woman also died. It could be that they fabricated this as something possible: whence the Gloss: "Those who do not believe in the resurrection of bodies and think that souls perish with the body fabricate the baseness of a fable." The Jews are accustomed to occupy themselves with such fables: on account of which First Timothy 1: "I urged you to remain at Ephesus, that you might charge certain persons not to teach otherwise nor to attend to fables and interminable genealogies, which furnish questions rather than edification." Or it could be that this happened literally and is introduced here according to the spirit of divine ordinance on account of the figure. For spiritually, by these seven who died without children, is understood the universality of the reprobate, who left no fruit: whence the Gloss: "These seven are all the reprobate, who throughout this whole life, which consists of seven days, are barren of good work." These can be understood through the seven husbands of Sarah, of whom it is said in Tobit 3 that they were killed by a demon named Asmodeus: because in Wisdom 3 it is said: "The seed from an unlawful bed shall be exterminated."

Or by the seven husbands are understood the seven capital vices, which the soul serves, concerning which Luke 11: "He takes along seven spirits more wicked than himself."

Or the five senses and the twofold consideration of reason, which are understood through the woman with seven husbands: of whom it is said in John 4: "Call your husband." For he who subjects himself to the senses of the flesh bears no fruit: Job 24: "He fed the barren woman who does not bear, and did no good to the widow"; because, as is said in Galatians 6, "he who sows in the flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption"; and First John 2: "The world passes away and its concupiscence."

In the resurrection, therefore, of which of them will she be the wife? For the seven had her as wife. They oppose with the disgrace of the story, so that they may deny the truth of the resurrection. But mystically, these seven brothers who died without children correspond to the reprobate of all kinds, who, throughout the entirety of this life's span, which revolves in seven days, are barren of good works. When these are individually swept away by miserable death, ultimately even the worldly way of life itself, which they led without vital work, will pass away like an unfruitful wife.

Fourth, regarding the cavil of the Sadducees posing the doubt, it is added: In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of them shall she be? Since indeed seven had her as wife, as if they were saying: she belongs no more to one than to another; therefore either all will have her, or none. If therefore both are unfitting, it is against the Law to posit the resurrection.

From which it appears that they erred concerning the resurrection on account of a carnal understanding of spiritual Scripture and spiritual glory; whence carnal understanding kills, while it corrupts spiritual Scriptures; on account of which, Second Corinthians 3: "The letter kills, but the spirit gives life." Therefore John 6: "The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life"; on account of which, First Corinthians 15: "But this I say, that flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God, neither shall corruption possess incorruption," that is, those who think carnally. And such were these Sadducees, who, not understanding the nobility of the rational spirit nor the meaning of spiritual Scripture nor the power of almighty God, did not believe the resurrection was to come. Therefore it is said in Matthew 22: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God."

For the question submitted to Christ had nothing to do with the god, but only with the state, of that world. It was: "Whose wife should this woman be in that world after the resurrection? " They thus subvert His answer respecting the essential question of marriage, and apply His words, "The children of this world marry and are given in marriage," as if they referred to the Creator's men, and His permission to them to marry; whilst they themselves whom the god of that world-that is, the rival god-accounted worthy of the resurrection, do not marry even here, because they are not children of this world.

But some of the scribes answering said: "Master, you have spoken well." And they dared not ask him anything further. The chief priests, Sadducees, and scribes seeking a cause for calumny, and to find a word that could be ensnared, since they were confounded in their speeches, asked no more, but openly handed him over to the Roman authority. From this, we understand that the poison of envy can indeed be overcome, but it is difficult to rest.

And since they had been defeated in argument, they ask Him no further questions, but seize Him, and deliver Him up to the Roman power. From which we may learn, that the poison of envy may indeed be subdued, but it is a hard thing to keep it at rest.

Fourth, with respect to the commendation of the confirmation, he adds: And certain of the scribes answering said to him: Master, thou hast spoken well. The scribes commended this because they were of the sect of the Pharisees, who say that there is a resurrection. Whence in Matthew twenty-two it is said that "the Pharisees, seeing that he had silenced the Sadducees, came together in one," because on this account they applauded him. For concerning this there was contention between the Sadducees and the Pharisees: whence in Acts twenty-three, "Paul, knowing that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, cried out in the council: Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am judged. And when he had said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection of the dead, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees confess both."

They, indeed, who had caught the very force of His voice, and pronunciation, and expression, discovered no other sense than what had reference to the matter of the question. Accordingly, the Scribes exclaimed, "Master, Thou hast well said." For He had affirmed the resurrection, by describing the form thereof in opposition to the opinion of the Sadducees.

When the Sadducees were thus put to shame, the scribes, pleased with the victory over them, approved of Jesus as their adversary.

But when the Sadducees were silenced, the Scribes commend Jesus, for they were opposed to them, saying to Him, Master, thou hast well said.

Since therefore he had confounded both parties, both were silent: whence it is added: And they dared not ask him any more questions: from which it is apparent that they were asking not out of eagerness to learn, but to conquer and overcome. Whence the Gloss says: "Refuted in arguments, they no longer ask questions, but openly seize him and hand him over to the Roman power. From this we understand that the poisons of envy can be overcome, but they can scarcely be quieted." Therefore they did not dare to question him, because they saw that he had something divine in himself, with whom it is not safe to dispute: Job nine: "How great am I that I should answer him and speak with him in my own words? Who, even if I had anything just, would not answer, but would entreat my judge." Therefore in them was verified that word of the Psalm: "They failed in their searching with scrutiny"; and therefore: "Man shall approach to a deep heart, and God shall be exalted."

(Serm. 218. App.) Hear the sacrament of a great mystery. Moses before had shut up the light of day from the traitors the Egyptians; Christ by going down thither brought back light to them that sate in darkness. He fled that he might enlighten them, not that he might escape his foes.

The miserable tyrant supposed that by the Saviour's coming he should be thrust from his royal throne. But it was not so; Christ came not to hurt others' dignity, but to bestow His own on others.

(Hom. in. Nat. Innocent.) The flight into Egypt signifies that the elect are often by the wickedness of the bad driven from their homes, or sentenced to banishment. Thus He, who, we shall see below, gave the command to His own, When they shall persecute you in one city, flee ye to another, first practised what He enjoined, as a man flying before the face of man on earth. He whom but a little before a star had proclaimed to the Magi to be worshipped as from heaven.

The first time when he would teach Joseph that she was lawfully espoused, the Angel called the Virgin his espoused wife; but after the birth she is only spoken of as the Mother of Jesus. As wedlock was rightfully imputed to her in her virginity, so virginity is esteemed venerable in her as the mother of Jesus.

(Vers. 13, 14.) Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying: Rise and take the child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. For it will come to pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy him. So Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt; and he stayed there until the death of Herod. When he takes the child and his mother to go to Egypt, he takes them by night and in darkness; but when he returns to Judea, neither night nor darkness are mentioned in the Gospel.

When he takes the Child and His mother to go into Egypt, it is in the night and darkness, when to return into Judæa, the Gospel speaks of no light, no darkness.

"And when they were departed, behold, an angel appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and flee into Egypt."

There is something here worth inquiring into, both touching the magi, and touching the Child; for if even they were not troubled, but received all with faith, it is worthy of examination on our part, why they and the young Child are not preserved, continuing there, but they as fugitives go into Persia, He with His mother into Egypt. But what? should He have fallen into the hands of Herod, and having fallen, not have been cut off? Nay, He would not have been thought to have taken flesh upon Him; the greatness of the Economy would not have been believed.

For if, while these things are taking place, and many circumstances are being ordered mysteriously after the manner of men, some have dared to say that His assumption of our flesh is a fable; in what degree of impiety would they not have been wrecked, had He done all in a manner becoming His Godhead, and according to His own power?

As to the wise men, He sends them off quickly, at once both commissioning them as teachers to the land of the Persians, and at the same time intercepting the madness of the king, that he might learn that he was attempting things impossible, and might quench his wrath, and desist from this his vain labor. For not alone openly to subdue His enemies, but also to deceive them with ease, is worthy of His power.

And besides what I have said, there is another lesson also, which we are hereby taught, tending not slightly to true self-command in us. Of what kind then is it? To look from the beginning for temptations and plots. See, for instance, how this was the case even at once from His swaddling clothes. Thus you see at His birth, first a tyrant raging, then flight ensuing, and departure beyond the border; and for no crime His mother is exiled into the land of the barbarians: that thou, hearing these things (supposing thee thought worthy to minister to any spiritual matter, and then to see thyself suffering incurable ills, and enduring countless dangers), shouldest not be greatly troubled, nor say, "What can this be? yet surely I ought to be crowned and celebrated, and be glorious and illustrious for fulfilling the Lord's commandment:" but that having this example, thou mightest bear all things nobly, knowing that this especially is the order of all things spiritual, to have everywhere temptations in the same lot with them.

Now the angel having thus appeared, talks not with Mary, but with Joseph; and what saith he? "Arise, and take the young Child and His mother." Here, he saith not any more, "thy wife," but "His mother." For after that the birth had taken place, and the suspicion was done away, and the husband appeased, thenceforth the angel talks openly, calling neither child nor wife his, but "take the young Child and His mother, and flee into Egypt;" and he mentions the cause of the flight: "For Herod," saith he, "will seek the young Child's life."

Joseph, when he had heard these things, was not offended, neither did he say, "The thing is hard to understand: Didst thou not say just now, that He should 'save His people?' and now He saves not even Himself: but we must fly, and go far from home, and be a long time away: the facts are contrary to the promise." Nay, none of these things doth he say (for the man was faithful): neither is he curious about the time of his return; and this though the angel had put it indefinitely thus: "Be thou there until I tell thee." But nevertheless, not even at this did he shudder, but submits and obeys, undergoing all the trials with joy.

And this because God, who is full of love to man, did with these hardships mingle things pleasant also; which indeed is His way with regard to all the saints, making neither their dangers nor their refreshment continual, but weaving the life of all righteous men, out of both the one and the other. This very thing He did here also: for consider, Joseph saw the Virgin with child; this cast him into agitation and the utmost trouble, for he was suspecting the damsel of adultery. But straightway the angel was at hand to do away his suspicion, and remove his fears; and seeing the young child born, he reaped the greatest joy. Again, this joy no trifling danger succeeds, the city being troubled, and the king in his madness seeking after Him that was born. But this trouble was again succeeded by another joy; the star, and the adoration of the wise men. Again, after this pleasure, fear and danger; "For Herod," saith he, "is seeking the young Child's life," and He must needs fly and withdraw Himself as any mortal might: the working of miracles not being seasonable as yet. For if from His earliest infancy He had shown forth wonders, He would not have been accounted a Man.

Because of this, let me add, neither is a temple framed at once; but a regular conception takes place, and a time of nine months, and pangs, and a delivery, and giving suck, and silence for so long a space, and He awaits the age proper to manhood; that by all means acceptance might be won for the mystery of His Economy.

Rather, however, both the people and the patriarch, going down thither, and coming up thence, were together completing the type of this His return. Thus, as they went down to avoid death by famine, so He death by conspiracy. But whereas they on their arrival were for the time delivered from the famine, this man, when He had gone down, sanctified the whole land, by setting His foot thereon.

At least it is observable how, in the midst of His humiliations, the tokens of His Godhead are disclosed. Thus, first of all, the angel saying, "Flee into Egypt," did not promise to journey with them, either in their descent or return; intimating that they have a great fellow-traveller, the Child that had been born; such an one as actually changed all things immediately on His appearing, and wrought so that His enemies should minister in many ways to this Economy. Thus magi and barbarians, leaving the superstition of their fathers, are come to worship: thus Augustus ministers to the birth at Bethlehem by the decree for the taxing; Egypt receives and preserves Him, driven from His home, and plotted against, and obtains a sort of first impulse towards her union unto Him; so that when in after-time she should hear Him preached by the apostles, she might have this at least to glory of, as having received Him first. And yet this privilege did belong unto Palestine alone; but the second proved more fervent than the first.

His flight then was not occasioned by fear but by what had come through the mystery of prophecy. The Evangelist planted the seed when he thus spoke: "Take the boy and his mother and flee into Egypt." And later, "that what was written might be fulfilled: 'From Egypt have I summoned my son.' " Christ fled so that he might establish the truth of the law, faith in prophecy and the testimony of the psalter. The Lord himself says, "It was needful that what was written in the law and the prophets and the psalms be fulfilled by me." Christ fled for us, not for himself. Christ fled so that at the right time he might serve as a steward of the sacraments [the divine mysteries]. Christ fled so that by granting absolution he might take away the source of abuses to come and that he might give proof of faith to those who would believe. And finally, Christ fled so that he might bestow on us faith even when we have to flee, because in the face of persecution it is better to flee than to deny the faith. For Peter, because he was unwilling to flee, denied the Lord. John, lest he deny the Lord, fled.

Was it Herod seeking the child, or the devil working through Herod? When Herod saw the magi for himself, he imagined in his fantasy that they had fled their governors. For Christ, though bound in swaddling clothes, though busy at his mother's breast, though keeping quiet, concealing his words, unable to walk, nevertheless transformed the magi (who had been standard-bearers of the devil) into his most faithful servants. The devil instantly realized what Christ could do when he came of age. So he spurred the Jews against him and, clever contriver that he was, impelled Herod that he might get the jump on Christ in his infancy. He hoped to deprive him of the coming emblem of his virtue, the cross, the banner of the greatest victory for us. The devil perceived that Christ would soon be restoring life to all the world with his teaching and his virtue. Even while still whimpering as a baby, Jesus was taking possession of this world from top to bottom. It was as the prophet said: "Before the child knows to cry to his father and mother he shall take the pride of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria." The Jews themselves attest to this when they say, "You see how the whole world hastens after him."

He says not, 'the Mother and her young Child,' but, the young Child and His mother; for the Child was not born for the mother, but the mother prepared for the Child. How is this that the Son of God flies from the face of man? or who shall deliver from the enemy's hand, if He Himself fears His enemies? First; He ought to observe, even in this, the law of that human nature which He took on Him; and human nature and infancy must flee before threatening power. Next, that Christians when persecution makes it necessary should not be ashamed to fly.

Here Matthew omits the day of purification when the first-born must be presented in the Temple with a lamb, or a pair of turtle doves, or pigeons. Their fear of Herod did not make them bold to transgress the Law, that they should not present the Child in the temple. As soon then as the rumour concerning the Child begins to be spread abroad, the Angel is sent to bid Joseph carry Him into Egypt.

For when the true light withdraws, they who hate the light are in darkness, when it returns they are again enlightened.

By this that the Angel appears always to Joseph in sleep, is mystically signified that they who rest from mundane cares and secular pursuits, deserve angelic visitations.

In Joseph is figured the order of preachers, in Mary Holy Scripture; by the Child the knowledge of the Saviour; by the cruelty of Herod the persecution which the Church suffered in Jerusalem; by Joseph's flight into Egypt the passing of the preachers to the unbelieving Gentiles, (for Egypt signifies darkness;) by the time that he abode in Egypt the space of time between the ascension of the Lord and the coming of Anti Christ; by Herod's death the extinction of jealousy in the hearts of the Jews.

And when they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother. Do you see now the reason why God permitted the Virgin to be betrothed? It is revealed to you here: that Joseph might care for her and watch over her. The angel did not say, "take thy wife," but "take the mother of the Child." For once his suspicion had been allayed, and the righteous man had understood from the miracles attendant at His birth that everything was of the Holy Spirit, the angel no longer calls her Joseph's "wife." And flee into Egypt. Even the Lord flees, to confirm that He was truly man. For if He had fallen into the hands of Herod and had not been slain, it would have seemed that He had been made flesh only in appearance. He flees into Egypt to sanctify even that place. For there were two lands that were the workshops of every iniquity: Babylon and Egypt. By means of the Magi He accepted the adoration of Babylon, and Egypt He sanctified by His own presence. And be thou there until I bring thee word. Remain there until you receive God's command. So we, too, should do nothing apart from the will of God. For Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him. Behold the foolishness of a man who labors to prevail against the will of God. For if it is not of God, what do you fear? But if it is of God, how can you destroy the Child?

Having showed how the Magi bore witness to the newborn Christ, the evangelist now shows how the Innocents gave testimony, not by speaking but by dying. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows how Christ was concealed; secondly, the murder of the children (v. 16); thirdly, Christ's return (v. 19).

In regard to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the angel's warning; secondly, Joseph's obedience (v. 14); thirdly, the fulfillment of a prophecy (v. 15).

In regard to the first, three things are mentioned: first, the time of the appearance; secondly, the appearance itself and the manner of the appearance (v. 13b); thirdly, the warning given by the angel (v. 13c).

(13) The time is described at When they had departed. And it should be noted that the appearance did not occur immediately after the departure of the Magi, because everything mentioned in Luke (2:22), namely, the purification, should be interposed: "And when the time came for their purification..." For the thought of killing the child did not come to Herod right away. Hence, when he says Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph..., he is said to have appeared in sleep, because that is when men cease their external activities, and a revelation can be made by angels: "In peace I will both lie down and sleep" (Ps 4:8); "When you lie down, your sleep will be sweet" (Pr 3:24).

In the warning the angel does two things: first, the angel persuades him to flee; secondly, he gives the reason. He says, therefore Rise. And note that, as Hilary says, the Blessed Virgin is called "wife" by the angel before the birth (Mt 1:5) but not after for two reasons: first to commend the Virgin, for as a virgin she gave birth. Secondly, on account of her dignity, for she was the mother of God, than which there is no greater dignity. Also because, as Chrysostom says, the child had not come on account of the mother, but rather conversely. Therefore, he says Take the child and its mother. But why flee into Egypt? Does it not say in Ps 18 (v. 3): "The Lord is my helper and my redeemer." But he fled for three reasons: first, to manifest his humanity; for as the divinity appeared in the star, so in flight the humanity: "Made in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7). Secondly, as an example: "When they persecute you in one city, flee into another" (Mt 10:23). Thirdly, on account of the mystery; for just as he willed to die in order to call us back from death, so he willed to flee in order to call back those who flee from his face through sin: "Where shall I flee from your spirit?" (Ps 139:7).

And remain there. But why to Egypt rather than some other region? For two reasons: first, because it is distinctive of God to be mindful of mercy in his anger (Hab 3:2). For the Lord had been angry at the Egyptians pursuing the sons of Israel, because the sons of Israel were God's firstborn. Therefore, the Egyptians were granted the privilege of serving the Lord: "Behold, the Lord, riding on a swift cloud, comes to Egypt" (Is 19:1); "We have seen his glory, the glory, as it were, of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (Jn 1:14). Secondly, because he had brought forth darkness in Egypt, he willed to enlighten it first. Therefore, it was well that he fled there: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, on them has light shined" (Is 9:2).

Note that when anyone wills to flee sin, the first thing to do is shake off laziness: "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead and Christ shall enlighten you" (Eph 5:14). Secondly, he should take trust from the mother and from the Son, namely, Christ: "In me all hope of life and virtue" (Sir 24:18). Thirdly, he ought to flee from sin with the help of the mother and child: "Yes, I have wandered far, I have lodged in the wilderness" (Ps 55:7).

He adds the cause of the flight. For Herod is about to search for the child to destroy him. Herod was deceived, because he wanted to destroy the one who would come to share his kingdom: "As my father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint one for you" (Lk 22:29); secondly, because he wanted to destroy him who sought no worldly glory: "Who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross" (Heb 12:2).

Egypt full of idols; for after this enquiry for Him among the Jews, Christ leaving Judæa goes to be cherished among nations given to the vainest superstitions.

Christ promised that he would come incarnate, that he would go through the phases of life, that he would announce the glory of the kingdom of heaven, that he would proclaim the way of faith and that by the power of his word alone he would put demons to flight. He promised that he would give sight to the blind, gait to the lame, speech to the mute, hearing to the deaf, remission for sinners and life to the dead. All these things he promised through the law and the prophets. Thus it was that Christ, when he was to become a man, was not to flee the death he escaped as an infant.

But why into Egypt? The Lord, who keepeth not His anger for ever, remembered the woes He had brought upon Egypt, and therefore sent His Son thither, and gives it this sign of great reconciliation, that with this one remedy He might heal the ten plagues of Egypt, and the nation that had been the persecutor of this first-born people, might be the guardian of His first-born Son. As formerly they had cruelly tyrannized, now they might devoutly serve; nor go to the Red Sea to be drowned, but be called to the waters of baptism to receive life.

The straitness of every persecution may be called night—the relief from it in like manner, day.

And he arose and took the young Child and His mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt have I called My Son" (Hosea 11:1).

The Jews say that this was said of the people whom Moses led out of Egypt. We reply, is it anything remarkable that something which was spoken of the people in type as a foreshadowing, was realized by Christ in truth? Furthermore, who is the Son of God? The Hebrew people who worshipped the idols and carvings of Beelphegor, or He Who truly is the Son of God?

(14) And he rose. Here is mentioned the execution of the angel's command both as to the flight and the length of the stay. He rose and took the child and his mother. The time is mentioned, when he says at night, on account of the fear and distress: "My soul desired you at night," i.e., in distress (Is 26:9); for in times of distress one must have recourse to God: "In the morning, they will come to me in their trouble" (Hos 10:1). He rose. Then was fulfilled the word of Is (19:1): "Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt," which was fulfilled to the letter.

Joseph therefore was commanded to accept this boy about whom Isaiah had said, "For a boy has been born to you; a son has been given to you, whose rule has extended over his shoulders." Now he said "a son has been given to you" because Christ the Lord was born as a boy and was counted a son of Joseph and Mary. As to his going down into Egypt, Isaiah predicted this long before the fact when he said, "Behold, the Lord sits atop a swift cloud and will come into Egypt." By this statement the promise of the Lord's incarnation was clearly revealed. Since the Lord himself is invoked as "arising from on high, the sunlight of justice," it is right that he would come on a swift cloud. By this Isaiah means he would come in a hallowed body, a body weighed down by no sin and through which he covered the light of his own majesty with the envelope of the cloud of his body. Hosea as well points to this very fact when he says, "The king of Israel has been thrown down. Because Israel was small, I took delight in him. And I called my son from Egypt."19After Egypt's ancient, grave sin, after many blows had been divinely inflicted upon it, God the omnipotent Father, moved by devotion, sent his Son into Egypt. He did so that Egypt, which had long ago paid back the penalty of wickedness owed under Moses, might now receive Christ, the hope for salvation. How great was God's compassion as shown in the advent of his Son! Egypt, which of old under Pharaoh stood stubborn against God, now became a witness to and home for Christ. God's compassion toward Egypt was like that shown toward the magi, who deserved to know Christ the Lord. For, although the magi had for a long time dared resist the divine goodness under Moses, they now, having seen but a single star in heaven, believed in the Son of God. The cavalier magicians were handed over to punishment for their lack of faith. Others were brought to glory through faith, since they believed that God had been born in the flesh—God whom the Egyptian magicians were unwilling to recognize in all his divine excellence.

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son," and "for he shall be called a Nazarene."

(Verse 15, 16.) So that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: Out of Egypt I called my son. Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Let those who deny the truth of the Hebrew scriptures answer where this is read in the Septuagint translators. But since they did not find it, we will tell them it is written in the prophet Hosea (Chapter 11), as they can also confirm with the copies we recently published. However, we can reconcile (or console) this passage differently for the contentious, whose behavior the Apostle Paul denies having. And we present the testimony from Numbers, with Balaam saying: God has called him out of Egypt; His glory is like a unicorn (Numbers 23:22).

(Epist. 57.7.) This is not in the LXX; but in Osee according to the genuine Hebrew text we read; Israel is my child, and I have loved him, and, from Egypt have I called my Son; where the LXX render, Israel is my child, and I have loved him, and called my sons out of Egypt.

(In Osee 11:2.) The Evangelist cites this text, because it refers to Christ typically. For it is to be observed, that in this Prophet and in others, the coming of Christ and the call of the Gentiles are foreshewn in such a manner, that the thread of history is never broken.

Let those who deny the authenticity of the Hebrew copies, show us this passage in the LXX, and when they have failed to find it, we will show it them in the Hebrew. We may also explain it in another way, by considering it as quoted from Numbers, God brought him out of Egypt; his glory is as it were that of a unicorn. (Num. 23:22.)

But wherefore, it may be said, is the young Child sent into Egypt? In the first place, the evangelist himself hath mentioned the cause, saying, "That it might be fulfilled, Out of Egypt have I called my Son." And at the same time beginnings of fair hopes were thenceforth proclaimed before to the world. That is, since Babylon and Egypt, most in the whole earth, were burnt up with the flame of ungodliness, He, signifying from the first that He means to correct and amend both, and inducing men hereby to expect His bounties in regard of the whole world likewise, sent to the one the wise men, the other He Himself visited with His mother.

And if the Jews should raise a question touching the prophecy, and say, that the words, "Out of Egypt have I called my Son," were uttered concerning themselves; we would tell them, This is a law of prophecy, that in many cases much that is spoken of one set of persons is fulfilled in another; of which kind is that which is said touching Simeon and Levi, "I will divide them," saith He, "in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel." And yet not in themselves did this come to pass, but in their descendants; and Noah's saying again about Canaan, came to pass in the Gibeonites, Canaan's descendants. And that concerning Jacob one may see to have so come to pass; for those blessings which say, "Be lord over thy brother, and let thy father's sons worship thee," had no accomplishment in himself (how could they, he being in fear and trembling, and worshipping his brother over and over again?), but in his offspring they had. The very same may be said in this case also. For which may be called the truer son of God, he that worships a calf, and is joined to Baalpeor and sacrifices his sons to devils? or He that is a Son by nature, and honors Him that begat Him? So that, except this man had come, the prophecy would not have received its due fulfillment. It is worth observing, too, that the evangelist intimates the same by the phrase, "that it might be fulfilled;" implying that it would not have been fulfilled, unless He had come.

And this makes the Virgin also in no common degree glorious and distinguished; that the very thing which was the whole people's supreme endowment in the way of praise, she also might thenceforth have for her own. I mean, that whereas they were proud of their coming up from Egypt, and used to boast of it (which indeed the prophet also was hinting at, when he said, "Have I not brought up the strangers from Cappadocia, and the Assyrians from the pit"), He makes this pre-eminence belong to the Virgin likewise.

Isaiah had foretold this flight into Egypt. Lo! the Lord shall ascend on a light cloud, and shall come into Egypt, and shall scatter the idols of Egypt. (Is. 19:1.) It is the practice of this Evangelist to confirm all he says; and that because he is writing to the Jews, therefore he adds, that it might be fulfilled, &c.

(15) And remained there. It is said that he was there seven years and lived in the city of Heliopolis. In regard to the mystery, by Joseph is signified preachers, i.e., the apostles, whose task is to replace the darkness with doctrine—they left the Jews and turned to the gentiles: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the gentiles" (Acts 13:46).

And remain there till I tell you, i.e. until the unbelief of the Jews is ended: "Blindness has come upon part of Israel" (Rom 11:25). Then he applies the testimony of the prophet; hence he says, This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son." The Septuagint is not the same, for it says: "Out of Egypt I have called his son."

There seems to be a question here, because this text does not appear to apply, in as much as it is preceded by the words: "When Israel was a child, I loved him"; hence, it seems to speak of Israel's call from Egypt. But it must be noted that in all the texts presented in the Old or New Testaments about Christ a certain distinction must be made: because some refer specifically to Christ, as Is (53:7): "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter"; but some are said of certain ones accordingly as they are a figure of Christ, such as the text in question. For they were called sons of Israel, because they possessed a likeness to the true only-begotten Son. And this is the meaning of "Out of Egypt I have called my son," i.e., special.

(non occ.) And while he thus persecutes Christ, he furnished an army (of martyrs) clothed in white robes of the same age as the Lord.

(Serm. 220. App.) Behold how this unrighteous enemy never could have so much profited these infants by his love, as he did by his hate; for as much as iniquity abounded against them, so much did the grace of blessing abound on them.

(Serm. 373. 3.) O blessed infants! He only will doubt of your crown in this your passion for Christ, who doubts that the baptism of Christ has a benefit for infants. He who at His birth had Angels to proclaim Him, the heavens to testify, and Magi to worship Him, could surely have prevented that these should not have died for Him, had He not known that they died not in that death, but rather lived in higher bliss. Far be the thought, that Christ who came to set men free, did nothing to reward those who died in His behalf, when hanging on the cross He prayed for those who put Him to death.

(Serm. 132. App.) The Magi had seen this unknown star in the heavens, not a few days, but two years before, as they had informed Herod when he enquired. This caused him to fix two years old and under; as it follows, according to the time he had enquired of the Magi.

(Gloss. ord.) Or because he feared that the Child to whom even stars ministered, might transform His appearance to greater or under that of His own age, or might conceal all those of that age: hence it seems to be that he slew all from one day to two years old.

(de Cons. Ev. ii. 11.) Or, disturbed by pressure of still more imminent dangers, Herod's thoughts are drawn to other thoughts than the slaughter of children, he might suppose that the Magi, unable to find Him whom they had supposed born, were ashamed to return to him. So the days of purification being accomplished, they might go up in safety to Jerusalem. And who does not see that that one day they may have escaped the attention of a King occupied with so many cares, and that afterwards when the things done in the Temple came to be spread abroad, then Herod discovered that he had been deceived by the Magi, and then sent and slew the children.

(Hom. in Nat. Innocent.) In this death of the children the precious death of all Christ's martyrs is figured; that they were infants signifies, that by the merit of humility alone can we come to the glory of martyrdom; that they were slain in Bethlehem and the coasts thereof, that the persecution shall be both in Jerusalem whence the Church originated, and throughout the world; in those of two years old are figured the perfect in doctrine and works; those under that age the neophytes; that they were slain while Christ escaped, signifies that the bodies of the martyrs may be destroyed by the wicked, but that Christ cannot be taken from them.

For Herod, as we have said, in his desire to destroy the Savior of the world, sent word to Bethlehem and commanded that all children two years of age and under be killed, figuring the age according to the time that he had learned from the magi. He thought that his edict would reach even to the Lord himself, the source of life. The Holy Spirit had already foreseen his wickedness beforehand. Solomon, speaking for the church, had said, "Who will give to you my brother, the one who nurses at the breast of his mother?" Moreover, by saying, "Who will give to you?" he was demonstrating that Herod would have no power over him who is the Lord and Prince of all powers. Thus the Lord spoke rightly when he bore witness about himself through the same Solomon: "Evil men will seek and not find me. For they hate wisdom and moreover have not partaken of the Word of God and have had no desire for it." The Spirit also said through David: "Since you are the one who gave birth to me, you are my hope, my mother, from the time I nursed at your breast … you are my protector." The blessed Moses also relates that Christ the Lord, an infant, could not have been killed while still nursing. He gave witness to this with his words, "You will not cook a lamb in the milk of its own mother." In this exact statement Moses revealed the expectation that Christ our Lord would be the true Lamb of God who was to suffer at the appointed time.

In Bethlehem therefore all the babies were slain. These innocents who died then on Christ's behalf became the first martyrs of Christ. David refers to them when he says, "From the mouths of nursing babies you have perfected praise because of your enemies, that you might bring ruin to the enemy." … For in this persecution even tiny infants and nursing babies were killed on Christ's behalf and attained to the consummate praise of martyrs. Meanwhile the wicked king Herod was destroyed, he who had usurped the realm to defend himself against the king of the heavens. Thus it is that those blessed babes have deservedly lasted beyond others. They were the first who were worthy to die on Christ's behalf.

"Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth."

Yet surely it was a case not for anger, but for fear and awe: he ought to have perceived that he was attempting impossible things. But he is not refrained. For when a soul is insensible and incurable, it yields to none of the medicines given by God. See for example this man following up his former efforts, and adding many murders to one, and hurried down the steep any whither. For driven wild by this anger, and envy, as by some demon, he takes account of nothing, but rages even against nature herself, and his anger against the wise men who had mocked him he vents upon the children that had done no wrong: venturing then in Palestine upon a deed akin to the things that had been done in Egypt. For he "sent forth," it is said, "and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men."

Here attend to me carefully. Because many things are uttered by many very idly touching these children, and the course of events is charged with injustice, and some of these express their perplexity about it in a more moderate way, others with more of audaciousness and frenzy. In order then that we may free these of their madness and those of their perplexity, suffer us to discourse a little upon this topic. Plainly, then, if this be their charge, that the children were left to be slain, they should find fault likewise with the slaughter of the soldiers that kept Peter. For as here, when the young child had fled, other children are massacred in the place of Him who was sought; even so then, too, Peter having been delivered from his prison and chains by the angel, one of like name with this tyrant, and like temper too, when he had sought him, and found him not, slew instead of him the soldiers that kept him.

"But what is this? it may be said; "why this is not a solution, but an enhancement of our difficulty." I know it too, and for this intent I bring forward all such cases, that to all I may adduce one and the same solution. What then is the solution of these things? or what fair account of them can we give? That Christ was not the cause of their slaughter, but the king's cruelty; as indeed neither was Peter to those others, but the madness of Herod. For if he had seen the wall broken through, or the doors overthrown, he might, perhaps, have had ground to accuse the soldiers that kept the apostle, of neglect; but now when all things continued in due form, and the doors were thrown wide open, and the chains fastened to the hands of them that kept him (for in fact they were bound unto him), he might have inferred from these things (that is, if he had been strictly doing a judge's office on the matters before him), that the event was not of human power or craft, but of some divine and wonder-working power; he might have adored the doer of these things, instead of waging war with the sentinels. For God had so done all that He did, that so far from exposing the keepers, He was by their means leading the king unto the truth. But if he proved senseless, what signifies to the skillful Physician of Souls, managing all things to do good, the insubordination of him that is diseased?

Wherefore art thou wroth, O Herod, at being mocked of the wise men? didst thou not know that the birth was divine? didst thou not summon the chief priests? didst thou not gather together the scribes? did not they, being called, bring the prophet also with them into thy court of judgment, proclaiming these things beforehand from of old? Didst thou not see how the old things agreed with the new? Didst thou not hear that a star also ministered to these men? Didst thou not reverence the zeal of the barbarians? Didst thou not marvel at their boldness? Wast thou not horror-struck at the truth of the prophet? Didst thou not from the former things perceive the very last also? Wherefore didst thou not reason with thyself from all these things, that this event was not of the craft of the wise men, but of a Divine Power, duly dispensing all things? And even if thou wert deceived by the wise men, what is that to the young children, who have done no wrong?

"Yea," saith one, "Herod thou hast full well deprived of excuse, and proved him blood-thirsty; but thou hast not yet solved the question about the injustice of what took place. For if he did unjustly, wherefore did God permit it?" Now, what should we say to this? That which I do not cease to say continually, in church, in the market-place and everywhere; that which I also wish you carefully to keep in mind, for it is a sort of rule for us, suited to every such perplexity. What then is our rule, and what our saying? That although there be many that injure, yet is there not so much as one that is injured. And in order that the riddle may not disturb you too much, I add the solution too with all speed. I mean, that what we may suffer unjustly from any one, it tells either to the doing away of our sins, God so putting that wrong to our account; or unto the recompense of rewards.

"But what kind of sin had these children," it may be said, "that they should do it away? for touching those who are of full age, and have been guilty of many negligences, one might with show of reason speak thus: but they who so underwent premature death, what sort of sins did they by their sufferings put away?" Didst thou not hear me say, that though there were no sins, there is a recompense of rewards hereafter for them that suffer ill here? Wherein then were the young children hurt in being slain for such a cause, and borne away speedily into that waveless harbor? "Because," sayest thou, "they would in many instances have achieved, had they lived, many and great deeds of goodness" Why, for this cause He lays up for them beforehand no small reward, the ending their lives for such a cause. Besides, if the children were to have been any great persons, He would not have suffered them to be snatched away beforehand. For if they that eventually will live in continual wickedness are endured by Him with so great long-sufferings, much more would He not have suffered these to be so taken off had He foreknown they would accomplish any great things.

And these are the reasons we have to give; yet these are not all; but there are also others more mysterious than these, which He knoweth perfectly, who Himself ordereth these things. Let us then give up unto Him the more perfect understanding of this matter, and apply ourselves to what follows, and in the calamities of others let us learn to bear all things nobly. Yea, for it was no little scene of woe, which then befell Bethlehem, the children were snatched from their mother's breast, and dragged unto this unjust slaughter.

And if thou art yet faint-hearted, and not equal to controlling thyself in these things, learn the end of him who dared all this, and recover thyself a little. For very quickly was he overtaken by punishment for these things; and he paid the due penalty of such an abominable act, ending his life by a grievous death, and more pitiable than that which he now dared inflict; suffering also countless additional ills, which ye may know of by perusing Josephus' account of these events.

Why did Christ do this? Christ is the judge of thoughts and the examiner of minds. Why did he desert those whom he knew were being sought because of himself and whom he knew would be killed for his sake? He was born a king, the king of heaven—why did he neglect the standard-bearers of his own innocence? Why did he disdain an army of the same age as himself? Why did he thus abandon those who were cut down as plunder from the same cradle as himself? Was it so that he, who would become the one king, might proceed against the forces of all his enemies? Brothers, Christ did not despise his own soldiers but promoted them and granted that they might walk in victory before they lived. He enabled them to participate in a victory without struggle. He gave to them the gift of the crown even before their bodies had grown. It was Christ's will that they pass over vice for virtue, attain heaven before earth and share in the divine life immediately. Thus it was that Christ sent his soldiers ahead. He did not abandon them. He gathered up his ranks. He did not leave them behind.

When the infant Jesus had subdued the Magi, not by the might of His flesh, but the grace of His Spirit, Herod was exceeding wrath, that they whom he sitting on his throne had no power to move, were obedient to an Infant lying in a manger. Then by their contempt of him the Magi gave further cause of wrath. For when kings' wrath is stirred by fear for their crowns, it is a great and inextinguishable wrath. But what did he? He sent and slew all the children. As a wounded beast rends whatsoever meeteth it as if the cause of its smart, so he mocked by the Magi spent his fury on children. He said to himself in his fury, 'Surely the Magi have found the Child whom they said should be King;' for a king in fear for his crown fears all things, suspects all. Then he sent and slew all those infants, that he might secure one among so many.

He is not satisfied with the massacre at Bethlehem, but extends it to the adjacent villages; sparing no age from the child of one night old, to that of two years.

In Joseph is figured the order of preachers, in Mary Holy Scripture; by the Child the knowledge of the Saviour; by the cruelty of Herod the persecution which the Church suffered in Jerusalem; by Joseph's flight into Egypt the passing of the preachers to the unbelieving Gentiles, (for Egypt signifies darkness;) by the time that he abode in Egypt the space of time between the ascension of the Lord and the coming of Anti Christ; by Herod's death the extinction of jealousy in the hearts of the Jews.

But (we hold the contrary): for Christ, by "accepting praise out of the mouth of babes and sucklings," has declared that neither childhood nor infancy is without sensibility, -the former of which states, when meeting Him with approving shouts, proved its ability to offer Him testimony; while the other, by being slaughtered, for His sake of course, knew what violence meant.

He gave orders that not only the children in Bethlehem but even those in the outlying districts of the town be killed, thinking that amid the multitude of those killed would be the one he was seeking. Herod ordered those who were two years old and under to be slaughtered. He had calculated such was the time that had passed from the incarnation of Christ, taking into account the time the magi had spent on their journey and that which he had spent on the throne. But Christ was taken out of Bethlehem once night had arrived. It is not possible that the birth of Christ be the cause of the killing of the children. But the disclosure of Herod's child-killing marked the beginning of a long string of wickedness. Even those who crucified Christ were not wicked at the time when they arrested Christ. Rather, they became wicked at the time when they undertook his murder. Yet for Christ's sake the children will receive a good reward, fitting to their martyrdom.

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the Magi, was exceedingly wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem. As God used Moses to trick Pharaoh, so, too, He used the Magi to trick Herod. For both Herod and Pharaoh were child slayers: Pharaoh slew the male children of the Hebrews in Egypt, and Herod slew the male children of the Hebrews in Bethlehem. Herod vents his wrath against the Magi upon those who had wronged him in nothing. Why were the children allowed to be slaughtered? So that Herod's wickedness might be revealed. But perhaps you will ask me, "Why did the children suffer wrong to show Herod's wickedness?" Listen then. They were not wronged but were made worthy of crowns. For anyone who suffers some evil here, suffers either so that his sins might be absolved, or so that his crowns might be multiplied. So it is with these children; for their suffering they will receive a greater crown in heaven. And in all the region thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had carefully ascertained of the Magi.

(16) Then Herod... Here he tells of the slaughter of the infants. In regard to this he does three things: first, the occasion of the slaughter is mentioned; secondly, the slaying (v. 16b); thirdly, the prophecies are quoted (v. 17).

The occasion was Herod's anger; hence Herod was in a furious rage: "Man's anger does not work the justice of God" (Jas 1:20). And it should be noted that when a king suspects the loss of his kingdom, he quickly becomes inflamed with anger.

Then Herod, seeing that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage. He is said to have been in a furious rage for two reasons: because when one is angry, he becomes furious at the slightest provocation. Hence, because he suspected the loss of his kingdom and had been tricked by the wise men, he went into a furious rage: "From a spark of fire come many burning coals" (Sir 11:32). And he sent... In that fury was cruelty in regard to three things: the place, the multitude and the time. In regard to the multitude, because to find the one he kills all. Hence it says, He sent and killed all the male children. And note that Augustine says: "He would never have benefited them as much by paying homage, as he benefited them by his hatred." But one might ask, since they did not have free will, how they are said to die for Christ? But, as it says in John (3:17): "God did not send his son into the world to judge the world, but that the world be saved by him." For God would never permit them to be killed, unless it were useful for them. Hence Augustine says that it is the same thing to doubt whether their killing profited them as to doubt whether baptism would have profited them: for they suffered as martyrs, and by dying confessed Christ, though not by speech: "I saw under the altar the souls of those slain for the word of God" (Rev 6:9). The second cruelty is that he killed in all that region, for he feared that he might flee to another city. He acted like a wounded beast, which does not care whom it injures: "Like a roaring lion or a charging bear, a wicked ruler over a poor people" (Pr 28:15). The third was in regard to time. Hence those who were two years old and under. And note that Augustine says that "the Innocents were killed in the year Christ was born."

But why does he say from two years old and under? Some say that the star appeared for two years previously. Hence, Herod was not sure that he was not born as soon as the star appeared. Hence, he says, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. But others say that they were not killed in the same year but two years later. But why did he wait so long? Three reasons are given by different persons. One is that in the beginning he thought that the Magi had been deceived and would find nothing, but after he heard many things about Christ from Zechariah and Simeon and Anna, he felt it was necessary to make inquiries. Others say that he did this out of wariness, for he feared that the parents would conceal the child he sought. Hence, at first he wished to follow them. Others say that he was prevented by his business, because he sent after the Magi as far as Tharsus of Cilicia and burned their ships. He was also occupied, because he had been summoned to Rome, where his sons had accused him. And so, after his return he began to vent his rage.

He says or under, because he knew that he had such power that he could change his features.

By that killing is signified the killing of the martyrs, because they were children in humility and innocence: "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not" (Mt 19:14); likewise below (18:3): "Unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven."

In Bethlehem and in all that region, because they are killed through the whole world: "You will be witnesses to me," namely, by dying (Acts 1:8). The two years are the two loves—of God and of neighbor, because "faith without works is dead" (Jas 2:20). And note that after Christ was born, a persecution at once rages: because as soon as one is converted to Christ, he begins to be tempted: "Son, coming to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare your soul for temptation" (Sir 2:1).

(ord.) She will not be comforted in this present life, for that they are not, but transfers all her hope and comfort to the life to come.

It could not be that they were not who seemed now dead, but by glorious martyrdom they were advanced to eternal life; and consolation is for those who have suffered loss, not for those who have reaped a gain. Rachel affords a type of the Church long barren now at length fruitful. She is heard weeping for her children, not because she mourned them dead, but because they were slaughtered by those whom she would have retained as her first-born sons.

(Vers. 17 seqq.) Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying: A voice was heard in Ramah, sobbing and loud lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be consoled, since they are no more (Jerem. XXXI, 15). From Rachel was born Benjamin, in whose tribe Bethlehem is not (Genes. XXXV). Therefore, it is asked how Rachel mourns the sons of Judah, that is, Bethlehem, as if they were her own. We will answer briefly, because she is buried near Bethlehem in Ephrath, and from the maternal womb, she received the name of the mother's lodging. Whether because Judah and Benjamin were two joined tribes, and Herod had ordered not only the killing of children in Bethlehem, but also in all its borders. By the slaughter of Bethlehem, we understand that many from Benjamin were also killed. But she wept for her children, and she did not receive consolation, according to a twofold interpretation. Either because she considered them dead for eternity, or because she did not want to console herself about those whom she knew would survive. But what is said in Rama, let us not think that this is the name of a place, near Gabaa, but 'rama' is interpreted as 'an elevated place', so the meaning is: A voice was heard in an elevated place, that is, far and wide dispersed.

(In Hierem. 31:15.) This passage of Jeremiah has been quoted by Matthew neither according to the Hebrew nor the LXX version. This shows that the Evangelists and Apostles did not follow any one's translation, but according to the Hebrew manner expressed in their own words what they had read in Hebrew.

By Ramah we need not suppose that the town of that name near Gibeah is meant; but take it as signifying 'high.' A voice was heard 'aloft,' that is, spread far and wide.'

Rachel's son was Benjamin, in which tribe Bethlehem is not situated. How then does Rachel weep for the children of Judah as if they were her own? We answer briefly. She was buried near Bethlehem in Ephrata, and was regarded as the mother, because her body was there entertained. Or, as the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin were contiguous, and Herod's command extended to the coasts of Bethlehem as well as to the town itself, we may suppose that many were slain in Benjamin.

This may be understood in two ways; either she thought them dead for all eternity, so that no consolation could comfort her; or, she desired not to receive any comfort for those who she knew had gone into life eternal.

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."

Thus having filled the hearer with horror by relating these things: the slaughter so violent and unjust, so extremely cruel and lawless; he comforts him again, by saying, Not from God's wanting power to prevent it did all this take place, nor from any ignorance of His, but when He both knew it, and foretold it, and that loudly by His prophet. Be not troubled then, neither despond, looking unto His unspeakable providence, which one may most clearly see, alike by what He works, and by what He permits.

But what, it may be said, hath Rachel to do with Bethlehem? For it saith, "Rachel weeping for her children." And what hath Rama to do with Rachel? Rachel was the mother of Benjamin, and on his death, they buried her in the horse-course that was near this place. The tomb then being near, and the portion pertaining unto Benjamin her infant (for Rama was of the tribe of Benjamin), from the head of the tribe first, and next from the place of her sepulture, He naturally denominates her young children who were massacred. Then to show that the wound that befell her was incurable and cruel, He saith, "she would not be comforted because they are not."

Hence again we are taught this, which I mentioned before, never to be confounded when what is happening is contrary to the promise of God. Behold, for instance, when He was come for the salvation of the people, or rather for the salvation of the world, of what kind were His beginnings. His mother, first, in flight; His birth-place is involved in irremediable calamities, and a murder is perpetrated of all murders the bitterest, and there is lamentation and great mourning, and wailings everywhere. But be not troubled for He is wont ever to accomplish His own dispensations by their contraries, affording us from thence a very great demonstration of His power.

(Hil. Quæst. N. and V. Test. 9. 62.) Or, The sons of Benjamin, who were akin to Rachel, were formerly cut off by the other tribes, and so extinct both then and ever after. (see Judg. 20.) Then therefore Rachel began to mourn her sons, when she saw those of her sister cut off in such a cause, that they should be heirs of eternal life; for he who has experienced any misfortune, is made more sensible of his losses by the good fortune of a neighbour.

Or, it was heard on high, because uttered for the death of the innocent, according to that, The voice of the poor entereth into the heavens. (Ecclus. 35:21.) The 'weeping' means the cries of the children; 'lamentation,' refers to the mothers. In the infants themselves their death ends their cries, in the mothers it is continually renewed by the remembrance of their loss.

Or, The Church weeps the removal of the saints from this earth, but wishes not to be comforted as though they should return again to the struggles of life, for they are not to be recalled into life.

Rachel is well set for a type of the Church, as the word signifies 'a sheep' or 'seeing;' (vid. note i, p. 19.) her whole thought being to fix her eye in contemplation of God; and she is the hundredth sheep that the shepherd layeth on his shoulder.

The sacred Evangelist adds, to show the greatness of the mourning, that even the dead Rachel was roused to mourn her sons, and would not be comforted because they were not.

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying. Lest anyone think that the slaying of the children took place against the will of God, the evangelist shows that God both knew of it beforehand and foretold it.

(17) Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah. Having mentioned the slaughter of the infants, the evangelist according to custom now mentions the prophecy foretelling this: (18) A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were not (Jer 31:15). And it should be noted that, as Jerome says, wherever any text is introduced by the apostles and evangelists, it is not necessary to present it always word for word, but as the Holy Spirit gave it to them, sometimes sense for sense in our use. Thus we have in Jeremiah (31:15): "A voice is heard on high of lamentation and weeping and mourning. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not." The sense is the same.

We should notice that as far as this text is concerned, it is one of those which are brought into the gospel, but which has a literal sense that is a figure of something in the New Testament. Hence, to understand it one must consider a bit of history, which is recorded in Judges, where it says that almost the whole tribe of Benjamin was wiped out on account of a sin committed against the wife of a Levite. It also states that there was greatest mourning there, so great, indeed, that it was heard from Gabsa to Ramah, a distance of 12,000 paces. Rachel is said to mourn this, because she was the mother of Benjamin; and it is a figure of speech used to express how great was the pain. But this is a prophecy about the past. In another way it is about the future in two ways: in one way it can refer to the captivity of Israel who, when they were led into captivity, are said to have wept on the road near Bethlehem; and then Rachel is said to have mourned, because she had been buried there (Gen 35:19). And this is said in the same manner of speaking as a place is said to weep over the evils which happen in the place. The prophet, therefore, desires to say that just as there was the greatest pain and grief when the tribe of Benjamin was destroyed, so in the future would be another excruciating pain in the time of the captivity. It is explained in a second way thus: the evangelist accepts the fact of the killing of the Innocents and amplifies the pain in four ways: first, from its extent; secondly, from the amount; thirdly, what the pain concerned; fourthly, its inconsolability.

He says, therefore: A voice in Ramah. This is a city in the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:25) and can be taken as the city of Liah. But here it is taken for the heights and can be interpreted in two ways: first, a voice uttered on high was heard, because a voice in a lofty place is spread far and wide: "Go up in a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength" (Is 40:9). Or was heard in Ramah, i.e., in heaven before God (Sir 35:21): "The prayer of the humble pierces the clouds, and he will not be consoled until it reaches the Lord"; "Do not the tears of the widow run down her cheek, as she cries out against him who has caused them to fall?" (Sir 35:15).

Wailing: This can refer to the weeping of the infants who were slaughtered. And loud lamentation: This refers to the weeping of the mothers. Or both can refer to the infants: wailing, in as much as they were lifted up by the soldiers; lamentations, in as much as they were slain. The pain of the mothers is greater than that of the infants. Again, the mothers' pain was continual, that of the infants, brief. For this reason Zechariah (12:10) says: "They shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." Also from the source of the pain, because it was concerned with the death of the infants. Hence, Rachel laments. But it might be objected that Bethlehem was not in the tribe of Benjamin but in the tribe of Judah, who was Liah's son.

This is answered in three ways: first, because Rachel was buried near Bethlehem (Gen 35:19). Accordingly, she wept for the infants in the way in which any place is said to weep: "Be appalled, O heavens, at this, be shocked, be utterly desolate, says the Lord" (Jer 2:12). Or in another way: it was stated above that Herod killed the infants in Bethlehem and in all its surrounding territory. But Bethlehem lay within the confines of two tribes, namely, Judah and Benjamin. Hence, some infants from the tribe of Benjamin were killed. Thus the objection ceases, as Jerome explains. But Augustine explains it another way and says that it is customary, when one is habituated to prosperity, that he becomes sadder when adversities come. Liah and Rachel were sisters, and the ones killed were among the children of Liah. Thus they were killed bodily, lest they be punished eternally, as in the case of Gabaa. Therefore, she is said to weep, when she sees her children killed or damned. Or the Church is signified by Rachel, because it means "seeing God," and the Church sees by faith. She weeps over her slain children, not because they were slain, but because through them she could obtain others. Or she weeps not for the slain but for the slayers.

Then he mentions the inconsolable pain: she refused... This is explained in a number of ways: first, as referring to the people who existed then. For consolation should be forthcoming, as long as a remedy is hoped for; but when there is no hope for it, there is no consolation, as in the case of the hopelessly infirm. Therefore, he says in regard to the mothers' opinion, because they were no more, i.e., no longer visible: "The lad is gone" (Gen 37:30). Or she refused to be consoled, because they were no more, i.e., as if they were no more: for consolation is expected only for evil things. Hence, according to this it is referred to the opinion of the Church, which regards them as reigning; hence, it rejoices over them as reigning: "But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope" (1 Thes 4:13). Or she refused to be consoled at present but awaited consolation in the future: "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Mt 5:5).

Hil. Quaest. N. and N. Test.9. 62: Or, The sons of Benjamin, who were akin to Rachel, were formerly cut off by the other tribes, and so extinct both then and ever after. Then therefore Rachel began to mourn her sons, when she saw those of her sister cut off in such a cause, that they should be heirs of eternal life; for he who has experienced any misfortune, is made more sensible of his losses by the good fortune of aneighbour.

In Rama was there a voice heard. Rama is a place in Palestine of high elevation, for the name itself means "high." This place fell by lot to the inheritance of the tribe of Benjamin, who was the son of Rachel, and Rachel was buried in Bethlehem. By "Rachel," therefore, the prophet Jeremiah means "Bethlehem," for Rachel was buried in Bethlehem (Gen. 35:19). He is saying that weeping and lamentation will be heard from on high. Listen to what the prophet says: Lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, that is, Bethlehem weeping for its children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. In this life they are no more, but their souls are immortal.

(Hom. in Nat. Innoc.) This slaughter of the infants for the Lord's sake, the death of Herod soon after, and Joseph's return with the Lord and his mother to the land of Israel, is a figure showing that all the persecutions moved against the Church will be avenged by the death of the persecutor, peace restored to the Church, and the saints who had concealed themselves return to their own places. Or the return of Jesus to the land of Israel on the death of Herod shows, that, at the preaching of Enoch and Elijahc, the Jews, when the fire of modern jealousy shall be extinguished, shall receive the true faith.

(Eccles. Hist. i. 8.) For the sacrilege which Herod had committed against the Saviour, and his wicked slaughter of the infants of the same age, the Divine vengeance hastened his end; and his body, as Josephus relates, was attacked by a strange disease; so that the prophets declared that they were not human ailments, but visitations of Divine vengeance. Filled with mad fury, he gives command to seize and imprison the heads and nobles out of all parts of Judæa; ordering that as soon as ever he should breathe his last, they should be all put to death, that so Judæa though unwillingly might mourn at his decease. Just before he died he murdered his son Antipater, (besides two boys put to death before, Alexander and Aristobulus.) Such was the end of Herod, noticed in those words of the Evangelist, when Herod was dead, and such the punishment inflicted.

After the death of Herod, Joseph was advised by the angel to return to Judea with the boy and his mother. When he returned he heard that Archelaeus, son of Herod, was king. So he was afraid to go, but the angel admonished him to cross over into the region of Galilee, and they lived in the city of Nazareth.… Joseph resembles the apostles to whom Christ entrusted the spreading of the news about him. Similar to what happened with Joseph after the death of Herod, they must deal with the same people who caused the Lord to suffer. The apostles are commanded to preach to the Jews, for they were sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But when they saw that the power remained in the hands of inherited faithlessness, they became afraid and retreated.

But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying: Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel.

Many here err from ignorance of history, supposing the Herod who mocked our Lord on the day of His passion, and the Herod whose death is here related, were the same. But the Herod who was then made friends with Pilate was son of this Herod and brother to Archelaus; for Archelaus was banished to Lyons in Gaul, and his father Herod made king in his room, as we read in Josephus.

From this we see that not Herod only, but also the Priests and Scribes had sought the Lord's death at that time.

"But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel."

He no more saith "fly," but "go." Seest thou again after the temptation refreshment? then after the refreshment danger again? in that he was freed indeed from his banishment, and came back again to his own country; and beheld the murderer of the children brought to the slaughter; but when he hath set foot on his own country, he finds again a remnant of the former perils, the son of the tyrant living, and being king.

See how Joseph was set for ministering to Mary; when she went into Egypt and returned, who would have fulfilled to her this so needful ministry, had she not been betrothed? For to outward view Mary nourished and Joseph defended the Child; but in truth the Child supported His mother and protected Joseph. Return into the land of Israel; for He went down into Egypt as a physician, not to abide there, but to succour it sick with error. But the reason of the return is given in the words, They are dead, &c.

And that is said to have been done by the counsel of God for their conspiring with Herod against the Lord; as it is said, Herod was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

(De Cæl. Hierarch. 4.) See how Jesus Himself, though far above all celestial beings, and coming unchanged to our nature, shunned not that ordinance of humanity which He had taken on Him, but was obedient to the dispositions of His Father made known by Angels. For even by Angels is declared to Joseph the retreat of the Son into Egypt, so ordained of the Father, and His return again to Judæa.

Rachel is well set for a type of the Church, as the word signifies 'a sheep' or 'seeing;' (vid. note i, p. 19.) her whole thought being to fix her eye in contemplation of God; and she is the hundredth sheep that the shepherd layeth on his shoulder.

But if they were many who sought his destruction, how came they all to have died in so short a time? As we have related above, all the great men among the Jews were slain at Herod's death.

Or the Evangelist uses a figure of speech, by which the plural is used for the singular. These words, the Child's life, (or soul, i. e. the Apollinarians.) overthrow those heretics who taught that Christ did not take a soul, but had His Divinity in place of a soul.

But when Herod was dead. Herod came to a bitter end. For with fever, torment of the bowels, itching, swelling of the feet, rotting of the private parts, breeding of worms, difficulty in breathing, trembling and spasms in every member, he cast off his evil soul.

Behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel. He did not say "flee" but "go," for there was no longer any need for fear. For they are dead which sought the young Child's soul. Where is Apollinarius, who said that the Lord did not have the soul of a man? For here he is reproved.

(19) Then he deals with Christ's being called back; hence, when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph. First, he mentions that the angel appeared; secondly, the angel's command; thirdly, the execution of the angel's command.

In regard to the first, three things are done: first, the time is described; secondly, the person; thirdly, the manner of the appearance.

He says, therefore, But when Herod died: not the one involved in Christ's death, because that was his son; behold an angel appeared.

It should be noted that all trouble in the Church is terminated by the death of the persecutors: "When the wicked perish, there are shouts of gladness" (Pr 11:10). Note, also, that when the unbelief of the Jews has ended, Christ will return to them: "And then all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26).

Behold... appeared. It should be noted that the order between men and angels is such that divine illuminations are produced in us only by angels: "Are they not administering spirits sent forth to serve for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?" (Heb 1:14). Hence, even Christ as man willed to be announced by angels.

The manner: in a dream to Joseph in Egypt.

(Verse 20) For those who sought the child's life are dead. From this we understand that not only Herod, but also the priests and scribes at the same time had planned the death of the Lord.

(20) The command: Rise, take the child and his mother. He does not say, "son" or "wife", but child, in order to designate the dignity of the child and the purity of the mother. In this is shown that Joseph was not given to her for the purpose of carnal intercourse but to minister and guard. And he assigns the cause: for those who sought the child's life are dead.

But one might ask why he says, are, for Herod alone had died. This is answered in two ways: first, because he had done so much evil that the Jews rejoiced in his death. When he had a foreboding of his death, he commanded his sister to kill the nobler Jews when he died. These had sought the life of the child with Herod: for those who sought the child's life are dead. Or another way: It is the custom of Sacred Scripture to use the plural for the singular: hence, they are dead, i.e. he is dead. Hence, the statement that those who sought the child's life destroys Apollinaris' error, that the godhead was in Christ in place of a soul.

Joseph was not disobedient to the angelic warning, but he arose, and took the young Child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. The Angel had not fixed the particular place, so that while Joseph hesitates, the Angel returns, and by the often visiting him confirms his obedience.

But the figurative interpretation holds good any way. Joseph represents the Apostles, to whom Christ is entrusted to be borne about. These, as though Herod were dead, that is, his people being destroyed in the Lord's passion, are commanded to preach the Gospel to the Jews; they are sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

(Verse 21.) He rose and took the child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. He did not say, 'I took my son and my wife,' but the child and his mother, as if a foster father, not a husband.

And he arose, and took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither. Herod left three sons: Philip, Antipas, and Archelaus. He had directed Archelaus to be king, and the other two, tetrarchs. Joseph was afraid to go into the land of Israel, that is, Judea, because Archelaus was similar to Herod, his father. Antipas was the young Herod who slew the Forerunner. And being warned by God in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee. Galilee was not of the land of Israel, but of the Gentiles, and for this reason the Jews considered the Galileans an abomination.

(21) Then he mentions the execution of the command: and he rose and took the child and his mother. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows how he returned to the land of Israel (v. 21); secondly, the section he avoided (v. 22); thirdly, the section he chose (v. 22b). He says, therefore, and he rose. Note that the angel did not say: "Go into the land of Judah," or "into Jerusalem," but universally, to the land of Israel, under which even Galilee can be included. Hence, it can be said that Joseph entered the boundaries of the land which Judah inhabited.

(De Con. Evan. ii. 10.) Here it may be asked, How then could his parents go up every year of Christ's childhood to Jerusalem, as Luke relates, if fear of Archelaus now prevented them from approaching it? This difficulty is easily solved. At the festival they might escape notice in the crowd, and by returning soon, where in ordinary times they might be afraid to live. So they neither became irreligious by neglecting the festival, nor notorious by dwelling continually in Jerusalem. Or it is open to us to understand Luke when he says, they went up every year, as speaking of a time when they had nothing to fear from Archelaus, who, as Josephus relates, reigned only nine years. There is yet a difficulty in what follows; Being warned in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee. If Joseph was afraid to go into Judaea because one of Herod's sons, Archelaus, reigned there, how could he go into Galilee, where another of his sons Herod was tetrarch, as Luke tells us? As if the times of which Luke is speaking were times in which there was any longer need to fear for the Child, when even in Judaea things were so changed, that Archelaus no longer ruled there, but Pilate was governor.

(De Con. Evan. ii. 9.) This may perhaps occur to some, that Matthew says His parents went with the Child Jesus to Galilee because they feared Archelaus, when it should seem most probable that they chose Galilee because Nazareth was their own city, as Luke has not forgot to mention. We must understand, that when the Angel in the vision in Egypt said to Joseph, Go into the land of Israel, Joseph understood the command to be that he should go straight into Judaea, that being properly the land of Israel. But finding Archelaus ruling there, he would not court the danger, as the land of Israel might be interpreted to extend to Galilee, which was inhabited by children of Israel. Or we may suppose His parents supposed that Christ should dwell no where but in Jerusalem, where was the temple of the Lord, and would have gone thither had not the fear of Archelaus hindered them. And they had not been commanded from God to dwell positively in Judaea, or Jerusalem, so as that they should have despised the fear of Archelaus, but only in the land of Israel generally, which they might understand of Galilee.

(De Con. Evan. ii. 5.) The whole of this history, from the account of the Magi inclusively, Luke omits. Let it be here noticed once for all, that each of the Evangelists writes as if he were giving a full and complete history, which omits nothing; where he really passes over any thing, he continues his thread of history as if he had told all. Yet by a diligent comparison of their several narratives, we can be at no loss to know where to insert any particular that is mentioned by one and not by the other.

(ord.) But then we might ask, why was he not afraid to go into Galilee, seeing Archelaus ruled there also? He could be better concealed in Nazareth than in Jerusalem, which was the capital of the kingdom, and where Archelaus was constantly resident.

But finding the seed of their hereditary unbelief still abiding, they fear and withdraw; admonished by a vision, to wit, seeing the Holy Ghost poured upon the Gentiles, they carry Christ to them.

(Verse 22) But hearing that Archelaus was reigning in Judea, in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned in a dream, he withdrew to the region of Galilee. Many fall into error due to ignorance of history, thinking that he is the same Herod who mocked the Lord in his passion, and who is reported to be dead now. Therefore, this Herod, who later became friends with Pilate, is the son of that Herod, the brother of Archelaus; and Tiberius Caesar himself, the city of Lugdunum, which is in Gaul, banished him, and made his brother Herod successor to the kingdom. Read the story of Joseph.

But how did Archelaus reign over Judaea, when Pontius Pilate was governor? Herod's death had recently taken place, and the kingdom had not yet been divided into many parts; but as he had only just ended his life, the son for a while kept possession of the kingdom "in the room of his father Herod;" his brother also bearing this name, which is the reason why the evangelist added, "in the room of his father Herod."

It may be said, however, "if he was afraid to settle in Judaea on account of Archelaus, he had cause to fear Galilee also on account of Herod." I answer, By his changing the place, the whole matter was thenceforward thrown into shade; for the whole assault was upon "Bethlehem and the coasts thereof." Therefore now that the slaughter had taken place, the youth Archelaus had no other thought, but that the whole was come to an end, and that amongst the many, He that was sought had been destroyed. And besides, his father having come to such an end of his life before his eyes, he became for the future more cautious about further proceedings, and about urging on that course of iniquity.

Joseph therefore comes to Nazareth, partly to avoid the danger, partly also delighting to abide in his native place. To give him the more courage, he receives also an oracle from the angel touching this matter. Luke, however, doth not say that he came there by Divine warning, but that when they had fulfilled all the purification, they returned to Nazareth. What then may one say? That Luke is giving an account of the time before the going down to Egypt, when he saith these things. For He would not have brought them down thither before the purification, in order that nothing should be done contrary to the law, but he waited for her to be purified, and to go to Nazareth, and that then they should go down to Egypt. Then, after their return, He bids them go to Nazareth. But before this they were not warned of God to go thither, but yearning after their native place, they did so of their own accord. For since they had gone up for no other cause but on account of the taxing, and had not so much as a place where to stay, when they had fulfilled that for which they had come up, they went down to Nazareth.

Herod had nine wives, by seven of whom he had a numerous issue. By Josida, his first born Antipater—by Mariamine, Alexander and Aristobulus—by Mathuca, a Samaritan woman, Archelaus—by Cleopatra of Jerusalem, Herod, who was afterwards tetrarch, and Philip. The three first were put to death by Herod; and after his death, Archelaus seized the throne by occasion of his father's will, and the question of the succession was carried before Augustus Cæsar. After some delay, he made a distribution of the whole of Herod's dominions in accordance with the Senate's advice. To Archelaus he assigned one half, consisting of Idumæa and Judæa, with the title of tetrarch, and a promise of that of king if he showed himself deserving of it. The rest he divided into two tetrarchates, giving Galilee to Herod the tetrarch, Ituræa and Trachonitis to Philip. Thus Archelaus was after his father's death a duarch, which kind of sovereignty is here called a kingdom.

Or, we may apply it to the last times of the Jewish Church, when many Jews having turned to the preaching of Enoch and Elijah, the rest filled with the spirit of Antichrist shall fight against the faith. So that part of Judæa where Archelaus rules, signifies the followers of Antichrist; Nazareth of Galilee, whither Christ is conveyed, that part of the nation that shall embrace the faith. Galilee means 'removal;' Nazareth, 'the flower of virtues;' for the Church the more zealously she removes from the earthly to the heavenly, the more she abounds in the flower and fruit of virtues.

(22) Then he mentions the area he avoided: when he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea. Here the history of Herod should be noted. For he had six sons, and before his death he killed Alexander and Aristobulus; at his death he commanded that Antipater be killed. Thus three remained, among whom Archelaus was the firstborn and usurped the kingdom; but he was later accused before Caesar Augustus by the Jews and his kingdom was taken away. It was then divided into four parts. Two were given to Archelaus and one each to Herod and Philip, as Luke (3:1) says. Archelaus himself was sent into exile after reigning for nine years.

Being warned in a dream. First the angel had said that he should go to the land of Israel, but because Joseph had not yet understood, the angel's message made explicit what was previously implicit. And this is indicated, when he says, being warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee.

But on the other hand, just as Archelaus ruled in Judea, so Philip in Galilee. But one must answer that this was immediately after the death of Herod, when Archelaus had the entire kingdom, because the division was made later. But then why did he not fear Archelaus? The answer is that Jerusalem was the seat of the kingdom; hence, he practically stayed there always. But why does Luke (2:41) state that they brought the child to Jerusalem every year? Augustine answers that it was safe to bring him on account of the vast throng that came there at that time; but it would have been dangerous, if he had tarried there for a long time. But why does the evangelist suggest that it was by accident that Joseph came to Nazareth, whereas Luke (2:39) says that he had his personal domicile in Nazareth. The answer is that the angel had told him to go into the land of Israel which, strictly speaking, did not include Galilee or Nazareth. That is the way Joseph understood it; therefore, he made no decision to go to Nazareth.

But if "the Nazarene" is interpreted to mean "holy" or, according to some, as "flower," this is the designation found in many instances. For Daniel calls him "holy" or "of the holy ones." Likewise we find in Isaiah: "A branch from the stock of Jesse and its flower." Even the Lord says of himself in the Song of Songs, "I am the bloom of the plain, the lily of the valleys."

To this he adds the Prophet's testimony, saying, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets, &c.

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son," and "for he shall be called a Nazarene."

(Verse 23) And coming, he lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. If he had set a fixed example from the Scriptures, he would never have said, what was spoken by the prophets; but simply, what was spoken by the prophet: but now, calling them prophets in the plural, he shows that he did not take words from the Scriptures, but the meaning. Nazarene, interprets as holy. But all Scripture testifies that the Lord would be holy. We can also say in another way, that even in the same words, according to the Hebrew truth, it is written in Isaiah: There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Nazarene shall rise out of his roots (Isa. 11:1).

Had he meant to quote a particular text, he would not have written 'Prophets,' but 'the Prophet.' By thus using the plural he evidently does not take the words of any one passage in Scripture, but the sense of the whole. Nazarene is interpreted 'Holyd,' and that the Lord would be Holy, all Scripture testifies. Otherwise we may explain that it is found in Isaiah (c. 11:1.) rendered to the strict letter of the Hebrew. There shall come a Rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Nazarene shall grow out of His rootse.

We see here the cause why the angel also, putting them at ease for the future, restores them to their home. And not even this simply, but he adds to it a prophecy, "That it might be fulfilled," saith he, "which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

And what manner of prophet said this? Be not curious, nor overbusy. For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces. The latter fact Jeremiah relates; the former, he who composed the fourth book of Kings, saying, that after a long time the book of Deuteronomy was hardly found, buried somewhere and lost. But if, when there was no barbarian there, they so betrayed their books, much more when the barbarians had overrun them. For as to the fact, that the prophet had foretold it, the apostles themselves in many places call Him a Nazarene.

"Was not this then," one may say, "casting a shade over the prophecy touching Bethlehem?" By no means: rather this very fact was sure greatly to stir up men, and to awaken them to the search of what was said of Him. Thus, for example, Nathanael too enters on the inquiry concerning Him, saying, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" For the place was of little esteem; or rather not that place only, but also the whole district of Galilee. Therefore the Pharisees said, "Search and look, for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." Nevertheless, He is not ashamed to be named even from thence, signifying that He needs not ought of the things of men; and His disciples also He chose out of Galilee; everywhere cutting off the pretexts of them who are disposed to be remiss, and giving tokens that we have no need of outward things, if we practice virtue. For this cause He doth not choose for Himself so much as a house; for "the Son of Man," saith He, "hath not where to lay His head;" and when Herod is plotting against Him, He fleeth, and at His birth is laid in a manger, and abides in an inn, and takes a mother of low estate; teaching us to think no such thing a disgrace, and from the first outset trampling under foot the haughtiness of man, and bidding us give ourselves up to virtue only.

They might have read this in some Prophets who are not in our canon, as Nathan or Esdras. That there was some prophecy to this purport is clear from what Philip says to Nathanael. Him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth. Hence the Christians were at first called Nazarenes, at Antioch their name was changed to that of 'Christians.'

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth. How is it that Luke says that after the Lord was born, He completed the forty days, was held in the arms of Simeon, and then went down to Nazareth (Lk. 2:22-40)? But here Matthew says that after the return from Egypt He went to Nazareth? Learn, therefore, that Luke spoke those things on which Matthew was silent. I will give an example: after the birth, He completed the forty days, and then went down to Nazareth. This is what Luke says. Matthew speaks of what took place afterwards, that He fled into Egypt, and then returned from Egypt to Nazareth, which took place later. They do not contradict each other. One of them, Luke, speaks of the descent from Bethlehem to Nazareth, while the other, Matthew, speaks of the return from Egypt to Nazareth, which took place later. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Which prophet said this? It is not to be found now. For many books have been lost, because of both the carelessness of the Hebrews and the frequent captivities. But perhaps this was an unwritten prophecy among the Jews. "Nazarene" means "sanctified" and as the Christ is holy, it is right that He is called "a Nazarene." For by many prophets the Lord was called "The Holy One of Israel" (Ps. 88:18, Is. 1:4, etc.)

(23) That what was spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene." This is not found written, but it can be said that it was gathered from many passages. For Nazarene means holy; and because Christ is called holy: "Until the holy one is anointed" (Dan 9:24), therefore, he is said to be so called by the prophet. Or it can be said that by Nazarene is meant abounding with flowers, as in Is (11:1): "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse and a flower shall grow out of his roots." This agrees with Song of Songs (2:1): "I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys."