I do want to be clear. This is not history. I do not say this because Herod was not capable of such an act. He was. We know what people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin are capable of doing.[1] Rulers are fully capable of the slaughter of children in order to achieve their political ends. Rather, my point is that Matthew is making a theological statement. Thus, I will set aside any attempt that would stress these events as history. Rather, I will focus upon the theological points I believe Matthew is making. I would suggest that this emphasis is far more in line with the intent of Matthew than are modern attempts to make the focus history.
Matthew's gospel interjects into the birth narrative the intertwined stories of the baby Jesus' family's flight into Egypt, and the murderous rage of Herod the Great. The account moves from acceptance by Gentiles in v. 1-12 to rejection by the Jews and their persecution of Jesus in v. 13-23. That rejection is by Jewish secular rulers, the high priest, and the scribes. From the standpoint of theology, we need to note the relationship of the story to that of the exodus of Israel from Egypt. Interestingly, in this case, “Egypt” is the place of safety, while “Israel” is the place of oppression. There are biblical and extra-biblical flights to Egypt when there were political troubles in Israel. Matthew bases his text on those parallels. Note the emphasis on slaughter of the infants as a parallel to the slaughter of the male Hebrew children in Egypt. Jeremiah 31:15 refers to the Exile as a time of Rachel weeping for her children. In fact, one might also note the identification of Jesus with both the Exodus and the Exile. The Old Testament texts refer to a variety of places in Chapter 2, as Bethlehem, Egypt, Ramah, and Nazareth. This may suggest Jesus will lead a life of homeless wandering.
Commentators have noted how this unit is similar in style to a Greek epic poem. One can find the motif in Greek and Roman antiquity, whether in the form of the old ruler who sets traps for his newborn future rival and dethroner. Fairytales also used it. In this case, each time, the angelic messenger appears to Joseph and directs Joseph's behavior. The angel determines what follows. There is no hint of hesitation or disbelief in any of Joseph's responses. Joseph and his obedience are the center of attention.
The dreams in 2:13-15a and in 2:19-21 is from a pre-Matthew source, according to Raymond Brown.[2] For him, here is the complete pre-Matthew source:
13 … an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." 14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. … 16 When Herod [Brown speculates the source said here “realized the search for the child had been unsuccessful] he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from [Brown speculates “from the dream.”] …
19 After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead." 21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. …
The number of special messages and messengers God sends out for events to unfold according to the divine plan demonstrates divine intervention and intentionality. God often communicated with Jacob and Joseph in dreams: Genesis 28:10-22; 31:10-13; 37:5-11; 40:1-41:36. Instructive for this context, Jacob once received instructions in a dream to return home after a sojourn in a foreign country (Genesis 31:10-13; Matthew 2:19-23). It is because of the patriarch Joseph’s sojourn in Egypt and the subsequent settlement and captivity of the Israelites there that requires God, in the later generation of Moses, to call his son, Israel, out of Egypt again — a fact echoed by Hosea 11:1 and quoted by Matthew 2:15 in connection with the holy family’s flight. It is also Joseph the patriarch who is understood as the father of the northern kingdom tribes represented by his sons Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 48). He is the child of Rachel (Genesis 30:22-24), and so his children, the members of the northern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, are those same children for whom Rachel weeps when the northern kingdom falls, according to Jeremiah 31:15-16. The image of the weeping matriarch of Israel is applied to the slaughter of the innocents in Matthew 2:16-18, but it still evokes an image of the ruin of the house of Joseph and juxtaposes this destruction with the escape and survival of the new Messiah, protected this time by his father Joseph, in a way that the first children of Joseph were not protected. Matthew sounds these echoes of the northern patriarchal traditions of the OT Joseph because he is building toward his explanation of why Jesus was raised in the North and not in Bethlehem. According to Matthew, Joseph discovers in his fourth dream that although Herod is dead, his equally oppressive son Archelaus had been placed in charge over Judah, making that southern region too dangerous for the child Jesus. To underscore that God preordained his change of residence, however, Matthew invokes a prophecy which only he finds in Isaiah 11:1, declaring that Jesus’ eventual residence in the northern city of Nazareth identifies him as the messianic “branch” (Hebrew netzer) of David’s royal house. There would have been no doubt in the minds of Jesus’ contemporaries that he was more a citizen of Galilee (viewed by many as a pagan territory, Galilee of the Gentiles) than he was of Jerusalem or Judah, where one would expect to find a messianic descendant of David. Reminding his hearers of the intimate relationship between God and David’s northern ancestor Jacob, and the northern patriarch Joseph, would have served Matthew’s rhetorical purposes well — concerned as he was that Jewish hearers come to understand Jesus as the legitimate Jewish Messiah. By raising all these references to northern traditions, it is as if Matthew is reminding his Jewish hearers that God initially blessed the northern citizens of Israel with numerous direct revelations from God through great anointed leaders long before the days of David and his royal house. Why, then, should not the Messiah appear in the North?
13 Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, the first special message that shows a divine intervention and intentionality and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” 14 Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet Hosea in 11:1, “Out of Egypt I have called my son.” Verse 15 reflects a form of Christian exegesis of Old Testament texts. The use of this passage, referring to God leading Israel out of Egypt is appropriate in that it emphasizes the filial relationship between Jesus and God. By fleeing into Egypt, the infant Jesus becomes the incarnation of the second exodus. The angelic instructions direct Joseph toward Egypt, a destination obviously loaded with symbolism for a fleeing Jewish family. The flight of the holy family into Egypt allows Matthew to run the story of the exodus backward. Just as a divine word directed Moses to lead his people out of Egypt, to escape Pharaoh's cruelty and gain their freedom, now an angelic voice declares that only by returning to Egypt will Jesus safely escape Herod's murderous intentions.
The second fulfillment text occurs in v. 16-18. 16 When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men. 17 Then, the neutral pronouncement given to this terrible event shows these were actions attributable to human evil, was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah in 31:15 18 “A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.” As the second exodus theme continues, this bloodthirsty crime is not without precedent. Herod's slaughter of the children is much like Pharaoh's treatment of the male Hebrew slave children (Ex 1:22).
There are parallels in the Babylonian tradition regarding Sargon. The rabbis do the same with Abraham. It is present in an obscured form in the Moses saga. A prophecy by a sacred tribe with the ability to foretell future events told Pharaoh of the birth of an Israelite ruler who would raise up the Israelites and bring low the Egyptians. He would excel in virtue and obtain a glory that future generations would remember. This information provokes Pharaoh to order the slaughter of children. The Egyptians sought the extinction of the Jewish people.[3]
The story is reminiscent of legends about Moses. Birth, naming, persecution, escape, and return all parallel Moses' early life. God stood by Amram and answered his prayer. His child will be the means of deliverance for the Israelites. Amram told his wife Jochebed of the dream. They made an ark out bulrushes and sent it down the river with the baby in it. Thermuthis the daughter of the Pharaoh found the child and adopted him as her own child.[4]
The "slaughter of the innocents" (vv.16-18) recounts a crime so heinous that it continues to confound and confuse us even after 20 centuries of similar and periodic vicious violence and conscienceless cruelty. Thus, besides being a text of ordained directions, Matthew places at the very center of all this motion the event that stops readers cold. Matthew adds to Herod the Great's already lengthy list of crimes this slaughter, which, not surprisingly, parallels events surrounding the birth of Moses (Exodus 1:16,22). Now, from the standpoint of history, although a few ancient commentators document well Herod's vengeful and violent ways, of the gospel writers, only Matthew records this outrage. Of course, it could be that the callous murder of a few dozen young children in a dusty, insignificant tiny town like Bethlehem, largely, did not strike other historians of the age as particularly noteworthy. This Herod ordered the murder of his wife Mariamne and three of his own sons (Alexander, Aristobulus and Antipas). Of this Herod, Augustus declared he would rather be Herod's pig (ois) than his son (oius). To ensure that a grief-stricken mood would cover the country when he finally did die, this bloodthirsty Herod left strict orders that his soldiers would kill one member of every single family when the news of his death was finally announced.[5] Matthew's singular voice on the murders reported in this passage reflects his careful immersion in prophetic Scriptures and messianic expectations. Most readers today are horrified by Herod's act.
Matthew wants to stun us as readers by a providence that saved the infant Jesus. Yet, as modern readers, what stuns us is the fact that God has “allowed” a host of innocent babies butchered in his stead. One can have little doubt that for Matthew, this grisly detail from Jesus' early life revealed something other than a narrow vision of divine deliverance. Part of the reason for Matthew's inclusion of this tragedy may be his accessing of his favorite source - a prophetic Old Testament text. The Jewish people already recognized Bethlehem as the historic sight of Rachel's tomb. Ramah was the border community that witnessed the tragic gathering of refugee Israelites as their enemies forced them out of their homeland during the first exile. By citing Jeremiah 31:15, Matthew recalls that poignant moment from the first experience of exile, an image that places the heartbreak of an earlier era on the lips of Rachel. The cries of Rachel's lamenting followed the first refugees out of a destroyed Israel. Now the devastated mothers of Bethlehem, the resting place of Rachel, raise their voices in grief as Herod spills the blood of their children even as the Messiah himself goes into exile. Matthew depicts the death of these innocents in a wrenchingly way. Their murders are as soul-searing as any experiences of human deaths. The children who fall victim to Herod's blind rage are not simply so much ground cover, cloaking the successful escape of a specially protected Jesus.
Matthew put these inexplicable deaths at the center of this exile story for one reason. The death of Herod was in March/April 4 BC. When Jesus goes to Nazareth from his Egyptian exile, it is the first time Nazareth receives mention in Matthew. 19 When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream, second special message that shows divine intervention and intentionality, to Joseph in Egypt and said, 20 “Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.” The third fulfillment returns to the exodus theme. The angel tells Joseph he can return to Israel because "those who were seeking the child's life are dead," just as Moses received instructions to return because the men "who were seeking your life are dead" (Ex 4:19). 21 Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, third special message that shows divine intervention and intentionality, he went away to the district of Galilee. 23 There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.”Verse 23 reflect a form of Christian exegesis of Old Testament texts. Although Joseph's uneasiness seems to precede his dream instructions, Matthew still does not want Joseph to be the center of attention. The result of Joseph's actions - they settled in Nazareth fulfilling scriptural prophecy once again - is the key point for Matthew. Matthew intends to show all the movements of Jesus' early life as a reflection of his messianic identity and future.
The overall view that Matthew's narrative assembles here is a moving picture portraying the surprising speed of both mission and madness. Many scholars think that Matthew's primary reason for including this text in his birth narrative is to show that from the moment of his birth, the life of Jesus was a divine replay of Israel's first deliverance. The wickedness and willfulness of Pharaoh return in the person of Herod the Great. Israel's historic exodus out of Egypt has its mirror in the "little exodus" of Jesus' family back into Egypt. Like the baby Moses, the baby Jesus is born under a death sentence, which necessitates drastic parental action. Both Moses and Jesus live under divinely imposed exile until a voice "re-calls" them by proclaiming that those who sought their lives are now themselves dead (see Exodus 4:19).
Unbelievably, there is a Christmas carol about this woeful business. the Coventry Carol (1500s England). Ironically, it has one of the most achingly beautiful melodies of all Christmas music. The words are a melancholy lullaby, sung by grieving mothers to their dead children:
Herod the king, in his raging,
Charged he hath this day,
His men of might, in his own sight,
All young children to slay.
Then woe is me, poor child for thee
And ever mourn and say
For thy parting, nor say nor sing
By, by, lully, lullay.
What part does this dark episode have to play in the bright and joyous tale of Christmas? It's a discordant note, struck in the closing bars of a beautiful melody. Until now, everything has been sweetness and light. But then, the fists of Herod's soldiers are pounding on Bethlehem's doors. The mothers of the City of David weep their bitter tears, and cradle their lifeless babes in their arms:
Lullay, Thou little tiny child,
By, by, lully, lullay.
Herod -- at this point a bitter old man, in the final year of his 41-year reign -- was fully capable of playing a role in such atrocities. Herod is important to the story of the birth of Jesus because he helps us remember what kind of world we live in and why this world still needs a savior.
After the birth of this precious child, we have the story of wailing parents and their neighbors over slaughtered babies. The Holy Family goes to Egypt. The story of the birth of Jesus as Matthew tells it includes Herod. He is there as a cold and realistic reminder of the sort of the world in which we live. Secular and religious leaders throughout history have persecuted the people of God, just as they persecuted the Holy Family. The birth of Jesus as told by Matthew is a realistic story. The Incarnation occurred in a world like this, with political leaders like this. We must not go the path of ignoring the story of the birth of Jesus as Matthew tells it, and that story includes Herod. We like the stories that surround the Christmas season that stress the possibility of Scrooge or the Grinch have a change of heart. The real world includes Herod. If we leave Herod in the narrative of the birth of Jesus, we can address the shadow of evil hovering over our celebration of the birth of Jesus every year. Herod still stalks the earth.
The wounds caused by the birth defect of America, racism, run deep. Here is a place where America needs to mend its flaws, and it has been in the process of doing so in an exemplary way. Many nations could learn how to deal with ancient tribal hostilities by learning from the efforts in America to heal its racial hostilities. The interests of some in America to continue to irritate this would and generate racial hostility is an effort we need to resist, both as Christians and as people who care about the flourishing of humanity. Anger and revenge for past wrongs is not a path toward healing, rational action, justice, or peace. As Nelson Mandela famously said: “… to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
[1] (N. T. Wright, Who Was Jesus? [Harper San Francisco, 1992], p. 87.)
[2] (Birth of the Messiah, 1977, 110)
[3] It reappears in Josephus, Ant., II, 9, 2.
While the affairs of the Hebrews were in this condition, there was this occasion offered itself to the Egyptians, which made them more solicitous for the extinction of our nation. One of those sacred scribes, who are very sagacious in foretelling future events truly, told the king, that about this time there would a child be born to the Israelites, who, if he were reared, would bring the Egyptian dominion low, and would raise the Israelites; that he would excel all men in virtue, and obtain a glory that would be remembered through all ages. Which thing was so feared by the king, that, according to this man's opinion, he commanded that they should cast every male child, which was born to the Israelites, into the river, and destroy it; that besides this, the Egyptian midwives should watch the labors of the Hebrew women, and observe what is born, for those were the women who were enjoined to do the office of midwives to them; and by reason of their relation to the king, would not transgress his commands. He enjoined also, that if any parents should disobey him, and venture to save their male children alive, they and their families should be destroyed. This was a severe affliction indeed to those that suffered it, not only as they were deprived of their sons, and while they were the parents themselves, they were obliged to be subservient to the destruction of their own children, but as it was to be supposed to tend to the extirpation of their nation, while upon the destruction of their children, and their own gradual dissolution, the calamity would become very hard and inconsolable to them. And this was the ill state they were in. But no one can be too hard for the purpose of God, though he contrive ten thousand subtle devices for that end; for this child, whom the sacred scribe foretold, was brought up and concealed from the observers appointed by the king; and he that foretold him did not mistake in the consequences of his preservation, which were brought to pass after the manner following
[4] Josephus, Ant. ii 205 ff, 210 ff, 254 ff, or Chapter 9.
3. A man whose name was Amram, one of the nobler sort of the Hebrews, was afraid for his whole nation, lest it should fail, by the want of young men to be brought up hereafter, and was very uneasy at it, his wife being then with child, and he knew not what to do. Hereupon he betook himself to prayer to God; and entreated him to have compassion on those men who had nowise transgressed the laws of his worship, and to afford them deliverance from the miseries they at that time endured, and to render abortive their enemies' hopes of the destruction of their nation. Accordingly God had mercy on him, and was moved by his supplication. He stood by him in his sleep, and exhorted him not to despair of his future favors. He said further, that he did not forget their piety towards him, and would always reward them for it, as he had formerly granted his favor to their forefathers, and made them increase from a few to so great a multitude. He put him in mind, that when Abraham was come alone out of Mesopotamia into Canaan, he had been made happy, not only in other respects, but that when his wife was at first barren, she was afterwards by him enabled to conceive seed, and bare him sons. That he left to Ismael and to his posterity the country of Arabia; as also to his sons by Ketura, Troglodytis; and to Isaac, Canaan. That by my assistance, said he, he did great exploits in war, which, unless you be yourselves impious, you must still remember. As for Jacob, he became well known to strangers also, by the greatness of that prosperity in which he lived, and left to his sons, who came into Egypt with no more than seventy souls, while you are now become above six hundred thousand. Know therefore that I shall provide for you all in common what is for your good, and particularly for thyself what shall make thee famous; for that child, out of dread of whose nativity the Egyptians have doomed the Israelite children to destruction, shall be this child of thine, and shall be concealed from those who watch to destroy him: and when he is brought up in a surprising way, he shall deliver the Hebrew nation from the distress they are under from the Egyptians. His memory shall be famous while the world lasts; and this not only among the Hebrews, but foreigners also: — all which shall be the effect of my favor to thee, and to thy posterity. He shall also have such a brother, that he shall himself obtain my priesthood, and his posterity shall have it after him to the end of the world.
4. When the vision had informed him of these things, Amram awaked and told it to Jochebed who was his wife. And now the fear increased upon them on account of the prediction in Amram's dream; for they were under concern, not only for the child, but on account of the great happiness that was to come to him also. However, the mother's labor was such as afforded a confirmation to what was foretold by God; for it was not known to those that watched her, by the easiness of her pains, and because the throes of her delivery did not fall upon her with violence. And now they nourished the child at home privately for three months; but after that time Amram, fearing he should be discovered, and, by falling under the king's displeasure, both he and his child should perish, and so he should make the promise of God of none effect, he determined rather to trust the safety and care of the child to God, than to depend on his own concealment of him, which he looked upon as a thing uncertain, and whereby both the child, so privately to be nourished, and himself should be in imminent danger; but he believed that God would some way for certain procure the safety of the child, in order to secure the truth of his own predictions. When they had thus determined, they made an ark of bulrushes, after the manner of a cradle, and of a bigness sufficient for an infant to be laid in, without being too straitened: they then daubed it over with slime, which would naturally keep out the water from entering between the bulrushes, and put the infant into it, and setting it afloat upon the river, they left its preservation to God; so the river received the child, and carried him along. But Miriam, the child's sister, passed along upon the bank over against him, as her mother had bid her, to see whither the ark would be carried, where God demonstrated that human wisdom was nothing, but that the Supreme Being is able to do whatsoever he pleases: that those who, in order to their own security, condemn others to destruction, and use great endeavors about it, fail of their purpose; but that others are in a surprising manner preserved, and obtain a prosperous condition almost from the very midst of their calamities; those, I mean, whose dangers arise by the appointment of God. And, indeed, such a providence was exercised in the case of this child, as showed the power of God.
5. Thermuthis was the king's daughter. She was now diverting herself by the banks of the river; and seeing a cradle borne along by the current, she sent some that could swim, and bid them bring the cradle to her. When those that were sent on this errand came to her with the cradle, and she saw the little child, she was greatly in love with it, on account of its largeness and beauty; for God had taken such great care in the formation of Moses, that he caused him to be thought worthy of bringing up, and providing for, by all those that had taken the most fatal resolutions, on account of the dread of his nativity, for the destruction of the rest of the Hebrew nation. Thermuthis bid them bring her a woman that might afford her breast to the child; yet would not the child admit of her breast, but turned away from it, and did the like to many other women. Now Miriam was by when this happened, not to appear to be there on purpose, but only as staying to see the child; and she said, "It is in vain that thou, O queen, callest for these women for the nourishing of the child, who are no way of kin to it; but still, if thou wilt order one of the Hebrew women to be brought, perhaps it may admit the breast of one of its own nation." Now since she seemed to speak well, Thermuthis bid her procure such a one, and to bring one of those Hebrew women that gave suck. So when she had such authority given her, she came back and brought the mother, who was known to nobody there. And now the child gladly admitted the breast, and seemed to stick close to it; and so it was, that, at the queen's desire, the nursing of the child was entirely intrusted to the mother.
6. Hereupon it was that Thermuthis imposed this name Mouses upon him, from what had happened when he was put into the river; for the Egyptians call water by the name of Mo, and such as are saved out of it, by the name of Uses: so by putting these two words together, they imposed this name upon him. And he was, by the confession of all, according to God's prediction, as well for his greatness of mind as for his contempt of difficulties, the best of all the Hebrews, for Abraham was his ancestor of the seventh generation. For Moses was the son of Amram, who was the son of Caath, whose father Levi was the son of Jacob, who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham. Now Moses's understanding became superior to his age, nay, far beyond that standard; and when he was taught, he discovered greater quickness of apprehension than was usual at his age, and his actions at that time promised greater, when he should come to the age of a man. God did also give him that tallness, when he was but three years old, as was wonderful. And as for his beauty, there was nobody so unpolite as, when they saw Moses, they were not greatly surprised at the beauty of his countenance; nay, it happened frequently, that those that met him as he was carried along the road, were obliged to turn again upon seeing the child; that they left what they were about, and stood still a great while to look on him; for the beauty of the child was so remarkable and natural to him on many accounts, that it detained the spectators, and made them stay longer to look upon him.
7. Thermuthis therefore perceiving him to be so remarkable a child, adopted him for her son, having no child of her own. And when one time had carried Moses to her father, she showed him to him, and said she thought to make him her successor, if it should please God she should have no legitimate child of her own; and to him, "I have brought up a child who is of a divine form, (21) and of a generous mind; and as I have received him from the bounty of the river, in , I thought proper to adopt him my son, and the heir of thy kingdom." And she had said this, she put the infant into her father's hands: so he took him, and hugged him to his breast; and on his daughter's account, in a pleasant way, put his diadem upon his head; but Moses threw it down to the ground, and, in a puerile mood, he wreathed it round, and trod upon his feet, which seemed to bring along with evil presage concerning the kingdom of Egypt. But when the sacred scribe saw this, (he was the person who foretold that his nativity would the dominion of that kingdom low,) he made a violent attempt to kill him; and crying out in a frightful manner, he said, "This, O king! this child is he of whom God foretold, that if we kill him we shall be in no danger; he himself affords an attestation to the prediction of the same thing, by his trampling upon thy government, and treading upon thy diadem. Take him, therefore, out of the way, and deliver the Egyptians from the fear they are in about him; and deprive the Hebrews of the hope they have of being encouraged by him." But Thermuthis prevented him, and snatched the child away. And the king was not hasty to slay him, God himself, whose providence protected Moses, inclining the king to spare him. He was, therefore, educated with great care. So the Hebrews depended on him, and were of good hopes great things would be done by him; but the Egyptians were suspicious of what would follow such his education. Yet because, if Moses had been slain, there was no one, either akin or adopted, that had any oracle on his side for pretending to the crown of Egypt, and likely to be of greater advantage to them, they abstained from killing him.
[5] One can see this account in Josephus, Antiquities 17.6.6.
Now any one may easily discover the temper of this man's mind, which not only took pleasure in doing what he had done formerly against his relations, out of the love of life, but by those commands of his which savored of no humanity; since he took care, when he was departing out of this life, that the whole nation should be put into mourning, and indeed made desolate of their dearest kindred, when he gave order that one out of every family should be slain, although they had done nothing that was unjust, or that was against him, nor were they accused of any other crimes; while it is usual for those who have any regard to virtue to lay aside their hatred at such a time, even with respect to those they justly esteemed their enemies.
[6] —Henri J.M. Nouwen, Bread for the Journey: A Daybook of Wisdom and Faith (Harper, 1985), 13.
This was very interesting. Never thought of this in terms of theology rather than history. What I don't understand is why the reverse exodus. Why was that needed? I get the parallel
ReplyDeletewith Mosses.
Matthew is putting Herod in a role parallel to that of Pharaoh in the story of Moses. The story also gets the holy family into Egypt, thus fulfilling the Hoses passage.
ReplyDeleteI get the Hosea passage wonder why that was necessary to God.
ReplyDeleteNot sure of your point. The exodus of the people of God from Egypt is paradigmatic. II Isaiah picked up on the theme. It is not strange at all for Matthew to see portions of the life of Jesus connected to that event.
DeleteIt was just a thought
Delete