The Slaughter of the Infants (BNTC Commentary)
Mat 2:16-18
In all probability it did not take many days for Herod to conclude that he would never again see the magi. After they had left him he waited a day, two days perhaps. He now realized that his command, “When you have found him report to me,” was not being obeyed. Mat_2:16. Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became very furious, and had the boy babies in Bethlehem and all the region around it killed, all those who were two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. Herod is convinced that he has been tricked by the magi. So he flies into a rage. Not having exercised self-control for so many years, he is no longer able to control his passions. In an outburst of violence he orders the boy babies of Bethlehem and environs to be killed, all those of two years and under. The order is carried out. Herod’s soldiers enter the homes and with their sharp daggers cut to death all these little ones.
How sin enslaves men, and how inconsistent it makes them! Herod should have been angry with himself, for it was he who had practiced deception. In doing so he may well have chuckled at the simplicity of the magi, who, so he thought, actually believed that he, the great King Herod, would go to Bethlehem and prostrate himself before a Jewish baby throne-pretender! Now that his trick has boomeranged—the failure of the wise men to return being an injury to his pride—the cruel tyrant is angry with those whom he himself had tried to trick.
How foolish sin makes men! Is Herod really unable to understand that a Higher Hand is moving the pieces and the pawns on the chess-board of life? Does he not realize that the God who caused the first attempt (verse Mat_2:8) to fail so that the wise men never returned to him, would do the same for the second (verse Mat_2:16), so that while the babes of Bethlehem were being slain the real object of Herod’s destructive designs was already safely on his way to Egypt? If the king has ever read Psalm 2 he surely has never taken it to heart. Cf. also Rev_17:14.
In connection with this account of The Slaughter of the Infants several errors or oft debated procedures must not be left out of the discussion:
Questionable Titles?
The caption above this section (Mat_2:16-18), as it appears in some Bibles, is “The Slaughter of the Innocents.” When this word “innocents” is taken in a very broad sense as indicating those who are guileless (cf. Joh_1:47) and uninjurious, or as those not guilty of the crime charged, it is undoubtedly accurate. In this relative sense we, too, often speak correctly about “innocent children,” and this use of the term cannot be disallowed. On the other hand, if the term is intended to indicate those who are free from any sin or guilt whatever, it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Infants, too, are guilty in Adam. Sin, both hereditary and actual, cleaves to them also (Job_14:4; Psa_51:5; Rom_5:12, Rom_5:18-19; 1Co_15:22; and Eph_2:3). If infants are to be saved at all, this salvation will have to be granted to them on the basis not of their supposed innocence but of the application to them of Christ’s merits. Since, therefore, the title “The Slaughter of the Innocents” is rather ambiguous, would it not be better to substitute the word Infants for Innocents? While the one title may be good, is not the other better?
Worthy of discussion is also another title, “The Slaughter of the First Martyrs.” Says Irenaeus, “For this reason also he [the Lord] suddenly removed those children who belonged to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that he might send them on ahead into his kingdom. Since he was himself an infant he so arranged it that human infants should be martyrs, slain, according to the Scriptures, for the sake of Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the city of David.”
At a very early date the church began to regard these children as the first martyrs. So, the Feast of the Holy Innocents was born, celebrated in the Greek Church on December 29 (O.S.) and in the Latin Church on December 28. However, we generally think of martyrs as “those who have suffered or died for their Christian convictions.” This word is, accordingly, hardly applicable to infants.
Erroneous Conception
In the course of history there have been those who held that Herod killed thousands of infants. In fact, their numerous host has even been identified with the 144,000 mentioned in Rev_14:1. There is no justification for this. In a town as small as Bethlehem was at that time, even when the immediate surroundings are added as they should be (see Mat_2:16) could the total number of those slain have been more than fifteen or twenty?
Wrong Evaluation
The opinion has been expressed that the death of these infants was a punishment for their parents because the latter had failed to render homage to Christ. Objection: not a word about this is found in the text.
Unwarranted Inference
From the words, “all those who were two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men” it has been inferred that Jesus must have been about two years of age when the slaughter of the infants occurred. This conclusion is, however, questionable. Says A. Edersheim, “Our Lord was born before the death of Herod, and, as we judge from the Gospel-history, very shortly before that event.” This statement is in all probability correct, as the following data will indicate. Joh_2:20 states that when Jesus attended the first Passover (Mat_2:13) and cleansed the temple (Mat_2:14-16) that structure had been in the process of building for a period of forty-six years. From Josephus we gather that the work was begun about the year 19 B.C. This would bring us to the Spring of A.D. 27 as the year of the first Passover. But Jesus’ baptism and first public appearance occurred a little earlier (see Joh. 1:32-2:12), probably about December of A.D. 26. Luk_3:23 informs us that at that time Jesus was about thirty years of age. Therefore, he may well have been born in December of the year 5 B.C. We cannot allow a margin of error of more than a year. Moreover, as has been stated earlier, the impression which Matt. 2 creates is that the birth of Jesus, the coming of the wise men, the flight into Egypt, and the slaughter of the infants took place very shortly before Herod’s death on or before April 4 of the year 4 B.C.
This presentation must not be construed as a plea for the unarguable correctness of celebrating Christmas on December 25. It is a well-known fact that this custom did not originate until the third or fourth century. For all we know, Jesus may have been born in some other month. October? November? We do not know. On the other hand, late December should not be ruled out in the belief that at that time of the year there could not have been “shepherds in that same region, out in the field, keeping watch at night over their flock” (Luk_2:8).
In a letter dated January 16, 1967 the New Testament scholar Dr. Harry Mulder of The Netherlands writes (my translation from the Dutch):
“During the brief Christmas vacation my wife and I traveled from Beirut [where he was teaching at the time] to Jerusalem. In this connection I can also answer your question regarding the presence of sheep around Bethlehem in the month of December. On Christmas eve in Shepherd Field a crowd had gathered to sing Christmas carols. We joined this crowd and took part in the singing. Right near us a few flocks of sheep were nestled. Even the lambs were not lacking. It was a moving sight. It is therefore definitely not impossible that the Lord Jesus was born in December. But it is perhaps interesting to mention in this connection that the swarthy Coptic monks whose humble dwellings are located in the heart of the older city celebrate Christmas every month on the roof of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, because we do not know in which month the Lord was born. The weather in Jerusalem was beautiful, thus also in Bethlehem. We spent a few hours in the fields of Ephrata and were not bothered by the cold or by anything of that kind.”
This brings us back to the question, “Does Mat_2:16 imply that Jesus must have been about two years of age when the slaughter of the infants occurred?” Perhaps this question can best be answered by a counter-question: “Basing our answer upon what we have learned about King Herod (see pp. 155-168), the proud, cruel, jealous tyrant who was ever ready to destroy anyone whom he suspected of being a threat to his power, who was rebuked repeatedly by the Roman government for his shocking barbarity, and who right at this very moment was livid with rage, which of the following two interpretations of his command to the soldiers best expresses what he meant?:
a. “Since I have found out from the magi that the so-called ‘king of the Jews’ is about two years of age, therefore kill all the male infants of two years and under.”
or
b. “Since I have been informed on good authority that the potential aspirant to my throne is about two months old, therefore, in order to make certain that he cannot escape, kill all the boy babies of two years and under.”
The answer is obvious. When it came to killing, Herod always allowed himself a very wide margin. There is, accordingly, nothing in Mat_2:16 that contradicts the chronologically consistent evidence gathered from the rest of Matt. 2 and from Luk_3:23 and Joh_2:20.
Inexcusable Rejection
By some the entire story is rejected. It is regarded as a biased portrait of Herod, an expression of the hostile feeling of the early church toward him. However, as must have become evident by now, the account is in every way consistent with the picture of Herod’s life as a whole, and especially with the frightful mental and moral disarray that marked the king’s last days. Surely, the tyrant who killed some of his own sons when he considered them to be claimants to his throne, would not hesitate to kill the children of other people when he suspected them of having in their midst one who, unless destroyed, might one day become guilty of the same crime!
The section ends with a quotation from Jer_31:15, as follows: Mat_2:17-18. Then was fulfilled what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet:
A voice was heard in Ramah,
Wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children,
And she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.
To understand this quotation it must be borne in mind that in Old Testament times Ramah (modern er-Ram) was located on the border between the two kingdoms, Israel and Judah (1Ki_15:17; 2Ch_16:1). It was situated five miles north of Jerusalem. It was the place where foreign conquerors ordered the defeated multitude to be assembled for deportation to far away places. Because of its location it was able to represent both kingdoms.
This last statement holds also for Rachel, Jacob’s most cherished wife. She, too, having given birth to Joseph, the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, could represent Israel, the kingdom of the ten tribes (sometimes simply called “Ephraim”); and having borne Benjamin, could symbolize Judah, the kingdom of the two tribes (Judah and Benjamin).
Figuratively Rachel is here in Jer_31:15 pictured as being still alive. She is, as it were, watching the wretched multitudes gathered in Ramah. She listens to their weeping until she herself also begins to weep. She mourns bitterly because she is being deprived of her children: first Israel goes into exile (2Ki_17:5-6), then Judah (2Ch_36:17 and 2Ch_36:20). She who was so eager to have children—“Give me children or I die” (Gen_30:1)—sees how some of them are killed, others driven away to foreign soil. How bitter are her tears; how loud and continued is her lamentation. A worldly power—first Assyria, then Babylonia—has robbed her of that which was dearest to her.
Nevertheless, there was reason for rejoicing. In fact, the thirty-first chapter of Jeremiah, from which Matthew quotes these words, is filled with words of consolation. This comfort concerns both Israel and Judah (Jer_31:27, Jer_31:31; cf. Jer_33:14), that is, the entire remnant (Jer_31:7). Jehovah has loved his people with an everlasting love (Jer_31:3). Therefore he who has scattered them will also regather them (Jer_31:10). Rachel must therefore refrain from weeping (Jer_31:16). Is not Ephraim his darling child? (Jer_31:20). Will he not make a new covenant with his people (Jer_31:31), forgiving their iniquity and no longer remembering their sin? (Jer_31:34). The remnant will indeed return, and for what purpose? Merely to rebuild the cities (Jer_31:38)? No, but in order to bring forth “the Branch of Righteousness.” It is he who will execute justice and righteousness in the land (Jer_33:14, Jer_31:15).
The parallel drawn by Matthew is very clear. Because of the slaughter of Bethlehem’s infants he pictures Rachel as weeping once more, and for essentially the same reason. These children, too, are no more. This time the worldly power that destroyed them was not Assyria or Babylonia but Edom, as represented by cruel King Herod. Bethlehem’s infants of two years and under have been killed. The child who was the main object of Herod’s wrath has been driven into exile. He is fleeing to Egypt. But also in the present case there is a full measure of consolation, if the one bereft would only take it to heart. That comfort centers in the same “Branch of Righteousness” of whom Jeremiah spoke. Presently he will return from Egypt in order to save all those who place their trust in him. So, Rachel, be dismayed no longer. Having returned, the Ruler born in Bethlehem will one day utter the comforting words: “Come to me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” (Mat_11:28). He will also say, “Let the children come to me; do not try to stop them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Mat_19:14).
Stumble Upon
Del.icio.us
Buzz