Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 2:23 - 2:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_2:23. Ἐλθών ] to Galilee.
εἰς πόλιν ] εἰς does not belong to ἐλθών (Fritzsche, Olshausen), but to κατῴκησεν , beside which it stands in Gen_13:18; κατῴκ . includes the movement connected with the settlement, and that in such a way that the latter was the predominating element in the thought of the writer: he went and settled at Nazareth. Comp. Mat_4:13; Act_7:4; 2Ch_19:4. See Kühner, I. p. 471.
Nazareth[373]] in Lower Galilee, in the tribe of Zabulon, situated on a hill (Luk_4:20), with pleasant environs. Robinson, Paläst. III. p. 419 ff.; Ritter, Erdk. XVI. p. 739 ff.; Furer, Wander, durch Paläst. p. 267 ff.; Tobler, Nazar. in Paläst., 1868. Mentioned neither in the O. T. nor in Josephus.
ὅπως ] in order that. See Mat_1:22.
διὰ τῶν προφ .] not the plural of category (Mat_2:20, so Fritzsche), according to which Isaiah only could be meant, but the prophets generally, Luk_18:31; Rom_1:2.
ὅτι ] not the Recitativum, although its use in the Gospel of Matthew cannot be denied, Mat_7:23, Mat_9:18, Mat_14:26, Mat_27:43; Mat_27:47, but “that,” as no individual express statement is quoted.
Ναζωραῖος ] of Nazareth, Mat_26:71. In Isa_11:1, the Messiah, as the offspring of David, is called ðÅöÆø , shoot, with which, in the representation of the evangelist, this designation was identified, only expressed by another word, namely, öÆîÇç (Jer_23:5; Jer_33:15; Zec_3:8; Zec_6:12; Isa_4:2); therefore he wrote, διὰ τῶν προφητῶν . In giving this prophetic title of ðöø to the Messiah, he entirely disregards the historical meaning of the same (LXX. Isa_11:1 : ἄνθος ), keeps by the relationship of the name Nazareth to the word ðöø , and recognises, by virtue of the same, in that prophetic Messianic name Nezer, the typical reference to this, that Jesus, through His settlement in Nazareth, was to become a ΝΑΖΩΡΑῖΟς ; the translator therefore, rightly apprehending this typical reference, expressed the Hebrew ðöø by ΝΑΖΩΡΑῖΟς , although he may have also found in the original Hebrew draft of the Gospel áï ðöø , or, more probably, ðöøé . The evangelist must in any case have derived the name Nazareth from ðöø , and it is likewise probable in itself; see Hengstenberg, Christol. II. p. 124 ff. “Eruditi Hebraei” already referred the ΝΑΖΩΡ . ΚΛΗΘ . back to the ðöø ; see Jerome on Isa_11:1, and, more recently, Piscator, Casaubon, Jansen, Maldonatus, Surenhusius, Bauer (bibl. Theol. I. p. 163), Fritzsche, Gieseler, Kern, Krabbe, de Wette, B. Crusius, Köstlin, Bleek, Hengstenberg, Kahnis, Anger, formerly also Hilgenfeld. But others (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Clericus, Grätz) regard the words as a quotation from a lost prophetical book. But always, where in the N. T. the prophets are quoted, those in the completed canon are meant. Others (Michaelis, Paulus, Kuinoel, Gersdorf, Kaüffer, Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange) are of opinion that Ναζωραῖος refers to the despised and melancholy position of the Messiah depicted by the prophets in accordance with Psalms 22, Isaiah 53. For Nazareth was despised, see Joh_1:47; Joh_7:52. But the question here is not as to a prophetic description (of the lowliness of the Messiah), but as to the definite prophetic name ( κληθήσεται ), to which the settlement in Nazareth may correspond; and, indeed, the evangelist must have found the name itself in the prophets, and not have inserted it ex eventu, namely, because Nazareth served to make the Messiah an object of misapprehension (in answer to Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erfüll. p. 66). For that reason also the opinion of others is to be rejected (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wetstein, Hilgenfeld), who, after Tertullian and Jerome, take Ναζ . for the Hebrew ðÈæÄéø , that it might be fulfilled … that He shall be (called) a Nazarite. Jesus had neither represented Himself to be such a consecrated person, Mat_11:19, nor can any passage in the prophets be pointed out as referring to this; therefore Ewald, in opposition to διὰ τῶν προφ ., assumes the statement to be taken from an Apocryphal book, in which the Messiah, on His first appearance, was represented as a Nazarite, so that the evangelist was led, from the similarity of the word, to infer a reference to Nazareth. If, however, in Ναζωραῖος the Hebrew ðÉöÅø , Preserver, has been supposed to be contained, and that in such a way that it had as its basis either Exo_34:6 f. (Zuschlag in Guericke’s Zeitschr. 1854, III. p. 417 ff.) or Psa_31:24 (Riggenbach in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 606 f.), then something entirely foreign is thus imported, as in those passages there is to be found neither a designation of the Messiah nor any prophetic declaration. Still more arbitrary is the reference of Hitzig in the theol. Jahrb. 1842, p. 410, to Isa_49:6, where ðÀöåÌøÅé has been taken as singular, and explained as a predicate of the Messiah, as the leader of those who are saved. Delitzsch has referred to Isa_42:6; so that Christ is predicted as He who is preserved in dangers ( ðÈöåÌø , Isa_49:6), whilst Nazareth was His place of concealment.
[373] Upon the form of the name Ναζαρά , which, although attested as ancient in many ways, is yet found only in a few passages in the Mss. of the N. T., and very unequally supported (Tischendorf, 8th ed., has received it into the text in Mat_4:13, and in Luk_4:16), see Keim, I. p. 319; comp. also Delitzsch, Jesus u. Hillel, p. 13. In the passage before us it is without any support, as well as in Mat_21:11, and in the remaining passages of the other evangelists, except Luk_1:26; Luk_4:16. The form Ναζαράθ is often found in Mss., as also Ναζαράτ . But it is the admission of Ναζαρέτ (or Ναζαρέθ ) alone into the text that can be justified, and that as the standing reading, all the more that even in Mat_4:13 and in Luk_4:16 there is by no means a decisive predominance of testimony for Ναζαρά , which has no support, moreover, in Act_10:38. Although Nazara was the original form of the name (see in answer to Ewald’s doubts, Keim, II. p. 421 f.), which is probable, it must notwithstanding have been strange to the evangelists.
REMARK.
The evangelist expresses himself in Mat_2:23 in such a manner that throughout the narrative Nazareth cannot appear to the reader as the original dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary. Bethlehem rather, according to his account, appears to be intended as such (Mat_2:22), whilst Nazareth was the place of sojourn under the special circumstances which occurred after the death of Herod. The account given by Luke is quite different. This variation is to be admitted, and the reconciliation of both accounts can only be brought about in an arbitrary manner,[374] which is all the more inadmissible that, on the whole, the narratives of Matthew and Luke regarding the birth and early infancy of Jesus in important points mutually exclude each other. Amid all their other variations, however, in the preliminary history in which they are independent of one another, they agree in this, that Bethlehem was the place of birth, and it is in opposition to the history to relegate this agreement to the sphere of dogmatic reflection, and to transport the birth of Jesus to Nazareth (Strauss, Hilgenfeld, Keim), since the designation of Jesus as belonging to Nazareth (Mat_13:34; Mar_6:1; Luk_4:19) finds its natural and complete explanation in the short and passing sojourn of His parents at Bethlehem after His birth, whereas, had Jesus Himself been a native of Galilee, He would neither have found a believing reception amongst His people, nor, on the other hand, could His Messiahship have been held to be based on a prophetic foundation. Comp. also Luk_2:39 and Joh_7:42.
[374] That Joseph, brought to Bethlehem by the census, settled there. Matthew accordingly represents Bethlehem as his dwelling-place. The flight to Egypt, however, again soon broke up the residence in Bethlehem, so that the sojourn was only a passing one, and therefore Luke rightly regarded the subsequent settlement at Nazareth as a return thither. See Neander, Ebrard, Hofmann, Krabbe, Lange. Wieseler’s reasons also (chronolog. Synopse, p. 35 ff.) against the view that Matthew makes Bethlehem appear as the original dwelling-place of Jesus, will not stand. This view is to be regarded, by the account in Matthew, which is to be looked on as independent, and standing by itself, as a necessary exegetical result by means of ver. 22, and is undoubtedly confirmed by ver. 23, where Joseph’s settlement in Nazareth appears as something new, which must occur in order to fulfil a prophetic prediction, so that consequently no reader of Matthew could come to think that Nazareth had been Joseph’s dwelling-place. Wieseler, however, has, moreover, strikingly demonstrated the unhistorical nature of the view that Jesus was born at Nazareth.