The Slaughter of the Children.
16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, 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 enquired of the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, 18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
Here is, I. Herod’s resentment of the departure of the wise men. He waited long for their return he hopes, though they be slow, they will be sure, and he shall crush this rival at his first appearing but he hears, upon enquiry, that they are gone off another way, which increases his jealousy, and makes him suspect they are in the interest of this new King, which made him exceedingly wroth and he is the more desperate and outrageous for his being disappointed. Note, Inveterate corruption swells the higher for the obstructions it meets with in a sinful pursuit.
II. His political contrivance, notwithstanding this, to take off him that is born King of the Jews. If he could not reach him by a particular execution, he doubted not but to involve him in a general stroke, which, like the sword of war, should devour one as well as another. This would be sure work and thus those that would destroy their own iniquity must be sure to destroy all their iniquities. Herod was an Edomite, enmity to Israel was bred in the bone with him. Doeg was an Edomite, who, for David’s sake, slew all the priests of the Lord. It was strange that Herod could find any so inhuman as to be employed in such a bloody and barbarous piece of work but wicked hands never want wicked tools to work with. Little children have always been taken under the special protection, not only of human laws, but of human nature yet these are sacrificed to the rage of this tyrant, under whom, as under Nero, innocence is the least security. Herod was, throughout his reign, a bloody man it was not long before, that he destroyed the whole Sanhedrim, or bench of judges but blood to the blood-thirsty is like drink to those in a dropsy Quo plus sunt potæ , plus sitiuntur aquæ –The more they drink, the more thirsty they become. Herod was now about seventy years old, so that an infant, at this time under two years old, was not likely ever to give him any disturbance. Nor was he a man over fond of his own children, or of their preferment, having formerly slain two of his own sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, and his son Antipater after this, but five days before he himself died so that it was purely to gratify his own brutish lusts of pride and cruelty that he did this. All is fish that comes to his net.
Observe, What large measures he took, 1. As to time He slew all from two years old and under. It is probable that the blessed Jesus was at this time not a year old yet Herod took in all the infants under two years old, that he might be sure not to miss of his prey. He cares not how many heads fall, which he allows to be innocent, provided that escape not which he supposes to be guilty. 2. As to place He kills all the male children, not only in Bethlehem, but in all the coasts thereof, in all the villages of that city. This was being overmuch wicked, Ecclesiastes 7:17. Hate, an unbridled wrath, armed with an unlawful power, often transports men to the most absurd and unreasonable instances of cruelty. It was no unrighteous thing for God to permit this every life is forfeited to his justice as soon as it commences that sin which entered by one man’s disobedience, introduced death with it and we are not to suppose any thing more than that common guilt, we are not to suppose that these children were sinners above all that were in Israel, because they suffered such things. God’s judgments are a great deep. The diseases and deaths of little children are proofs of original sin. But we must look upon this murder of the infants under another character: it was their martyrdom. How early did persecution commence against Christ and his kingdom! Think ye that he came to send peace on the earth? No, but a sword, such a sword as this, Matthew 10:34,35. A passive testimony was hereby given to the Lord Jesus. As when he was in the womb, he was witnessed to by a child’s leaping in the womb for joy at his approach, so now, at two years old, he had contemporary witnesses to him of the same age. They shed their blood for him, who afterwards shed his for them. These were the infantry of the noble army of martyrs. If these infants were thus baptized with blood, though it were their own, into the church triumphant, it could not be said but that, with what they got in heaven, they were abundantly recompensed for what they lost on earth. Out of the mouths of these babes and sucklings God did perfect his praise otherwise, it is not good to the Almighty that he should thus afflict.
The tradition of the Greek church (and we have it in the Æ thiopic missal) is, that the number of the children slain was 14,000 but that is very absurd. I believe, if the births of the male children in the weekly bills were computed, there would not be found so many under two years old, in one of the most populous cities in the world, that was not near a fortieth part of it. But it is an instance of the vanity of tradition. It is strange that Josephus does not relate this story but he wrote long after St. Matthew, and it is probable that he therefore would not relate it, because he would not so far countenance the Christian history for he was a zealous Jew but, to be sure, if it had not been true and well attested, he would have contested it. Macrobius, a heathen writer, tells us, that when Augustus Cæ sar heard that Herod, among the children he order to be slain under two years old, slew his own son, he passed this jest upon him, That it was better to be Herod’s swine than his son. The usage of the country forbade him to kill a swine, but nothing could restrain him from killing his son. Some think that he had a young child at nurse in Bethlehem others think that, through mistake, two events are confounded–the murder of the infants, and the murder of his son Antipater. But for the church of Rome to put the Holy Innocents, as they call them, into their calendar, and observe a day in memory of them, while they have so often, by their barbarous massacres, justified, and even out–one Herod, is but to do as their predecessors did, who built the tombs of the prophets, while they themselves filled up the same measure.
Some observe another design of Providence in the murder of the infants. By all the prophecies of the Old Testament it appears that Bethlehem was the place, and this the time, of the Messiah’s nativity now all the children of Bethlehem, born at this time, being murdered, and Jesus only escaping, none but Jesus could pretend to be the Messiah. Herod now thought he had baffled all the Old Testament prophecies, had defeated the indications of the star, and the devotions of the wise men, by ridding the country of this new King having burnt the hive, he concludes he had killed the master bee but God in heaven laughs at him, and has him in derision. Whatever crafty cruel devices are in men’s hearts, the counsel of the Lord shall stand.
III. The fulfilling of scripture in this (Matthew 2:17,18) Then was fulfilled that prophecy (Jeremiah 31:15), A voice was heard in Ramah. See and adore the fulness of the scripture! That prediction was accomplished in Jeremiah’s time, when Nebuzaradan, after he had destroyed Jerusalem, brought all his prisoners to Ramah (Jeremiah 40:1), and there disposed of them as he pleased, for the sword, or for captivity. Then was the cry in Ramah heard to Bethlehem (for those two cities, the one in Judah’s lot, and the other in Benjamin’s, were not far asunder) but now the prophecy is again fulfilled in the great sorrow that was for the death of these infants. The scripture was fulfilled,
1. In the place of this mourning. The noise of it was heard from Bethlehem to Ramah for Herod’s cruelty extended itself to all the coasts of Bethlehem, even into the lot of Benjamin, among the children of Rachel. Some think the country about Bethlehem was called Rachel, because there she died, and was buried. Rachel’s sepulchre was hard by Bethlehem, Compare 1Sam. x. 2. Rachel had her heart much set upon children: the son she died in travail of she called Benoni–the son of her sorrow. These mothers were like Rachel, lived near Rachel’s grave, and many of them descended from Rachel and therefore their lamentations are elegantly represented by Rachel’s weeping.
2. In the degree of this mourning. It was lamentation and mourning, and great mourning all little enough to express the sense they had of this aggravated calamity. There was a great cry in Egypt when the first-born were slain, and so there was here when the youngest was slain for whom we naturally have a particular tenderness. Here was a representation of this world we live in. We hear in it lamentation, and weeping, and mourning, and see the tears of the oppressed, some upon one account, and some upon another. Our ways lie through a vale of tears. This sorrow was so great, that they would not be comforted. They hardened themselves in it, and took a pleasure in their grief. Blessed be God, there is no occasion of grief in this world, no, not that which is supplied by sin itself, that will justify us in refusing to be comforted! They would not be comforted, because they are not, that is, they are not in the land of the living, are not as they were, in their mothers’ embraces. If, indeed, they were not, there might be some excuse for sorrowing as though we had no hope but we know they are not lost, but gone before if we forget that they are, we lose the best ground of our comfort, 1 Thessalonians 4:13. Some make this grief of the Bethlehemites to be a judgment upon them for their contempt of Christ. They that would not rejoice for the birth of the Son of God, are justly made to weep for the death of their own sons for they only wondered at the tidings the shepherds brought them, but did not welcome them.
The quoting of this prophecy might serve to obviate an objection which some would make against Christ, upon this sad providence. “Can the Messiah, who is to be the Consolation of Israel, be introduced with all this lamentation?” Yes, for so it was foretold, and the scripture must be accomplished. And besides, if we look further into this prophecy, we shall find that the bitter weeping in Ramah was but a prologue to the greatest joy, for it follows, Thy work shall be rewarded, and there is hope in thy end. The worse things are, the sooner they will mend. Unto them a child was born, sufficient to repair their losses.
From Matthew Henry’s Exposition of the Old and New Testaments.