That it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Out of Egypt have I called my son.

“Above it was shown how the Magi bore witness to Christ at his birth; now, however, it is treated how the innocents bear witness, not by speaking but by dying. And concerning this the Evangelist does three things. First the hiding of Christ is set forth; second, the killing of the children, at the words "Then Herod"; third, the return of Christ himself is set forth, at the words "Herod being dead." Concerning the first he does three things. First the warning of the Angel is set forth; second, the obedience of Joseph is shown; third, the fulfillment of prophecy. The second is at "that it might be fulfilled." Concerning the first, three things are touched upon. First the time of the apparition is set forth; second, the apparition itself and the manner of the apparition is described, at "behold, an Angel"; third, the warning itself made through the Angel is set forth, at "arise, and take the child." The time is described at "who, when they had departed." And it must be understood that this apparition did not occur immediately after the departure of the Magi, because the whole of what is said in Luke 2:6 must be interposed, namely concerning the purification: "after the days were fulfilled," and so on. For Herod did not immediately think of killing the children. Hence when it says "who, when they had departed," the whole history of the purification must be interposed. Next the apparition itself is set forth; hence, "behold, an Angel appeared in sleep," and so on. He is said to appear in sleep, because then men cease from external acts, and to such the revelation is made through Angels; Psalm 4:9: "In peace, in the very same, I will sleep and I will rest"; Proverbs 3:24: "You shall rest, and your sleep shall be sweet." In this warning three things are set forth. First the Angel urges flight; second, he determines the length of the stay; third, he assigns the cause. He says therefore, "Arise." And note that, as Hilary says, the Blessed Virgin before the nativity is called "wife" by the Angel, above (I, 5), but after the nativity she is not. And this for two reasons. First, for the commendation of the virgin; for as she conceived a virgin, so she gave birth a virgin. Second, on account of her dignity: for she was the Mother of God, than which dignity none is greater, and the naming is done from the more worthy. Likewise, as Chrysostom says, the child had not come for the sake of the mother, but rather the reverse; and therefore he says, "take the child and his mother," and so on. But why flee into Egypt? Does not the Psalm say (Psalm 18:15): "The Lord is my helper, and my redeemer"? But it must be known that he fled for three reasons. First, to manifest his humanity; for as his divinity appeared in the star, so his humanity appeared in the flight. Philippians 2:7: "made in the likeness of men." Second, for the sake of example; for he showed by example what he taught by word. Below, 10:23: "But when they persecute you in this city, flee into another." Third, on account of the mystery: for as he willed to die, that he might call us back from death, so he willed to flee, that he might call back those fleeing from his face on account of sin. Psalm 138:7: "Whither shall I go from your spirit?" And, "be there." But why rather into Egypt, than elsewhere into another region? It must be said, for two reasons. The first is, because it is proper to God to be mindful of mercy in wrath, Habakkuk 3:8. For the Lord was angry against the Egyptians who persecuted the sons of Israel, because the sons of Israel were the firstborn of God. And therefore it was granted to Egypt to render service to the Only-begotten; Isaiah 19:1: "Behold, the Lord will ascend upon a swift cloud, and will enter into Egypt," etc.; the same, 9:2: "The people that walked in darkness has seen a great light: to them that dwelt in the region of the shadow of death, light has arisen"; John 1:14: "We saw his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." The second, because he himself had brought darkness upon Egypt, therefore he willed to illumine it first; and therefore he fittingly fled there; Isaiah 9:2: "The people that walked in darkness has seen a great light; to them that dwelt in the region of the shadow of death, light has arisen." Note that when someone wishes to flee sin, he must first shake off laziness; Ephesians 5:14: "Arise, you who sleep, and rise from the dead, and Christ will enlighten you." Second, he must take confidence from the Mother and the Son, namely Christ; Ecclesiasticus 24:25: "In me is all hope of life and of virtue." Third, he must flee from sin aided by the help of the mother and the child; Psalm 54:8: "Behold, I have gone far off fleeing, and I abode in the wilderness." He adds the cause of this flight: "for it will come to pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy him." Herod was deceived, because he wished to destroy him who had come to share his kingdom; Luke 22:29: "And I dispose to you, as my Father has disposed to me, a kingdom." Second, because he sought to destroy him who did not seek worldly glory; Hebrews 12:2: "Who, the joy being set before him, endured the cross." "Who, arising." Here the execution of the angelic command is set forth, and he sets it forth as to the flight, and as to the stay. Hence, "who, arising, took the child and his mother." And mention is made of the time, hence he says "by night," on account of fear and tribulation, according to that of Isaiah 26:9: "My soul has desired you in the night," that is, in tribulation; for in tribulations one must have recourse to God: Hosea 6:1: "In their tribulation they will rise early to me." "Who, arising." Then was fulfilled that word of Isaiah 19:1: "Behold, the Lord will ascend upon a swift cloud, and will enter into Egypt"; which was fulfilled according to the letter. "And he was there." It is said that he was there for seven years, and dwelt in the city of Heliopolis. As to the mystery, however, by Joseph are signified the preachers, that is, the apostles, who are set forth for driving out darkness through doctrine, who, departing from the Jews, were turned to the gentiles; Acts 13:16: "To you it was necessary to speak the word of God first; but because you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the gentiles." "And be there until I tell you," that is, until the unbelief of the Jews is ended. Romans 2:25: "Blindness has happened in part in Israel." Next he adduces the testimony of prophecy; hence he says, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet." This is, according to the translation of Jerome, Hosea 11:1. But in the translation of the Seventy it is not so, but "out of Egypt I have called his son." There seems here to be a question: because this does not seem to serve the purpose, because it is prefaced there, "the child Israel," etc., and thus it seems to speak of the calling of Israel out of Egypt. But it must be said that in all the authoritative texts which are set down in the Gospels or in the epistles concerning Christ, a certain distinction must be noted; for some are said specially of Christ, as that of Isaiah 53:7: "As a sheep he shall be led to the slaughter"; but others are said of certain persons insofar as they bore the figure of Christ. And such is this text: for these were not sons of Israel, except insofar as they bore the likeness of the true Only-begotten Son. And this is: "out of Egypt I have called my son," namely, the special one. "Then Herod." Here the killing of the children is treated; and concerning this he does two things. First the occasion of the killing is set forth; second, the killing itself is set forth, at "and sending, he killed all the children"; third, prophecies are adduced, at "then was fulfilled." The occasion was the wrath of Herod: hence, "then Herod was angry." James 1:20: "The wrath of man does not work the justice of God." And it must be noted that when any king suspects the loss of his kingdom, he quickly grows angry and is inflamed. "Seeing that he had been deluded by the Magi, he was exceedingly angry." And he is said to be "exceedingly angry" for two reasons: because when someone is already angry, he is strongly inflamed by a slight occasion. Hence, because he was already in suspicion of the loss of his kingdom, and had been deluded by the Magi, he was exceedingly angry. Ecclesiasticus 11:34: "From one spark a fire is increased." "And sending." In this wrath there was cruelty as to three things: as to the place, as to the multitude, and as to the time. As to the multitude: that, seeking one, he killed all. Hence it is said, "and sending, he killed all the children." And note that Augustine says that this man would never have profited so much by homage as he profited by hatred. But it is asked, since they did not have free will, how they are said to have died for Christ. But, as it is said in John 3:17, "God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him." For God would never have permitted them to be killed, unless it had been useful for them. Hence Augustine says that it is the same thing to doubt whether this killing profited them, as to doubt whether Baptism profits children: for they suffered as martyrs and confessed Christ by dying, although not by speaking. Revelation 6:9: "I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God." The second cruelty is, that he killed in all the borders, for he feared lest he should flee, namely to some city. And it happened to him as to a wounded beast, which does not heed whom it ought to wound; Proverbs 28:15: "A roaring lion, and a hungry bear, is a wicked prince over a poor people." The third, as to the time. Hence, "from two years old," that is, of two years. And note that Augustine says that in that very year in which Christ was born, the innocents were killed. But why does it say "from two years old and under"? Some say that the star had appeared for two years before; hence Herod was in doubt whether he had been born from the time of the star. And therefore it says, "according to the time which he had learned from the Magi." Others, however, say that these were not killed in the same year, but after two years. But why did he delay so long? A threefold reason is given by different authors. One is, that at first he thought that the Magi had been deceived and that they had found nothing, but after he heard many words about Christ from Zechariah and Simeon and Anna, then he was moved to seek him. Others say that he did this out of caution: for he feared lest the parents had hidden the child whom he was seeking; hence he first wished to reassure them. Others, that he was hindered by preoccupation, because he sent after the Magi as far as Tarsus of Cilicia and had their ships burned. Likewise he was occupied, because he was summoned to Rome, accused by his sons. And thus after his return he began to rage. And it says "and under," etc., because he thought him to be of such power, that he could change his appearance. By this killing is signified the killing of the martyrs, because children signify through humility and innocence; below, 19:14: "Suffer the little ones, and forbid them not to come to me"; likewise below, 18:3: "Unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." "In Bethlehem, and in all its borders"; because throughout the whole world they are killed: Acts 1:8: "You shall be my witnesses," namely, by dying. The two years are the twofold charity, of God and of neighbor, because faith without works is dead, James 2:20. And note that when Christ was born, persecution immediately raged, because as soon as someone is converted to Christ, he begins to be tempted. Ecclesiasticus 2:1: "Son, when you come to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare your soul for temptation." "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet." The killing of the children having been set down, here, according to his custom, the Evangelist sets forth the prophecy announcing it, which is Jeremiah 31:15: "A voice was heard in Rama, of lamentation, mourning and weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted for them, because they are not." And it must be noted that, as Jerome says, wherever any authoritative text of the Old Testament is introduced by the apostles and Evangelists, it is not necessary always to render word for word, but as the Holy Spirit gave it to them, sometimes sense for sense, according to our usage. Thus we have Jeremiah 31:15: "A voice was heard on high, of lamentation, mourning and weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted for them, because they are not." And the sense is the same. And it must be considered that, as far as this text is concerned, this is one of those which are introduced in the Gospel, which nevertheless has a literal sense that is a figure of that which was in the New Testament. Hence for its understanding a certain history must be considered, which is read in Judges 19, where it is said that on account of the sin committed regarding the wife of the Levite, almost the whole tribe of Benjamin was destroyed; and it is said that there was the greatest lamentation there, so great that it was heard from Gibeah as far as Rama, twelve miles distant from Bethlehem. This is called Rachel weeping, because she was the mother of Benjamin; and it is a figurative expression, namely, to express the greatness of the sorrow. But this is prophecy concerning the past. In another way it is concerning the future, in two ways. For in one way it can be referred to the captivity of Israel, who, when they were being led into captivity, are said to have wept on the road near Bethlehem; and then Rachel is said to have wept, because she was buried there, Genesis 35:19. And this is said in the same manner of speaking by which a place is said to weep for the evils that happen in that place. The prophet therefore means to say that just as there was the greatest sorrow and mourning when the tribe of Benjamin was destroyed, so another equally great sorrow would come at the time of the captivity. In a third way it is explained thus. The Evangelist takes up the fact of the killing of the innocents and magnifies this sorrow in four ways: from the diffusion of the sorrow, from the multitude of the sorrow, from the matter, and from its inconsolability. He says therefore: "a voice in Rama." There is a certain city in the tribe of Benjamin, Joshua 18:25, and it can be taken for the city of Leah. Here, however, it is taken for "on high"; and it can be explained in two ways. First thus: "a voice," uttered on high, "was heard," because a voice that is in a high place is spread far and wide; Isaiah 40:9: "Get up upon a high mountain, you who bring good tidings to Zion, lift up your voice with strength." Or, it was heard on high, that is, in heaven with God; Ecclesiasticus 35:21: "The prayer of him that humbles himself shall pierce the clouds, and till it come near he will not be comforted, and he will not depart till the Most High regard him." And again: "Do not the tears of the widow run down the cheek, and her cry against him that causes them to fall?" "Weeping": this can be referred to the crying of the slain infants. And "much wailing": this to the weeping of the mothers. Or both to the children: "weeping" insofar as they were snatched up by the soldiers, "wailing" insofar as they were being slain. Greater is the sorrow of the mothers than of the children. Likewise the sorrow of the mothers was persistent, that of the children was brief: on account of which Zechariah 12:10 says: "They shall mourn for him as for an only son, and they shall grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of a firstborn." Likewise from the matter of the sorrow, because it concerns the death of children. Hence Rachel weeps. But an objection is raised, that Bethlehem was not in the tribe of Benjamin, but in the tribe of Judah, who was the son of Leah. And it is resolved in three ways. First, because Rachel was buried near Bethlehem, Genesis 35:19. And so she wept for the children in the manner by which a place is said to weep; Jeremiah 2:12: "Be astonished, O you heavens, at this, and you gates thereof, be very desolate, says the Lord." Or otherwise. Above it was said that Herod killed the children in Bethlehem, and in all its borders, and so on. Now Bethlehem was on the border of two tribes, namely Judah and Benjamin; hence some of the children of Benjamin were killed: and thus the objection ceases, as Jerome explains. Augustine, however, explains it differently and says that it is customary that when someone has had good fortune, he grieves more when adversities come. Leah and Rachel were sisters, and those who were killed were of the sons of Leah. And thus they were killed bodily, lest they be punished eternally, as in the affair of Gibeah. She is said therefore to weep, seeing her sister's sons being killed and damned. Or by Rachel the Church is signified, because her name is interpreted "seeing God," and the Church sees through faith: she weeps for her children slain, not because they were slain, but because through them she could have acquired others. Or she does not weep on account of the slain, but on account of the slayers. There follows the point concerning the inconsolability of the sorrow: "and she would not." And this is explained in many ways. First, so that it is referred to the people who then were. For comfort is owed as long as some remedy is hoped for; but when it is not hoped for, there is no comfort, as is clear in the case of one despaired of in sickness; and therefore it says, so that it is referred to the opinion of the mothers, "because they are not," that is, because they do not appear; Genesis 37:30: "The child does not appear." Or, she would not be comforted, "because they are not," that is, as if they did not exist: for comfort is owed only concerning evils. Hence according to this it is referred to the opinion of the Church, which holds them as though they reigned; hence, as of those reigning, she rejoices over them, 1 Thessalonians 4:12: "We would not have you ignorant concerning them that sleep, that you be not sorrowful, even as others who have no hope"; or, she would not be comforted concerning the present, but awaits comfort in the future; below, 5:5: "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." Next the recalling of Christ is treated; hence, "Herod being dead, behold, an Angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph." And first the apparition of the Angel is set forth; second, the command of the Angel; third, the execution of the Angel's command. Concerning the first, three things are set forth. First the time is described; second, the person; third, the manner of the apparition. He says therefore, "Herod being dead": not that Herod who was present at Christ's death, because that one was the son of this one. "Behold, an Angel appeared." It must be noted that every disturbance of the Church, according to the mystery, is ended by the death of persecutors, because "in the perishing of the wicked there shall be praise," Proverbs 11:10. Likewise note that, the unbelief of the Jews being ended, Christ will return to them. Romans 11:26: "And then all Israel shall be saved." "Behold ... appeared." It must be noted that such is the order of Angels and men, that divine illuminations do not come to us except through Angels; Hebrews 1:14: "They are all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation." Hence even Christ, according as he was man, willed to be announced through Angels. The manner, at "in sleep, to Joseph in Egypt." The command, at "arise, and take the child." He does not say "son," nor "wife," but "the child," that the dignity of the child might be designated, and the integrity of the mother. In this it is signified that Joseph was not given to her for carnal union, but for service and guardianship. Next he assigns the cause: "for they are dead who sought the life of the child." But it is asked, why does it say "are dead"? For only Herod had died. This is resolved in two ways. First, because this man had done so much evil that the Jews rejoiced at his death: who, foreseeing this, commanded, still living, his sister, that she should have the nobler men among the Jews killed at his death; and these had sought the life of the child along with Herod; and this is "for they are dead who sought the life of the child." Or otherwise: it is the custom of Sacred Scripture to put the plural for the singular: hence "they are dead," that is, "he is dead," and so on. Hence in this, that it says "who sought the life of the child," the error of Apollinaris is destroyed, who said that the divinity was in Christ in place of a soul. The execution of this command is set forth: "who, arising, took the child and his mother"; and concerning this he does two things: first he shows how he returned into the land of Israel; second, which part he avoided; third, to which part he turned aside, at "and being warned in sleep, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee." He says therefore, "who arising." It must be noted that the Angel did not say, "go into the land of Judah," or "into Jerusalem," but universally, "into the land of Israel," under which Galilee too can be comprehended. Hence it can be said that Joseph entered the borders of the land which Judah inhabited. Next is set forth which part he avoided, at "but hearing that Archelaus reigned in Judea." And here the history of Herod must be noted. This Herod had six sons, and before his death he killed Alexander and Aristobulus; but at his death he ordered that Antipater be killed. Hence three remained, among whom Archelaus was the firstborn, and he usurped the kingdom for himself; but at length, accused by the Jews before Caesar Augustus, the kingdom was taken away from him and was divided into four parts, and Archelaus had two, the other two others divided among themselves, so that Herod had one tetrarchy, Philip another, as is found in Luke 3:1. This Archelaus was sent into exile after nine years of his reign. "And being warned in sleep." The Angel had first said that he should go to the land of Israel; but because Joseph had not yet understood, therefore the Angel, who had before revealed it indeterminately, now determines it. And this is: "and being warned ... he withdrew into the parts of Galilee." But to the contrary: just as Archelaus reigned in Judea, so Herod reigned in Galilee. But it must be said that this was immediately after the death of Herod, when Archelaus held the whole, because afterward the division was made. But then it is also asked, why he did not fear Archelaus. It must be said that the seat of the kingdom was in Jerusalem; hence he dwelt there almost always. But it is asked, why in Luke 2:41 it is said that every year they took the child into Jerusalem. And Augustine resolves this, that they went safely on account of the great crowd which then went up; but there would have been danger if he had remained there long. Likewise it is asked, why the Evangelist implies that Joseph came to Nazareth as though by accident, whereas in Luke 2:39 it is said that he had his own dwelling in Nazareth. But it must be said that the Angel had told him to go into the land of Israel, which, strictly taken, did not contain Galilee, nor Nazareth: and thus Joseph understood it; and therefore he was not intending to go to Nazareth. "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: that he shall be called a Nazarene." This is not found written, but it can be said that it is gathered from many places. "Nazarene," therefore, is interpreted "holy": and because Christ is called holy; Daniel 9:24: "Until the Holy One be anointed"; therefore it is significantly said "through the prophet." Or it can be said that by "Nazarene" is interpreted "flourishing"; and this is had in Isaiah 11:1: "A rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up from his root," etc.; and this agrees with what is said in Song of Songs 2:1: "I am the flower of the field and the lily of the valleys."”

“And was there until the death of Herod,.... Which was in a very short time; for Eusebius (i) says, that immediately, in a very little time after the slaughter of the children at Bethlehem, the divine vengeance inflicted diseases on him, which quickly brought him to his end; so that, according to the learned Dr. Lightfoot (k), Jesus was not above three or four months in Egypt. Now all this was brought about, that it might be fulfilled; not by way of accommodation of phrases to a like event; or by way of type, which has a fresh completion in the antitype; or as a proverbial sentence which might be adapted to any remarkable deliverance out of hardship, misery and destruction; but literally, properly, and in the obvious sense thereof; which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, not Balaam, in Num 23:22 or Num 24:8 but in Hos 11:1 "when Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt": the meaning of which passage is, either in connection with the last clause of the foregoing chapter thus; "in a morning shall the king of Israel be cut off", "because Israel is a child", a rebellious and disobedient one, acting a very weak and wicked part; "yet I have loved him, or do love him", and "have called", or "will call", (the past tense for the future, frequent in the Hebrew language, especially in the prophetic writings,) "my son out of Egypt"; who will be obliged to retire there for some time; I will make him king, set him upon the throne, who shall execute justice, and reign for ever and ever; or thus, "because Israel is a child", helpless and imprudent, and "I love him", though he is so, "therefore l will call", or I have determined to call my son out of Egypt: who through a tyrant's rage and malice will be obliged to abide there a while; yet I will bring him from thence into the land of Judea, where he shall live and "help" my "servant", (l), "child Israel"; shall instruct him in his duty, teach him the doctrines of the Gospel, and at last, by his sufferings and death, procure for him the pardon of all his transgressions; of which there is a particular enumeration in Mat 2:3. This is the natural and unconstrained sense of these words, which justifies the Evangelist in his citation and application of them to Christ's going to Egypt, and his return from thence, as I have elsewhere (m) shown. (i) Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 8. p. 25, 26. (k) Harmony of the New Testament, p. 6. (l) Luke i. 54. (m) Prophecies of the Messiah, &c. p. 123, &c.”

“Out of Egypt have I called my son. [3] St. Jerome understands these words to be taken out of the prophet Osee, (Chap. xi. 2.) and granted they might be literally spoken of the people Israel: yet as their captivity in Egypt was a figure of the slavery of sin, under which all mankind groaned, and as their delivery by Moses was a figure of man’s redemption by our Saviour Christ, so these words in a mystical and spiritual sense apply to our Saviour, who in a more proper sense was the Son of God, than was the people of Israel. (Witham) — The application of this passage of the prophet to Christ, whereas in the simple letter it might appear otherwise, teaches us how to interpret the Old Testament; and that the principal sense is of Christ and his Church. (Bristow)”

“And was there until the death of Herod--which took place not very long after this of a horrible disease; the details of which will be found in JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 17.6.1,5,7,8]. that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying-- (Hos 11:1). Out of Egypt have I called my son--Our Evangelist here quotes directly from the Hebrew, warily departing from the Septuagint, which renders the words, "From Egypt have I recalled his children," meaning Israel's children. The prophet is reminding his people how dear Israel was to God in the days of his youth; how Moses was bidden to say to Pharaoh, "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is My son, My first-born; and I say unto thee, Let My son go, that he may serve Me; and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy first-born" (Exo 4:22-23); how, when Pharaoh refused, God having slain all his first-born, "called His own son out of Egypt," by a stroke of high-handed power and love. Viewing the words in this light, even if our Evangelist had not applied them to the recall from Egypt of God's own beloved, Only-begotten Son, the application would have been irresistibly made by all who have learnt to pierce beneath the surface to the deeper relations which Christ bears to His people, and both to God; and who are accustomed to trace the analogy of God's treatment of each respectively.”