John Calvin Commentary Matthew 2:1

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying," — Matthew 2:1 (ASV)

Now when Jesus had been born—Matthew does not say how it came about that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The Spirit of God, who had appointed the Evangelists to be His scribes,¹⁷⁷ appears to have purposely regulated their style so that they all wrote one and the same history with the most perfect agreement, but in different ways. It was intended that God's truth should appear more clearly and strikingly when it was evident that His witnesses did not speak by a prearranged plan, but that each of them, separately and without regard to another, wrote freely and honestly what the Holy Spirit dictated.

This is a very remarkable narrative. God brought Magi from Chaldea to come to Judea to adore Christ in the stable where He lay, amidst signs not of honor, but of contempt. It was a truly wonderful purpose of God that He caused His Son's entrance into the world to be accompanied by deep lowliness, yet He bestowed upon Him illustrious adornments—both commendations and other outward signs—so that our faith might be supplied with everything necessary to prove His divine majesty.

A beautiful example of real harmony amidst apparent contradiction is shown here. A star from heaven announces that He is a king, for whom a manger, intended for cattle, serves as a throne because He is refused admittance even among the lowest of the people. His majesty shines in the East, while in Judea it is so far from being acknowledged that it meets with many signs of dishonor.

Why is this? The heavenly Father chose to appoint the star and the Magi as our guides to lead directly to His Son, while He stripped Him of all earthly splendor to inform us that His kingdom is spiritual.

This history conveys profitable instruction, not only because God brought the Magi to His Son as the firstfruits of the Gentiles, but also because He appointed His Son's kingdom to receive their commendation and that of the star for the confirmation of our faith, so that the wicked and malicious contempt of His own nation might not make Him less esteemed in our eyes.

Magi is well known to be the name given by the Persians and Chaldeans to astrologers and philosophers, and from this it may readily be conjectured that these men came from Persia.¹⁷⁸ As the Evangelist does not state their number, it is better to be ignorant of it than to affirm as certain what is doubtful.

Papists have been led into a childish error of supposing that they were three in number because Matthew says that they brought gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matthew 2:11). But the historian does not say that each of them separately presented his own gift. He says, rather, that these three gifts were presented by them in common.

That ancient author, whoever he may be, whose incomplete Commentary on Matthew bears the name of Chrysostom and is included among Chrysostom’s works, says that they were fourteen. This carries as little probability as the other. It may have come from a tradition of the Fathers but has no solid foundation.

But the most ridiculous contrivance of the Papists on this subject is that these men were kings because they found a prediction in another passage that

the kings of Tarshish, and of the Isles, and of Sheba,
would offer gifts to the Lord (Psalms 72:10).

Ingenious craftsmen, truly, who, to present these men in a new form, have begun by turning the world upside down, for they have changed the south and west into the east!

Beyond all doubt, they have been stupefied by a righteous judgment of God, so that all might laugh at the gross ignorance of those who have not hesitated to adulterate, and change the truth of God into a lie, (Romans 1:25).

The inquiries here are:

1. Was this star one of those which the Lord created in the beginning (Genesis 1:1, 16) to garnish the heavens? (Job 26:13)
2. Were the Magi led by their acquaintance with astrology to conclude that it pointed out the birth of Christ?

On these points, there is no need for angry debate. It may be inferred from Matthew's words that it was not a natural but an extraordinary star.

It was not in keeping with the order of nature that it should disappear for a time and afterward suddenly become bright; nor that it should pursue a straight course toward Bethlehem and finally remain stationary above the house where Christ was. None of these things are characteristic of natural stars.

It is more probable that it resembled¹⁷⁹ a comet and was seen not in the heavens but in the air. Yet Matthew is not incorrect, using popular language, in calling it a star.

This almost decides the second question as well, for since astrology is undoubtedly confined within the limits of nature, its guidance alone could not have led the Magi to Christ.

Therefore, they must have been aided by a secret revelation of the Spirit. I do not go so far as to say that they derived no assistance whatever from their art, but I affirm that this would have been of no practical advantage if they had not been aided by a new and extraordinary revelation.

¹⁷⁷ “Scribas;” — “;” — “greffiers.”——Clerks, not not Authors in the ordinary meaning of that term, but persons who wrote to the dictation of another. This conveys the idea of what is frequently called in the ordinary meaning of that term, but persons who wrote to the dictation of another. This conveys the idea of what is frequently called plenary inspiration. If such a term as If such a term as Clerk, or or Penman, may be supposed to lower the sacred writers, it is not by a comparison of them with uninspired historians, the ablest of whom cannot, without arrogance, aspire to an equal level with those who wrote by inspiration. But when man is brought into a comparison with God, no language can express too strongly the infinite distance between the parties. The Evangelists do not ask the praise of invention, or judgment, or of anything else which would imply that the work was their own production. But they lay claim to a loftier and peculiar distinction, that they faithfully committed to writing that history which they were honored to receive from its Divine Author. may be supposed to lower the sacred writers, it is not by a comparison of them with uninspired historians, the ablest of whom cannot, without arrogance, aspire to an equal level with those who wrote by inspiration. But when man is brought into a comparison with God, no language can express too strongly the infinite distance between the parties. The Evangelists do not ask the praise of invention, or judgment, or of anything else which would imply that the work was their own production. But they lay claim to a loftier and peculiar distinction, that they faithfully committed to writing that history which they were honored to receive from its Divine Author. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, ((2 Peter 1:21.) — .) — Ed.

¹⁷⁸ “Le mot Grec, (μάγαι,) , (μάγαι,) du quel use l'Evangeliste est celuy d'ou vient le mot de Magiciens: mais les Perses et Chaldeens nomment ainsi leurs Astrologues et Philosophes: et pourtant nous l'avons traduit par ce mot de Sages. Parquoy il y a grande apparence de dire qu'ils etoyent venus du pays des Perses.” — “The Greek word, (μάγοι,) which the Evangelist employs, is that from which the word .” — “The Greek word, (μάγοι,) which the Evangelist employs, is that from which the word Magicians is derived: but the Persians and Chaldees give this name also to their Astrologers and Philosophers: and therefore we have translated it by the word is derived: but the Persians and Chaldees give this name also to their Astrologers and Philosophers: and therefore we have translated it by the word Sages, or or Wise men. Wherefore there is great probability in saying that they had come from the country of the Persians.”Wherefore there is great probability in saying that they had come from the country of the Persians.”

¹⁷⁹ Calvin says, not that it was a comet, but that it a comet, but that it resembled a comet; and it is probable enough that the comet; and it is probable enough that the meteor assumed that aspect. He refutes, in a masterly and conclusive manner, the supposition that it was “natural star,” but, with modesty and good sense, avoids shocking the prejudices of his age. Of astrology he speaks more doubtfully. If he had lent the countenance of his name to that pretended science, we ought not to have blamed him severely. Long after he had left the world, men of powerful minds, and of extensive attainments in science, found it no easy matter to disentangle themselves from its meshes, and to proclaim their freedom. But Calvin needs no vindication. He has left us a treatise, assumed that aspect. He refutes, in a masterly and conclusive manner, the supposition that it was “natural star,” but, with modesty and good sense, avoids shocking the prejudices of his age. Of astrology he speaks more doubtfully. If he had lent the countenance of his name to that pretended science, we ought not to have blamed him severely. Long after he had left the world, men of powerful minds, and of extensive attainments in science, found it no easy matter to disentangle themselves from its meshes, and to proclaim their freedom. But Calvin needs no vindication. He has left us a treatise, Adversus Astrologiam Judiciarium, "Against Judicial Astrology;" which Servetus, as much his inferior in philosophical views in sterling worth, brings forward as one of his charges. , "Against Judicial Astrology;" which Servetus, as much his inferior in philosophical views in sterling worth, brings forward as one of his charges. Damnatam a me fuisse Astrologiam conqueritur, says Calvin; "It is made a ground of complaint against me that I have condemned astrology." — , says Calvin; "It is made a ground of complaint against me that I have condemned astrology." — Ed.