Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 2:22
But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
22. Archelaus ] A son of Herod the Great. His mother was Malthak, a Samaritan. After a cruel and disturbed reign (under the title of Ethnarch) of about eight years he was banished to Vienna in Gaul the modern Vienne. His dominions, including Samaria, Juda, and Iduma, then passed into the direct government of Rome. See note, ch. Mat 14:1, and Introduction, p. 25.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
22, 23. The Dwelling at Nazareth
22. notwithstanding ] Rather “but” or “so.”
he turned aside ] Rather, retired or withdrew. The English ‘anchorite’ is derived from the Greek word in the original. The same word is translated in Mat 2:12-13, “departed.”
Galilee ] Now under the government of Herod Antipas, full brother of Archelaus. For the extent of his dominions see Map.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
He heard that Archelaus did reign – Archelaus possessed a cruel and tyrannical disposition similar to his father. At one of the Passovers he caused 3,000 of the people to be put to death in the temple and city. For his crimes, after he had reigned 9 years, he was banished by Augustus, the Roman emperor, to Gaul, where he died. Knowing his character, and fearing that he would not be safe, Joseph hesitated about going there, and was directed by God to go to Galilee, a place of safety.
The parts of Galilee – The country of Galilee. At this time the land of Palestine was divided into three parts: Galilee, on the north; Samaria, in the middle; and Judea, on the south. Galilee was under the government of Herod Antipas, who was comparatively a mild prince, and in his dominions Joseph might find safety.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 22. When he heard that Archelaus did reign] Herod, having put Antipater his eldest son to death, altered his will, and thus disposed of his dominions: he gave the tetrarchy of Galilee and Petrea to his son Antipas; the tetrarchy of Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, Batanea, and Paneadis, to his son Philip; and left the kingdom of Judea to his eldest remaining son, Archelaus. This son partook of the cruel and blood-thirsty disposition of his father: at one of the passovers, he caused three thousand of the people to be put to death in the temple and city. For his tyranny and cruelty, Augustus deprived him of the government, and banished him. His character considered, Joseph, with great propriety, forbore to settle under his jurisdiction.
He turned aside into the parts of Galilee] Here Antipas governed, who is allowed to have been of a comparatively mild disposition: and, being intent on building two cities, Julias and Tiberias, he endeavoured, by a mild carriage and promises of considerable immunities, to entice people from other provinces to come and settle in them. He was besides in a state of enmity with his brother Archelaus: this was a most favourable circumstance to the holy family; and though God did not permit them to go to any of the new cities, yet they dwelt in peace, safety, and comfort at Nazareth.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
22. But when he heard that Archelausdid reign in Judea in the room of his father HerodArchelaussucceeded to Judea, Samaria, and Idumea; but Augustus refused him thetitle of king till it should be seen how he conducted himself;giving him only the title of ethnarch [JOSEPHUS,Antiquities, 17.11,4]. Above this, however, he never rose. Thepeople, indeed, recognized him as his father’s successor; and so itis here said that he “reigned in the room of his fatherHerod.” But, after ten years’ defiance of the Jewish law andcruel tyranny, the people lodged heavy complaints against him, andthe emperor banished him to Vienne in Gaul, reducing Judea again to aRoman province. Then the “scepter” clean “departedfrom Judah.”
he was afraid to gothitherand no wonder, for the reason just mentioned.
notwithstandingor moresimply, “but.”
being warned of God in adream, he turned asidewithdrew.
into the parts of Galileeorthe Galilean parts. The whole country west of the Jordan was at thistime, as is well known, divided into three provincesGALILEEbeing the northern, JUDEAthe southern, and SAMARIAthe central province. The province of Galilee was under thejurisdiction of Herod Antipas, the brother of Archelaus, his fatherhaving left him that and Perea, on the east side of the Jordan, ashis share of the kingdom, with the title of tetrarch, whichAugustus confirmed. Though crafty and licentious, according toJOSEPHUSprecisely whatthe Gospel history shows him to be (see on Mr6:14-30; Lu 13:31-35) he wasof a less cruel disposition than Archelaus; and Nazareth being a goodway off from the seat of government, and considerably secluded, itwas safer to settle there.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But when he heard that Archelaus,…. This Archelaus was a son of Herod the great by Malthace Samaritan, and was appointed by him for his successor a little before his death, and was upon it declared king by the populace, the soldiers, and those that were in power; all which is affirmed by Josephus a, and confirms the account given by the Evangelist; with whose account agrees what the Jewish chronologer says b, that
“Archelaus, the second king of the family of Herod, reigned after his father’s death: and a little after he says, Caesar Augustus caused Archelaus to reign “in the room of Herod his father””;
which is the very phrase used by Matthew. Now this man was like his father, a very cruel wicked man; and, as the above chronologer says c, he ordered his troops, and slew at the feast of the passover, in the temple of the Lord, “nine thousand persons”: though perhaps Josephus’s account is truest, who says d, that he sent in his whole army upon the people, who had raised a sedition, and slew, whilst they were sacrificing, about “three thousand”; and this happened at the beginning of his reign, and indeed before he had scarce mounted the throne. And now the news of this might have reached the ears of Joseph, and be the reason why he
was afraid to go thither, into Judea, where Archelaus reigned.
Notwithstanding being warned of God in a dream, who never failed to advise him when in difficulty and distress, he did not go back again to Egypt, but
turned aside into the parts of Galilee; where Herod Antipas, another of Herod’s sons, was tetrarch or governor; who was a milder person, and not so cruel and tyrannical as Archelaus: besides, Galilee was an obscure place, where, Joseph might reasonably think, he should live with Mary and Jesus unobserved, and free from danger.
a Ib. c. 28. sect. 7. &c. 33. sect. 1. & l. 2. c. 1. sect. 1. b Ganz. Tzemach David, par. 1. fol 25. 1. c Ib. d De Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 1. sect. 5.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Warned in a dream ( ‘ ). He was already afraid to go to Judea because Archelaus was reigning (ruling, not technically king, ). In a fret at last before his death Herod had changed his will again and put Archelaus, the worst of his living sons, in the place of Antipas. So Joseph went to Galilee. Matthew has had nothing about the previous dwelling of Joseph and Mary in Nazareth. We learn that from Luke who tells nothing of the flight into Egypt. The two narratives supplement one another and are in no sense contradictory.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea,” (akousas de hoti Arche aos Basileuie tes loudaias) “Then upon hearing that Archelaus was reigning over the country of Judea;” He was the son of Herod the Great who had rebuilt the temple, then become a murderous, immoral, wicked tyrant to the hour of his death, Mat 2:1. Archelaus also became a wicked and cruel king and was banished from his throne by the Roman emperor and the Sceptre departed from Judah, Gen 49:10.
2) “In the room of his father Herod,” (anti tou patros autou Herodou) “Instead of (and in the place of) his father Herod;” His father had alloted him Samaria, Judea, and Idumea, with the title of King. To Philip he alloted provinces east of Jordan and the title tetrarch; and to Antipas he gave Galilee.
3) “He was afraid to go thither” (ephobethe ekei apelthein) “He (Joseph) feared to go there,” into the area of Judea at all, fearing this son of Herod might take the course of his murderous father against Jesus, should he learn his identity.
4) “Notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream,” (chrematistheis de kat’ onar) “Then upon being warned by the Lord in a dream,” by means of a dream, as he had been previously directed on three occasions regarding the Christ, Mat 1:20-21; Mat 2:13; Mat 2:20.
5) “He turned aside into the parts of Galilee:” (anechoresen eis ta mere tes Galilaias) “He departed into the upper part of Israel, into Galilee,” perhaps and apparently bypassing Bethlehem and Jerusalem to avoid any contact with the wicked servants of Herod’s now reigning son. In the province of Galilee Herod Antipas was reigning over that part of Israel. He was, though licentious and crafty, less cruel than his father, Mr 6:14-30; Luk 13:31-35. It was safer for Joseph and Mary to live in Galilee than in Samaria or Judea the other two major areas of Israel or the Holy Land.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(22) Archelaus.Strictly speaking, this prince, who, under his fathers will (made just before his death), governed Juda, Samaria, and Iduma, was never recognised as a king by the Roman Emperor, but received the inferior title of Ethnarch. Antipas had Galilee and Pera, Philip the region of Trachonitis. Popularly, however, the higher title was still used of him as we find it in 14:9 of the Tetrarch Antipas. The character of Archelaus was as cruel and treacherous as that of his father, and within a few months after his accession, he sent in his horsemen to disperse a multitude, and slew not less than 3,000 men. The temper of Antipas on the other hand was as yet looked on as milder. This, and possibly his absence from Galilee on a visit to Rome, may well have led Joseph to turn to that region as offering a prospect of greater safety (Jos. Ant. xvii. 2, 5, 6, 8, 9). Nine years later the oppression of Archelaus became so intolerable that both Jews and Samaritans complained of him to the Emperor, and he was deposed and banished to Gaul.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
22. When he heard that Archelaus did reign He heard this first after he had reached the land of Israel, that is, the southwestern border of Palestine. He knew the death of Herod by revelation in Egypt.
Archelaus was the son of Herod the Great, by his fourth wife, Malthace. After Herod had slain his three sons, Aristobulus, Alexander, and Antipater, he left by will his dominions to Archelaus as king. Upon the death of Herod, Archelaus was proclaimed king by the populace, but did not dare assume the crown until his title should be confirmed by the Emperor of Rome. Thereupon the Jews sent a solemn embassy to the emperor, petitioning that they might be exempted from the reign of any of Herod’s family, and that Judea might be governed as a Roman province, under the governor of Syria. The emperor, having heard the representations of all parties, appointed Archelaus not king, but ethnarch, that is, (in the Greek language,) nation-ruler, promising him the title of king, provided he should prove a good ruler. But the cruelty of the father was inherited by the son. Archelaus, after a reign of nine years, was deposed by the emperor at the suit of the Jewish people, and banished to Vienna, in Gaul, where he died. It is therefore very consistent with history, that when the parents of Jesus learned that Archelaus reigned in the stead of his father Herod, they should avoid his dominions, turn aside to Galilee, and make their abode in Nazareth.
It seems singular that Matthew has not thus far alluded to Nazareth by name, although we plentifully know by Luke that Nazareth was the home of the Holy Family before the flight to Egypt. Some think Matthew was not aware of the fact, which is hardly possible. But as Matthew wrote for Jews, it is more probable that he omits it because it was so well known. See concluding remarks of chapter i, par. 2.
Archelaus had as great a reputation for oppression as his cruel father. Herod Antipas, his brother, was ruler in Galilee. Thereby our Saviour’s residence was transferred to a scene predicted by the prophecies of the Old Testament.
Afraid to go thither Some think that they would have gone thither because they had a residence in Bethlehem. This is disproved from the fact that Mary had not even an acquaintance to afford her a lodging at an exigency when any friend would have made a sacrifice to accommodate her. But they had relatives in Judea, (Luk 1:36; Luk 1:39-40😉 Judah was their hereditary tribe, and Jerusalem might seem the suitable place for the young heir of David. These facts can surely explain their apparent disposition to settle in Judea. Galilee Was the northern one of the three great divisions of Palestine. The word signifies circuit. The province consisted of a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles, and so was much despised by the purer Jews of Judea.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
a ‘But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned of God in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth.’
However, when he learned that Archelaus was now ruling Judaea, knowing the quality of the man he was afraid to go there, and his fears were confirmed by another dream. This time no angel is mentioned (as with the Magi). Perhaps no special information had to be given. All that was needed was an awareness of the danger. So instead he moved into Galilee to his wife’s home town of Nazareth. At least there they would be among friends, and, where it nestled in the mountains, away from prying eyes.
We should note that when Herod the Great had died his kingdom was divided into three. Judaea, Samaria and Idumaea were given to Archelaus; Galilee and Peraea to Herod Antipas; and the remainder to Herod Philip. Archelaus was made Ethnarch, with the promise of kingship if he proved his worth. But his rule was cruel and inefficient and in the end he was deposed around 6 AD, and it was then that a Roman official was introduced in order to take charge of his section of Herod’s former kingdom.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 2:22. Archelaus He was the sixth son of Herod, and the most cruel of all those who survived him. He caused three thousand citizens to be murdered at one time in the temple. Herod in his will appointed him his successor, and bestowed upon him the regal authority; but Augustus gave him only the title of Ethnarch, or prince of the nation; of which, however, he deprived him afterwards, and sent him into banishment for his tyranny and cruelty. Galilee belonged to the jurisdiction of Antipas, another of the sons of Herod, and who was himself afterwards called Herod. See ch. Mat 14:1. He was of a much milder disposition than Archelaus, and was then upon such hostile terms with him, that there was no danger of his giving up Joseph and Mary into his power. The reader, the better to understand this part of the sacred history, will do well to read Josephus, or the Universal History as above referred to.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 2:22 . Augustus, after the death of Herod and the complications connected with it, [372] divided the kingdom amongst his three sons in such a manner that Archelaus received the half of the four quarters of the kingdom, namely, Judea, Idumaea, and Samaria; Antipas , Galilee and Perea; Philip , Batanea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis. Both the latter were called Tetrarchs , but Archelaus obtained the title of Ethnarch , Josephus, Antt . xvii. 8. 1, xvii. 11. 4, which was to be exchanged for the title of king should he prove worthy of it. But after nine years he was banished by Augustus on account of his cruelty to Vienne (Josephus, Antt . xvii. 13. 2; B. J. ii. 7. 3), and died there. His territory was added to the province of Syria, and placed under the administration of a procurator.
is therefore here taken generally: regnare , as it often is in the classics. On , compare Herod. i. 108; Xen. Anab . i. 1, iv. 2; 2Ch 33:20 ; 1MMal 3:1 ; 1Ma 9:31 ; 1Ma 13:4 .
] for Archelaus resembled his father in his suspicious and cruel temper, Josephus, Antt . xvii. 11. 2 f.
] a well-known attraction: adverbs of rest with verbs of direction, Mat 17:20 ; Joh 7:35 ; Joh 8:21 ; Joh 11:8 ; Joh 18:3 ; Rom 15:24 ; LXX. Deu 1:37 ; 2Sa 17:18 ; Winer, p. 439 [E. T. 591]; Bernhardy, p. 349 f. ] in the portions of his district belonging to Galilee , (Mat 15:21 , Mat 16:13 ; Act 2:10 ), so that he avoided Judea, and did not return to Bethlehem. The voluptuary Antipas was known to be more humane than Archelaus.
[372] Comp. Schneckenburger, neutest. Zeitgesch . p. 201 ff.; Hausrath, neut. Zeitgesch . I. p. 284 ff.; Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellex .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
Ver. 22. But when he heard that Archelaus ] Neither good egg nor good bird, as they say, Caracalla (saith Dio) nihil cogitabat boni, quia id non didicerat, quod ipse fatebatur: never thought of any good, for he had never learned it. No more had this Archelaus. Pope Paul III, when his son Farnesis had committed an unspeakable violence on the person of Cosmos Chaerius, Bishop of Fanum, and then poisoned him, held himself excused that he could say, Haec vitia, me non commonstratore, didicit: he never learned this of the father. But Archelaus, though he could never attain to his father’s craft, yet he had learned his cruelty. Fierce he was, but foolish; savage, but silly; a slug, a slow belly, an evil beast; wherefore the Jews soon rebelled against him; and Augustus (after ten years’ abuse of his authority) banished him to Vienna, or, as others say, to Lyons in France; setting up in his stead his brother Herod, the same that derided and set at nought our Saviour at his passion, as St Jerome writes.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
22. ] ARCHELAUS was the son of Herod by Malthace, a Samaritan woman: he was brought up at Rome (Jos. B. J. i. 31. 1); succeeded his father, but never had the title of king, only that of Ethnarch, with the government of Iduma, Juda, and Samaria, the rest of his father’s dominions being divided between his brothers Philip and Antipas. (Jos. Antt. xvii. 11. 4.) But, (1) very likely the word is here used in the wider meaning: (2) Archelaus did, in the beginning of his reign, give out and regard himself as king: (Jos. B. J. ii. 1.1): (3) in ch. Mat 14:9 , Herod the Tetrarch is called .
In the ninth year of his government Archelaus was dethroned, , , , , i.e. Vienne, in Gaul. (ibid. ii. 7. 3.)
. . . . ] This account gives rise to some difficulty as compared with St. Luke’s history. It would certainly, on a first view, appear that this Evangelist was not aware that Nazareth had been before this the abode of Joseph and Mary. And it is no real objection to this, that he elsewhere calls Nazareth , ch. Mat 13:54 ; Mat 13:57 . It is perhaps just possible that St. Matthew, writing for Jews, although well aware of the previous circumstances, may not have given them a place in his history, but made the birth at Bethlehem the prominent point, seeing that his account begins at the birth (ch. Mat 1:18 ), and does not localize what took place before it, which is merely inserted as subservient to that great leading event. If this view be correct, all we could expect is, that his narrative would contain nothing inconsistent with the facts related in Luke; which we find to be the case. I should prefer, however, believing, as more consistent, in foro conscienti , with the fair interpretation of our text, that St. Matthew himself was not aware of the events related in Luk 1:2 , and wrote under the impression that Bethlehem was the original dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary. Certainly, had we only his Gospel , this inference from it would universally be made.
must not be pressed (as Wordsw., a [13] .) into the service of reconciling the two accounts by being rendered ‘ returned; ’ for the same word is used ( Mat 2:14 ) of the journey to Egypt.
[13] alii = some cursive mss.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 2:22-23 . Settlement in Nazareth in Galilee . Joseph returns with mother and child to Israel , but not to Judaea and Bethlehem. : Archelaos reigns in his father’s stead. A man of kindred nature, suspicious, truculent (Joseph., Ant., 17, 11, 2), to be feared and avoided by such as had cause to fear his father. , reigns, not in the strict sense of the word. He exercised the authority of an ethnarch, with promise of a royal title if he conducted himself so as to deserve it. In fact he earned banishment. At Herod’s death the Roman emperor divided his kingdom into four parts, of which he gave two to Archelaus, embracing Judaea, Idumaea and Samaria; the other two parts were assigned to Antipas and Philip, also sons of Herod: to Antipas, Galilee and Peraea; to Philip, Batanea, Trachonitis and Auranitis. They bore the title of Tetrarch, ruler of a fourth part (Joseph., Ant., 17, 11, 4). . It is implied that to settle in Judaea was the natural course to follow, and that it would have beer followed but for a special reason. Schanz, taking a hint from Augustine, suggests that Joseph wished to settle in Jerusalem, deeming that city the most suitable home for the Messiah, but that God judged the despised Galilee a better training school for the future Saviour of publicans, sinners and Pagans. This hypothesis goes on the assumption that the original seat of the family was Nazareth. : late Greek for . In later Greek authors the distinction between , , , and practically disappeared. Rutherford’s New Phrynichus , p. 114. Vide for another instance, Luk 21:2 . Others explain the substitution as a case of attraction common in adverbs of place. The idea of remaining is in the mind = He feared to go thither to abide there. vide Lobeck’s Phryn. , p. 44, and Fritzsche. : again oracular counsel given in a dream, implying again mental perplexity and need of guidance. Going to Galilee, Judaea being out of the question, was not a matter of course, as we should have expected. The narrative of the first Gospel appears to be constructed on the assumption that Nazareth was not the original home of the holy family, and to represent a tradition for which Nazareth was the adopted home, Bethlehem being the original. “The evangelist did not know that Nazareth was the original seat of the family.” Weiss, Matt. evang. p. 98.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Archelaus. See App-109.
in = over. Greek. epi. See App-104. L T [Tr. ] [A] WH omit epi.
in the room of = instead of. Greek. anti. App-104.
turned aside = departed, as in verses: Mat 2:12, Mat 2:13.
Galilee. The region north of Samaria, including the Plain of Esdraelon and mountains north of it. App-169.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
22. ] ARCHELAUS was the son of Herod by Malthace, a Samaritan woman: he was brought up at Rome (Jos. B. J. i. 31. 1); succeeded his father, but never had the title of king, only that of Ethnarch, with the government of Iduma, Juda, and Samaria, the rest of his fathers dominions being divided between his brothers Philip and Antipas. (Jos. Antt. xvii. 11. 4.) But, (1) very likely the word is here used in the wider meaning:-(2) Archelaus did, in the beginning of his reign, give out and regard himself as king: (Jos. B. J. ii. 1.1): (3) in ch. Mat 14:9, Herod the Tetrarch is called .
In the ninth year of his government Archelaus was dethroned, , , , , i.e. Vienne, in Gaul. (ibid. ii. 7. 3.)
. . . .] This account gives rise to some difficulty as compared with St. Lukes history. It would certainly, on a first view, appear that this Evangelist was not aware that Nazareth had been before this the abode of Joseph and Mary. And it is no real objection to this, that he elsewhere calls Nazareth , ch. Mat 13:54; Mat 13:57. It is perhaps just possible that St. Matthew, writing for Jews, although well aware of the previous circumstances, may not have given them a place in his history, but made the birth at Bethlehem the prominent point, seeing that his account begins at the birth (ch. Mat 1:18), and does not localize what took place before it, which is merely inserted as subservient to that great leading event. If this view be correct, all we could expect is, that his narrative would contain nothing inconsistent with the facts related in Luke; which we find to be the case. I should prefer, however, believing, as more consistent, in foro conscienti, with the fair interpretation of our text, that St. Matthew himself was not aware of the events related in Luk 1:2, and wrote under the impression that Bethlehem was the original dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary. Certainly, had we only his Gospel, this inference from it would universally be made.
must not be pressed (as Wordsw., a[13].) into the service of reconciling the two accounts by being rendered returned; for the same word is used (Mat 2:14) of the journey to Egypt.
[13] alii = some cursive mss.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 2:22. , is reigning) Archelaus was reigning, whether with or without the name of king.-, was afraid) Anxious about the child, fearful lest Archelaus should emulate his fathers hatred.-, thither) The Hebrew , thither, is frequently rendered by the LXX.-, to depart) Mary and Joseph also, without doubt, had previously dwelt at Nazareth.- , into the parts) From hence may be inferred the poverty of Joseph, who had not a fixed abode which he could return to as a matter of course.- , of Galilee) This did not prevent attentive souls from knowing the real birthplace of Christ.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Archelaus
Son of Herod the Great, Mat 2:1 and Malthace, a Samaritan woman. Deposed A.D. 6.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
he was: Gen 19:17-21, 1Sa 16:2, Act 9:13, Act 9:14
being: Mat 2:12, Mat 1:20, Psa 48:14, Psa 73:24, Psa 107:6, Psa 107:7, Psa 121:8, Isa 30:21, Isa 48:17, Isa 48:18
into: Mat 3:13, Luk 2:39, Joh 7:41, Joh 7:42, Joh 7:52
Reciprocal: Mat 26:69 – Jesus
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2:22
Verse 22. It was after the Lord informed him of the reign of Archelaus that Joseph was afraid to enter Judea which was only one part ot the land of Israel. The word not withstanding is not in the original and serves no good purpose by being Injected Into the text and should be Ignored. The verse simply means that God warned (same word as in verse 12) Joseph about the son of Herod, and that caused him to change his course and enter another part of the land of Israel called Galilee.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 2:22. Archelaus. Four sons of Herod (the Great) are mentioned in the New Testament. (He had ten wives and fourteen children.) (1) Herod Antipas, the murderer of John the Baptist (frequently mentioned in Gospels and Act 4:27; Act 13:1), and (2) Archelaus, were sons of Malthace the fourth wife of Herod; (3) Herod Philip I. (Philip, Mar 6:17) was the son of Mariamne, the third wife, and lived a private life, having been excluded from all share in his fathers possessions; (4) Herod Philip II. (Philip the tetrarch, Luk 3:1), was the son of Cleopatra, the fifth wife of Herod, and the husband of Salome, the daughter of Herodias (Mat 14:6; Mar 6:22), and his half-brother Philip.The name, Archelaus, means ruler of the people. Herod excluded Archelaus by will from any share in his dominions, but afterward bequeathed him the kingdom. The Emperor Augustus allowed him to be Ethnarch over Judea, Idumea, and Samaria. He was actually reigning at the time referred to in this verse. He was afterward summoned to Rome and banished into Gaul. Herod Agrippa I. (Herod the King, Act 12:1, etc.) and Herod Agrippa II. (King Agrippa, Acts 25-26) his son, were descendants of Aristobuius, the murdered son of Herod the Great.
Was afraid to go thither. Hearing this, probably, on the way, he turned aside before reaching Judea. The word go, strictly means go away, as if he would naturally have gone somewhere else, i.e., to Nazareth his home.
And. The rendering of the E. V. (notwithstanding) has misled many into the notion that Joseph acted contrary to the revelation he received on his return from Egypt, an idea of which there is no trace in the original.
Warned, even more than in Mat 2:12, implies a previous inquiry.
Withdrew, as in Mat 2:12; Mat 2:14.
The parts of Galilee, i.e., the country itself, the northernmost province of Palestine. The name is derived from a word signifying a ring or circle. The Galileans, though Jews in religion, were looked down upon by inhabitants of Judea (Jews in the strict sense), probably because provincials, and living more closely allied with the heathen. Samaria lay between Judea and Galilee.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 22
After old King Herod’s death, his kingdom was divided. His son Archelaus reigned in Judea, the southern part, and another son, Herod Antipas, in Galilee, the northern part. Another portion still was assigned to Philip. Archelaus was of a savage and ferocious disposition, like his father. Herod Antipas was more mild, addicted rather to pleasure than to bloodshed and cruelty. His whole treatment of John the Baptist shows this, except the last act,–beheading him,–and this was committed mainly at the instigation of others, and under the excitement of wine. It was natural, therefore, that the parents of Jesus, knowing the characters of these princes, should feel it to be safest for them to return to their old home in Nazareth, which was a retired village among the mountains, within the dominions of Herod Antipas, a few miles from the Sea of Galilee. We observe that Joseph was not warned by a dream against Archelaus, as this was a danger which the use of his own faculties enabled him to perceive. Divine interpositions are never to be looked for as a substitute for human prudence and forethought.