The flight to Egypt Matthew v Luke
Was baby Jesus life threatened in Jerusalem?
- Yes, so Joseph fled with him to Egypt and stayed there until Herod died (Matthew 2:13 23)
- No. The family fled nowhere. They calmly presented the child at the Jerusalem temple according to the Jewish customs and returned to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)
The flight to Egypt Matthew v Luke
You can purchase my book looking into contradictions in the Bible on Amazon
Matthew records that after Jesus was born, Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt to evade King Herod as he, wanting to kill the newborn “King” Jesus, had ordered the death of all the children. After the death of King Herod, the Angel of the Lord visits Joseph in a dream and tells him that Herod is dead and that they can return to Israel and the family go to Nazareth.
This story is found in chapter 2 of Matthew’s Gospel.
However, in the Gospel of Luke, there is no record of a flight to Egypt and after a brief visit to the temple in Jerusalem where Jesus is circumcised as per the law of Moses, and the days of Mary’s purification are fulfilled, the family return to Nazareth. It is claimed that there is no room to fit a flight to Egypt in the narrative of Luke and thus the two stories cannot be reconciled with each other. It is asserted that one narrative has a visit to Egypt and the other account makes this visit impossible, thus the two narratives are in direct conflict of one another
So it is claimed that there is a contradiction between the 2 accounts.
In a lengthy passage on the differences between the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke in his book Jesus, Interrupted, Bart Ehrman specifically makes mention of the difference between where the family goes after Jesus is born in each account. I shall cite just a small quote from the book here:
“Even more obvious, though, is the discrepancy involved with the events after Jesus’ birth. If Matthew is right that the family escaped to Egypt, how can Luke be right that they returned directly to Nazareth?”
Bart Ehrman Jesus, Interrupted page 34
The late great Christopher Hitchens, one of my all time favourite atheists, a man I had, and still have, much respect for, despite his passing and his theological beliefs, also makes reference to the supposed contradiction of the flight to Egypt in his book “God is not great”. He claimed that Matthew and Luke flatly contradict each other.
“Matthew and Luke cannot concur on the Virgin Birth or the genealogy of Jesus. They flatly contradict each other on the “Flight into Egypt,” Matthew saying that Joseph was “warned in a dream” to make an immediate escape and Luke saying that all three stayed in Bethlehem until Mary’s “purification according to the laws of Moses,” which would make it forty days, and then went back to Nazareth via Jerusalem.”
Christopher Hitchens God is not great Page 111
Bart also makes reference to the differences in the narratives regarding things that Matthew and Luke include and exclude from their Gospel narratives.
“The differences between the accounts are quite striking. Virtually everything said in Matthew is missing from Luke, and all the stories of Luke are missing from Matthew. Matthew mentions dreams that came to Joseph that are absent in Luke; Luke mentions angelic visitations to Elizabeth and Mary that are absent in Matthew. Matthew has the wise men, the slaughter of the children by Herod, the flight to Egypt, the Holy Family bypassing Judea to return to Nazareth— all missing from Luke. Luke has the birth of John the Baptist, the census of Caesar, the trip to Bethlehem, the manger and the inn, the shepherds, the circumcision, the presentation in the Temple, and the return home immediately afterward—all of them missing from Matthew.”
Bart Ehrman Jesus, Interrupted page 33
Firstly in response to this we must note that it is not, in fact, contradictory to omit or add information within a narrative. It would only be a contradiction should one account include a piece of information that directly opposes the other.
It is not a contradiction if I say that I woke up, ate breakfast and went to work. Yet in another account of the same events I state I woke up, I had a shower, got dressed and went to work.
Both of these convey the events correctly, however in one I have simply added information or rather it would be more accurate to say that I have omitted information in the other. Both of these accounts are completely correct and non contradictory. When correlated we can easily see that I Woke up, I had a shower, got dressed, ate breakfast and went to work. In fact the events between my waking and going to work can in fact be shown to be in a completely different chronological order and still not create a contradiction. It is the waking up and going to work that are the set parameters here.
It is true that Luke makes no mention of the flight to Egypt. His account, therefore, does not directly contradict Matthew, in fact it cannot directly contradict Matthew because Luke’s account neither denies or affirms the flight to Egypt. As Luke makes no mention of the flight to Egypt, Christopher Hitchens statement regarding Matthew and Luke that “They flatly contradict each other on the “Flight into Egypt,”” is false. It could be claimed that one or both of the accounts are incorrect but there is no contradiction. What would need to be demonstrated to make this an actual contradiction is that both cannot be true at the same time.
So rather the contradiction has to be asserted by claiming that Luke’s narrative makes a flight to Egypt impossible. There is no time within Luke’s narrative for the flight to Egypt to have taken place. The text has to be read and interpreted in such a way as to create the contradiction that does not directly exist.
Luke does say that after they had performed all the things according to the law they returned to Galilee, which at first glance would appear to make a visit to Egypt impossible. The family were in Jerusalem but after all was performed according to the law, they went to Nazareth.
Luke 2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
However, those that assert a contradiction interpret this verse by inserting the word “immediately” into the silence of Luke regarding the flight to Egypt on which the assertion of the contradiction is made. There is, of course, no “immediately” contained within the verse. But it can most certainly be argued that “immediately” is what is being implied. This ,however, is again nothing more than assertion based on the silence of Luke regarding the flight to Egypt. It is in all essence an argument from silence. It must be stated again that an omission or an addition of information does not automatically make a contradiction.
It is just as possible that rather than the interpretation of this verse and the inserted word “immediately” the verse could be interpreted very differently by the inserted word being “eventually” or words “sometime after”. There is no specific time frame being referenced by Luke at all. In order to insist that we interpret the verse to mean immediately and that we cannot use the interpretation eventually or sometime after it would have to be shown that the interpretation eventually or sometime after cannot be correct. The burden of proof therefore is on the assertion that the interpretation must be and can only be immediately. The simple assertion that immediately is the correct implication, therefore, is not adequate enough to make this a contradiction, and more evidence would need to be presented in order to support the claim of a contradiction.
Barnes in his commentary on Luke 2:39 states:
“They returned into Galilee – Not immediately, but after a time. Luke has omitted the flight into Egypt recorded by Matthew; but he has not denied it, nor are his words to be pressed as if he meant to affirm that they went immediately to Nazareth.”
Barnes commentary on Luke 2:39
So which is the correct interpretation of the meaning in Luke? Did Luke mean that immediately after they had performed all things according to the law they returned to Nazareth or did Luke have a more lengthy period of time in mind?
Selective information
It is not unique in biographical writings or indeed biblical writings for information recorded to be selective.
Luke, does this himself when he records the details of Paul’s conversion in Acts chapter 9
Luke records Paul having Gone from Damascus to Jerusalem.
Acts 9:26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
It must be kept in mind that it was Paul who gave the record of his conversion to Luke, Luke simply records the information that has been given to him by Paul.
The narrative of Acts 9 has Paul in Damascus and then escaping Damascus with the help of the disciples in verse verse 25, this is contained in the immediate verse preceding the information of Paul coming to Jerusalem .
Acts 9: 20And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. 21But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? 22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. 23 And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: 24 But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. 25 Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.
So here, Paul escapes Damascus and then goes to Jerusalem.
Yet Paul states that it was 3 years after his conversion that he finally went to Jerusalem. He had gone to Arabia first and even returned to Damascus
Galatians 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Luke does not contradict Paul in any way; he simply leaves out the information regarding Paul going to Arabia, returning to Damascas before going to Jerusalem. Luke selects the information that he wishes to record within the narrative. This is something that is commonplace in the biblical texts. What I still find surprising is that people, especially well studied scholars such as Bart who is, in fact, considered one of the world’s leading scholars, expect all four gospels to convey all the same information in the same way. While often they do carry the same story, all 4 Gospels are written from completely different perspectives, all with their own unique style and with their own points that they wish to convey. I won’t delve too deep into the styles and the intended audience of the Gospels here, this would be too much of a sidetrack and could easily be a book of its own, however, if the Gospels are not understood as 4 different narratives, focusing on different aspects of the life of Jesus with different viewpoints and different angels from which they are recording their narratives for their own individual purposes then of course they may well seem contradictory. When we look at 2 narratives of the same story throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament we almost always find information contained within one narrative that is not found within the other and vice versa. This is exactly what we find within the Gospels. Maybe one day I will write a book with a more detailed analysis on this subject. I have done so on my website, those writings are available to read there, but for now it is sufficient to say that the Gospels do not narrate the life of Jesus in the same way, nor do they record all of the same information. Importantly, neither Matthew nor Luke states that they are writing a full and concise chronology of the early or later life of Jesus, nor do they have to do so in order for their account to be reliable.
Peter J Williams in an article named “Why are Jesus’s birth stories different?” that can be found at TyndaleHouse.com argues this point asserting that this is the reason for multiple Gospels in the first place.
‘
“What if we were to consider a hypothetically rewritten version, as follows? “And when they had finished everything according to the law of the Lord, they went down to Egypt and then returned to Galilee, to their town of Nazareth.” Automatically our attention would be focused on the question of why they went to Egypt. In fact, Luke would have to refocus his narrative in major ways even to make sense of this additional journey. In other words, the objection to Luke’s omission of Egypt is really an insistence that there can be no such thing as précis or authorial selectivity, and that Luke must mention everything significant from Matthew. It’s an approach that is in tension with having multiple accounts in the first place.’”
https://academic.tyndalehouse.com/explore/articles/why-are-jesus-birth-stories-different/#:~:text=What%20if%20we%20were%20to,why%20they%20went%20to%20Egypt.
In his writing How to Write History , Lucian expresses in detail the necessity sometimes to leave out information in order to focus on the significant points.
“Rapidity is always useful, especially if there is a lot of material. It is secured not so much by words and phrases as by the treatment of the subject. That is, you should pass quickly over the trivial and unnecessary, and develop the significant points at adequate length. Much must be omitted. After all, if you are giving a dinner to your friends and everything is ready, you don’t put salt fish and porridge on the table in the midst of the cakes, poultry, entrees, wild boar, hare, and choice cuts of fish, simply because they are ready too! You forget the cheaper articles altogether.”
Lucian, How to write History 56
This would be referred to as “Telescoping”.
This is defined by dictionary.com as “5. to shorten or condense; compress:
to telescope the events of five hundred years into one history lecture.”
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/telescoping
On this Craig Blomberg stated that it was quite unfair to judge the Gospel writers in a way that no one in antiquity would:
“Perhaps the most perplexing differences between parallels occur when one gospel writer has condensed the account of an event which took place in two or more stages into one concise paragraph which seems to describe the action taking place all at once. Yet this type of literary abridgement was quite common among ancient writers (cf. Lucian, How to Write History 56), and once again it is unfair to judge them by modern standards of precision which no one in antiquity required.”
Craig Blomberg The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.
It is then, of no surprise that we do not find any attacks against the inclusion of the flight to Egypt by Matthew and the exclusion by Luke in the ancient world. While many attacks against the Bible and Christianity were made by a great number of people, the accusation regarding the omissions within the Gospels and their telescoping is a modern phenomenon and not something that was employed by ancient critics.
Consider Luke’s narrative after he has the family return to Nazareth. The next piece of information that Luke records is the family back at Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 years old.
Luke 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
If we hold that Luke has the family return to Nazareth immediately after Jesus is born because he must record all the information in chronological order as it happened and must record the full timeline of events without exclusion of any event, then we must ask why there are 12 years between one piece of information that Luke presents and the next piece of information. Luke’s next recorded event is John the Baptist, his mission and the Baptism of Jesus in chapter 3. This is a gap of 18 years. Surely there has to be some consistency in the requirement here.
Matthew, incidentally, makes no mention of the child Jesus at the temple. Matthew jumps straight to the mission of John the Baptist and the introduction to Jesus as a man right before his baptism. Of course, we should not understand that Matthew makes the years that came in between impossible to fit within his narrative.
Mark and John have no birth narrative at all. This doesn’t in any way imply Mark and John did not believe Jesus was born. It just isn’t the focus of their respective Gospels and so they had no need to include the birth within their narrative of the life and ministry of Jesus.
Matthew himself also makes no mention of the visit of the Shepherds in his account which Luke does.
Luke 2:8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. 15And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
Bart Ehrman, as we saw, made note of this in his argument. This is clearly an omission on the part of Matthew or an addition by Luke. But neither narrative contradicts the other.
So how do we find time in Luke’s narrative to make a flight to Egypt possible?
Let’s have a look at what the texts actually say.
Both Gospels have Jesus being born in Bethlehem. This is the first parameter.
Luke 2:3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. 6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
Luke includes points of information that Matthew does not or Matthew omits them. One of those points is the fact that the family had come from Nazareth. Luke makes mention of this while Matthew does not. Matthew simply has the family in Bethlehem while Luke includes the details of how the family had come to Bethlehem. Notice Matthew does not state that the family were from Bethlehem, he only states this is where the birth had taken place. Luke tells the story from before the birth, as having the family go to Bethlehem from Nazareth, Matthew’s account actually starts after Jesus had already been born.
Luke records Jesus being circumcised after 8 days, and also after the days of Mary’s purification, which was 7 days for a male child according to the law, they went to Jerusalem to present Jesus in the Temple.
Leviticus 12: 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
The account of Matthew does not include this information. Matthew either felt that for his rendition of the story the information was not required or Luke felt that for his narrative it was.
So from these details so far the timeline has the family leaving from Nazareth to go to Bethlehem while Mary was already heavily pregnant. Jesus is then born in Bethlehem and then the family go to Jerusalem after Mary’s days of purification.
Mary was also to offer sacrifice as per the law for her purification, which she did at Jerusalem
Luke 2: 22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
This is again found in Leviticus 12
Leviticus 12: 6And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: 7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. 8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.
Now we have to pay close attention to the Bible says regarding the wise men, and not what tradition says. This will be vital to the full and correct understanding.
The wise men had come to Jerusalem to worship Jesus, they did not go to Bethlehem:
Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
While Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the wise men arrived in Jerusalem.
We are then told by Matthew that Herod, after hearing about the birth of Jesus demands to know where Jesus was to be born.
Matthew 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
He is then told that Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem:
Matthew 2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
Herod tells the Magi, wise men, to go to Bethlehem and search for the child.
Matthew 2:8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
But Luke has already told us that Jesus was not in Bethlehem; he had been taken by Mary and Joseph to Jerusalem soon after his birth.
Most people assert, incorrectly, that the wise men went straight to Bethlehem. This is because most people have followed an incorrect tradition that the wise men came very soon after Jesus was born.
If we read the account in Matthew carefully, there is actually no indication that the Magi did in fact go to Bethlehem.
Matthew 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
The text only tells us that they departed from King Herod and then following the star came to where Jesus was, not where he was born.
Bethlehem was only where Jesus was to be born. There is no biblical reason for Jesus to have had to have stayed in Bethlehem after his birth, rather Luke explicitly tells us he didn’t. Rather the wise men continued to follow the star which went before them and led them to where Jesus was, which was now in Jerusalem.
Also important here is to notice that when the magi came to where Jesus was they came into the house.
Matthew 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
The word that Matthew uses is the Greek Οἰκία oikia, house or dwelling
Whereas when Luke records the birth of Jesus he was laid in a manger because there was no room at the Inn.
Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
Inn being the Greek Κατάλυμα kataluma a lodging.
These are not the same place being referenced. The Magi did not go to the same place as where Jesus was born.
It is now important to note that unlike what is commonly told, the Magi did not come to Jesus a few days after his birth, or even weeks after. When we pay attention to what the texts actually state, what we actually see is that it was very likely that the Magi had come some 1 and a half, to even 2 years after Jesus had been born. Jesus was no longer a new born baby.
After giving their gifts to the child, the Magi left, but Matthew then records that having been warned not to go back to Herod, the magi went back to their own country another way.
Matthew 2:12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
This is when Matthew records that the family fled into Egypt due to Herod wanting to kill Jesus.
Matthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: 15And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Notice that we are told twice in the narrative that Herod had diligently inquired as to when Jesus was born.
Matthew 2:7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
Matthew 2:16 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 inquired of the wise men.
Ellicott in his commentary makes reference to the exact meaning of the phrase
“The English “what time the star appeared” is not quite accurate. Literally, the time of the star that was appearing—i.e., at what time the star, which was still visible (Matthew 2:9), had first appeared.
Enquired of them diligently.—Better, ascertained exactly. “
Ellicott commentary on Matthew 2:9
Benson also makes reference to this in his commentary on the verse. Herod enquired to the exact time that the star first appeared.
He inquired of them diligently — Or, as the words ηκριβωσε παρ’ αυτων, more properly signify, inquired of them the exact time, or, got exact information from them, what time the star appeared — That is, at what time it began to appear, judging, as probably the fact was, that the star first appeared at the time the child was born.
Benson on Matthew 2:7
John Gill also makes reference to this in his commentary, that Herod’s inquisition was to ascertain the exact age of Jesus so he could 1) make sure that the child was executed and 2) that no other could arise as a pretender.
“He inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. He took a good deal of pains in examining them, he sifted them, and inquired of them with much accuracy, and exactness, the precise time of the star’s appearing to them, how long ago it was when it was first observed by them; that hereby he might exactly know the age of Christ, and the better execute the bloody design he had formed, should the wise men disappoint him; and the better detect an impostor, should another afterwards arise, and set up himself for the king of the Jews.”
John Gill commentary on Matthew 2:7
Through his enquiries, Herod would have been well aware of the time frame of when Jesus was born.
Matthew records that Herod killed all the children 2 years and under. Very clearly Herod had the children killed that could have been the child Jesus. It is therefore logical to assume that there had been a period of around but likely no more than 2 years between when the Magi had stated that the star had appeared and when Herod ordered the killing. It would be necessary to have children who were 2 years old killed if Jesus was a newborn.
But if Jesus was not in Bethlehem rather he was in Jerusalem, where he had been since his 8th day, and Herod had ordered the killing of the children of Bethlehem why would Joseph have needed to take Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod.
Notice that Matthew doesn’t just refer to Bethlehem but rather states Bethlehem and all the coasts thereof.
The Greek words translated coasts is ὅριον Horion which means boundary, region, vicinity of.
Bethlehem is just 9 km from Jerusalem.
We see other translations have a similar rendering:
Matthew 2:16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. NIV
Matthew 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. ESV
Matthew 2:16 When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he became enraged. He sent men to kill all the children in Bethlehem and throughout the surrounding region from the age of two and under, according to the time he had learned from the wise men. NET Bible
It is unlikely that this would have included Jerusalem, but for the safety of the family, Jesus was taken away from where Herod was, which was Jerusalem. Had Herod discovered that Jesus was living in Jerusalem he would certainly have had him killed. It would be an unnecessary risk to remain in the same city as Herod.
I must point out that even though I do feel that the text better suits Joseph, Mary and Jesus having been in Jerusalem since they had presented the baby Jesus at the Temple, there is every possibility that during those 2 years before the Magi arrived that they had simply returned to Bethlehem. If this was the case then we could easily say that Herod sent the Magi to Bethlehem, they followed the star and it took them to where Jesus was in Bethlehem. By this time the family were staying in a home in Bethlehem. After they leave for Egypt Herod kills all the children under the age of 2 in Bethlehem.
Although there is no record of this return to Bethlehem in Matthew, as we have seen an omission of the information would not mean that this did not occur and would still fit within the overall narrative. It is also possible that they returned to Nazareth before they escaped to Egypt. This would have Luke record the events before the flight to Egypt. The family would then have left for Egypt and returned once again to Nazareth. Luke would then pick up the narrative again when Jesus was 12. The texts would not make either of these impossible.
Again I do stress this is not what I would claim myself, only that it is a possibility, even if pure conjecture
Matthew then, after the death of Herod, has Joseph taking Jesus to Nazareth.
Matthew 2:19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life. 21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. 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:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
The return to Nazareth now being the second parameter of the narrative.
There are even more details given here, as the family were coming back to the land of Israel, Joseph was warned in a dream and turned to go to Nazareth in Galilee because Herod’s son Archelaus reigned in Judaea, this is likely the original destination of Joseph along with his wife Mary and Jesus.
And so the account of Matthew has Joseph, Mary and Jesus, just as in Luke, in Nazareth.
The parameters of both Matthew and Luke are Jesus being Born in Bethlehem and finally ending up in Nazareth. Each gospel then records different events that happened between these 2 set parameters.
As the next part of Luke’s narrative is Jesus, his Mother and Joseph at the temple in Jerusalem when he is 12 there is nothing within Luke’s narrative that would make the flight to Egypt impossible within his timeline. The claim that there is no room for a flight to Egypt within his narrative is false.
It cannot, therefore, be asserted that Luke’s non-inclusion of the flight to Egypt contradicts Matthew’s inclusion of it.
There is no contradiction here, just an asserted one.
If you liked this study please subscribe here
You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here
Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membership here
0 Comments