With regard to questions that have been raised: Matthew omits three kings between Joram and Uzziah (Ozias). As regards the pretended confusion through the term Ozias, there is not a shadow of ground for it. In the list in Chronicles there is no kind of similarity in the names.
Matthew makes Joseph take the young child and His mother into Egypt. Luke makes them return to Nazareth in Galilee, when they had presented Him in the Temple. Note, there is nothing to prove the same time. The magi may have come later as is probable, for Herod killed from two years and under, according to the time he had diligently (accurately) inquired-this, or Luke's usual passing over events and time.
As to Matthew's and Luke's account of the birth of the Lord-first, in the brief accounts given, we find nothing but what bears on particular points which the Holy Ghost had in view. There is nothing more opposite to the intention of the Gospels than what is called a harmony. They treat different characters of Christ, and what bears on that is given, and all give a very small part indeed of His history. This produces difficulties which are attached to our ignorance of a multitude of connecting links. Often facts having the same moral bearing are put together, especially in Luke, with entire indifference as to date. The moral point is all that is sought. That the event happened before or after, is all one, nay, the historical order is neglected to maintain the moral, or distant events linked together without notice of interval, if bearing morally one on another. This is the general method of Luke, and is invaluable for our instruction. In reading the account in Luke's Gospel of the interval between the ascension and the resurrection, an unbeliever would at once take it for continuing, and that the leading out to Bethany was the day of His resurrection, and the ignorance of Luke, and the absence of inspiration proved by the contradiction of other Gospels. Now, in this case, we have the proof of the contrary at hand. Luke knew perfectly, if we look at him as a human writer, that there was an interval, and so true is this that he is the only one who gives the fact that forty days elapsed before the Savior left the earth. But the simple truth is, this was not the Spirit's object in the Gospel-it was in the Acts. But we learn here that such a bringing of events together proves nothing of what it is alleged to prove.
Now, as to the passages in question. There is no proof whatever that it was at the time of His birth that Jesus was found of the magi. He had been born at Bethlehem. It is evident that at the time of His birth the star appeared, for Herod had inquired of the wise men the time. The star had disappeared (it is generally supposed it led them-this is a mistake, for they rejoiced greatly when they saw it again). What time elapsed before they set out, no one knows. Time was spent, clearly, in their journey from the East; and Herod, who had exactly inquired of them, slays all "from two years old and under." No doubt he would make assurance doubly sure—still "all from two years old and under." If there was only a month run out, or not, even that seems out of measure: so that nothing would show that they were not returned to Bethlehem at some feast. The only argument alleged is the inquiry where He should be born, but this merely is the natural inquiry on having seen His nascent star, and they would seek Him at His own city; so that He might have been in Galilee and come back. And note here, I have nothing to do with proving this to be true, but merely that it is possible, because, if it is possible, there is no contradiction; if any supposition renders possible that the two accounts subsist, there is evidently no contradiction, for they may in that case have both been true. It is important to remember this. The infidel argument is not that it was not so, but that it could not be so. Now if I prove it could, the argument of the infidel is good for nothing. Now it is clear that Jesus could have gone into Galilee and come back. The " When Jesus was born," in our English translation, is nothing—it is literally, " Jesus having been born."
But the truth is, while I see no proof whatever that the visit of the magi was immediate, yet from the universal character of Luke's Gospel, I am disposed to consider probable that all the account of Matthew is left out as not to his purpose, and that when he has shown the accomplishment of the Law in the Temple, he passes over at once to the moral continuation of Jesus' life, without touching on what referred to His position as Jewish King and taking the place of all Israel. When the ordinances were accomplished in the temple, the youth of Jesus begins in Galilee. The royal flight into Egypt had nothing to do with this—it was a parenthesis in His moral history. We have a case exactly analogous in Luke 4:13, 1413And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season. 14And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. (Luke 4:13‑14). All John 2 and 3, come in between. But this was not the Holy Ghost's subject in Luke. The proof is found in Mark 1:1414Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, (Mark 1:14), and John 3:2424For John was not yet cast into prison. (John 3:24). Biography is not a gospel. In each Gospel is the mighty and unfailing purpose of the Spirit of God.