Explanatory Notes -- Matthew 2

2:1 Now, after Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying...

We are privileged to have four Gospels, each of which provides us with unique perspectives on Jesus. For example, if all we had were Matthew's Gospel, we would not think that Joseph and Mary started in Nazareth and only went to Bethlehem because of a census. We would think that Joseph and Mary started in Bethelehem and only went to Nazareth because of the ruling of Archelaus after Herod the Great.

Herod "the Great" was a client king to the Romans who ruled from 37-4BC. Jesus' birth is usually dated to 6-4BC on the assumption that Jesus was born before Herod died. This may seem puzzling, since BC means "before Christ" and 1AD was meant to be the year of Jesus' birth. However, it would seem that the man who set this calendar in the early 500s AD (Dionysius Exiguus) was slightly off.

The Romans trusted the strength of Herod's leadership so much that he was allowed to hold the title "king" and was given rule over the entirety of Israel, north and south. He was very strategic to get into this position and protective of his position. He ended up putting his wife and two of his sons to death so that they could not undermine the security of his rule. The story of him putting the children of Bethlehem to death is thus entirely believable as the kind of thing he would do.

The Magi are "wise ones." They are from the east. Like the women in Jesus' family tree, they show that the good news of Jesus is not only for Jews. It is for the whole world. More than once in Matthew, Gentiles are better examples of faith in Jesus than his own people are. The east could be Persia or Babylon. There were rumors of star-watchers from those regions. 

2. "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews, for we have seen his star in the east and we have come to bow before him?"

Have you ever stepped on a landmine you did not know was there? The wise men ask where the true king of the Jews is to a man who killed his own sons and wife to keep his kingship. There is something deeply ironic and dangerous about such a question. Under normal circumstances, such a question might easily spell the death of the one inquiring.

The nature of the star has long been a matter of speculation. A conventional star moves in a fixed course and doesn't stand over a house. The planets are "wanderers" because they don't follow the same fixed course as the other stars, but they also don't come to rest over a house. A comet might point in a certain direction, but once again, they don't come to a halt.

We thus must look to a supernatural explanation. Stars were sometimes thought of as heavenly, spiritual beings, even angels. The star of the story may thus be an angel, showing the wise men the way. Some explanation along these lines seems most likely.

They want to bow before the king. We might translate the word as worship: "we have come to worship him." The two perhaps blur into each other. We do not know whether the wise men have a "high" or a "low" Christology. It is perfectly normal for a person to proskyneo before a human king. And it is of course necessary for us to proskyneo the Lord. 

2:3 When Herod the king had heard, he was terrified and all Jerusalem with him.  

We are used to thinking of there being three wise men, but this is only because three gifts are mentioned later in the story. If all of Jerusalem was terrified, we might imagine a rather significant company of visitors to the city. If it was only a tiny group, he might easily dismiss them. This is a significant enough group that they brought some fear with them.

So Herod turns to his experts--chief priests and scribes. This is after all what scholars are for, right? They are there to answer the questions to which other people don't have the answers. They are a resource for information when the time comes.

2:4. And having gathered together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired from them where the Christ is born. 5 And they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus has been written through the prophet, 6. 'And you, Bethlehem of Judah, by no means are you the least among the rulers of Judah, for from you will go out one ruling who will shepherd my people Israel.'"

Interestingly, they know the answer to Herod's question. It is, to some extent, coincidental. In context, Micah 5:2 is possibly more about the Davidic kingship than about a literal place of birth. In context, Micah probably meant "from old, from ancient times" as likely a reference to David as the beginning of the dynasty rather than a prediction of Jesus' pre-existence.

Nevertheless, they are right whether they understood the original meaning or not, and who is to say that God did not steer Micah's words so that they were ready to mean more than they had meant before. Once again, Matthew has found that an event in the life of Jesus "fills up" or fulfills words from the Old Testament.

2:7 Then Herod, secretly having called the Magi, determined precisely from them the time of the star's appearing, 8. and having sent them into Bethlehem, said, "Go, search accurately concerning the child, and whenever you should find [him], announce to me so that I also, having come, might bow before him.

Herod wants to know the time of the star's appearance so that he can find and kill his rival. The fact that he will later kill the male children under two suggests that Jesus is surely at least a year old at the time of their arrival. Far from the scene of our Christmas plays, with shepherds and wise men together in the manager, the wise men likely arrived much later. Jesus was surely already walking when they came.

Herod's pretense is obvious to us and would have been to Matthew's audience. He has no intention of bowing before another king in Israel. He only wishes to kill his potential rival.

2:9 And they, having heard the king, went and, behold, the star that they saw in the east went before them until, having come, it stood over where the child was. 10. And, having seen the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

Here is the strongest indication that this is not really a normal kind of astronomical phenomenon. Comets, planets, and distant stars don't stand over houses in Bethlehem. The wise men have found the king that they have been looking for, and they rejoice.

Others must surely have seen the star, but they didn't see it. The priests and scribes knew the Scriptures but made no move to come to Bethlehem. Herod knows that he should bow down before a king, but he fights a fight he cannot hope to win. The wise men see, know, and worship. 

2:11 And having come into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and having fallen, they bowed before him. And having opened their treasures, they brought to him gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 12. And, having been revealed in a dream not to return to Herod, they withdrew by a different path into their country.

The fact that three gifts are mentioned has led tradition to speak of three wise men, but Matthew never gives a number. If in fact Herod and all Jerusalem were troubled at their entrance, we can imagine a rather large and impressive company of individuals. They bow before the king of the Jews in the manner befitting of a king.

Once again we see that Matthew emphasizes dreams as a key manner of revelation. As the angel of the Lord spoke to Joseph in a dream to take Mary as his wife, a number of revelations come in dreams in Matthew 2. They do not go back to Herod to report the location of the child, as he had schemed. Instead, they return east by another way.

2:13 And when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph saying, "Having arisen, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and be there until I should tell you, for Herod is about to seek the child to destroy it." 14. And, having arisen, he took the child and his mother at night and withdrew to Egypt.

Another revelation comes by way of a dream, once again from an angel of the Lord. It could also be translated "the angel of the Lord," although there is no word "the" in front of angel. It is not clear why they would flee to Egypt except for the Scripture that Matthew will quote in 2:15. We are again not surprised that Herod would try to kill someone that he sees as a possible claimant to his throne. We are also not surprised that Joseph believes the revelation and obeys the angel. 

2:15 And he was there until the death of Herod so that it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called my son."

In the birth story, Matthew repeatedly emphasizes the fulfillment of Scripture, the filling up on the words of the Old Testament with meanings that fit with events in the life of Jesus. In this material of the first two chapters, which is unique to Matthew, we especially see this theme.

The Scripture quoted is Hosea 11:1. As have already seen, Matthew "fills up" the words with spiritual meanings that go beyond the original meanings of the verses in their first contexts. In this case, Hosea 11:1 was originally referring to the exodus. It is not a prediction of the future but a reflection the past. The exodus was already some five hundred years in the past when Hosea prophesied. Hosea 11:1 says, "When Israel was a child, I called my son out of Egypt."

It is of course possible that Matthew wants us to hear a parallel between the salvation of Israel that happened in the exodus and the fact that Jesus came to save his people from the consequences of their sins. But Hosea 11:1 was not about the Messiah originally--after all Hosea 11:2 tells of how this son worshiped false gods, something Jesus never did. Nor was Hosea 11:1 a prediction at all, let alone a prediction that the Messiah would spend some time in Egypt. 

The fulfillment is thus not a prediction-fulfillment but at most a symbolic parallel. This is nothing to fault Matthew for. This is fairly typical Jewish exegesis from the time. 

2:16 Then Herod, having seen that he was tricked by the Magi, was extremely furious and having sent, he killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all its surrounding areas two years old and below, according to the time that he had inquired from the Magi.

Here is the clearest indication that Jesus was likely older than a newborn when the Magi finally arrived. No doubt allowing a little margin, Herod kills the male children in Bethlehem under the age of two. The number of likely children has sometimes been exaggerated (e.g. over 10,000). If Bethlehem were a village of 300 or so, it might have been less than 10 children. It was probably not more than 20.

Such a relatively small number does not minimize the evilness of Herod's heart, for he was the sort of person that would have killed thousands if it suited his purposes. Although we have no record of this slaughter from any other ancient report, it is exactly the kind of act Herod would have done under such circumstances.

2:17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, 18. "A voice in Ramah was heard, crying and much wailing, Rachel crying for her children and she did not want to be comforted because they did not exist."

Matthew finds the meaning of yet another verse from the Old Testament "filled up" by an event in the early life of Jesus. The slaughter of the babies in Bethlehem reminds Matthew of a verse in Jeremiah 31:15. Clearly one of the Gospel of Matthew's special themes is that Jesus' life fills up the meaning of Old Testament Scripture.

At the same time, we are reminded once again that these are not prediction-fulfillments in any ordinary sense. They are "spiritual" fulfillments following the manner of Jewish interpretation. In this instance, the original meaning of the verse is about the restoration of Israel after its destruction by the Assyrians. It was about events in the eighth and sixth centuries BC, hundreds of years before Jesus.

Rachel was of course the mother of Joseph, from whom came Ephraim. Ephraim was a shorthand for the northern kingdom, Israel. The northern kingdom was destroyed by the Assyrians in 722BC. Metaphorically, Rachel has wept for her children because they were destroyed. Jeremiah 31 goes on to speak of how God was restoring his people. "Keep your voice from weeping... the sons will return to their country" (31:16-17).

The verse thus was no literal prediction of the slaughter of young boys in Bethlehem, which was not in the territory of Ephraim, Manasseh, or Benjamin. It was about the return of the Jews from Israel in the late 500s BC. This is not a problem if you understand Matthew is simply using standard Jewish exegesis. He is reading the Bible much as modern charismatics and my holiness forebears did. 

But you are setting yourself up for a crisis if you think this is some sort of proof of God knowing the future or the supernatural nature of the Bible. God does know the future and the Bible is inspired, but you have misunderstood how the New Testament reads the Old Testament if you try to use these fulfillment passages for some sort of apologetics purpose. That's simply not how the New Testament is reading these verses.

2:19 And when Herod had died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt saying, 20. "Having risen, take the child and his mother and go into the land of Israel, for the ones seeking the life of the child have died." 21. And he, having risen, took the child and its mother and went into the land of Israel.

The theme of revelation by dream continues with this indication to Joseph that it is now safe to return to Israel because Herod the Great has died. It is once again an unnamed angel of the Lord. It is possible that the angel of the Lord could be in mind, but the word the is not present. On the whole, I have "fallen off the log" with an angel of the Lord in view.

The normal dating for this event is 4BC. Through this story, Joseph is depicted as an obedient man who does what the Lord tells him to do. He is a paradigm for a godly man whose role in God's plan is something anyone could do. He is a "good and faithful servant" of God as any of us could be.

2:22 But having heard that Archelaus is ruling Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go away there and having been revealed in a dream, he withdrew into the regions of Galilee. 23. And, having gone, he dwelt in a city being called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophets, "He will be called a Nazarene." 

Archelaus was one of the sons of Herod the Great. While Herod was a client king who ruled over all of the area of former Israel, the Romans did not entrust any one of Herod's sons to this role or this extent of territory. His son Herod Antipas would govern Galilee and the east of the Jordan. This is the Herod that would later behead John the Baptist. Archelaus only governed Judea from 4BC to AD6. It is at the end of his tenure that Josephus records a census as well as some revolutionary activity. 

Matthew seems to have no knowledge of any prior living in Nazareth by Joseph and Mary. In his narrative, they only seem to go to Nazareth to escape Archelaus, not because they have any prior connection to it. Once again, Joseph receives the prompting of a dream to go to Galilee.

It is a puzzle to determine what prophets Matthew has in mind in relation to Jesus coming from Nazareth. The first piece of the puzzle is the fact that he sees the prophecy coming from prophets plural rather than a singular prophet. This hint suggests that he could be joining together more than one Old Testament Scripture. Again, this is not the way we tend to read the Bible. It is a "spiritual" exegesis rather than a contextual one. Matthew is reading these verses as the Spirit strikes him rather than for what the verses originally meant in context.

But what verses does he have in mind? The village of Nazareth is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament or in other Jewish intertestamental literature. For this reason alone, it is impossible for this to be an instance of literal prediction-fulfillment. Nazareth was an insignificant village probably of significantly less than 1000, possibly not in existence for more than a century or so. 

There are some places where there is a formal similarity to the statement. It is said of Samson, "He will be a Nazirite" (Judg. 13:5, 7). But of course Jesus was not a Nazirite: "The Son of Man came eating and drinking and behold they say he is a glutton and drunkard" (Matt. 11:19). And of course even if he were, it would have nothing to do with Nazareth the village.

The most likely verse Matthew has in mind is Isaiah 11:1--"A branch (nezer) will go out of its roots." This verse was likely speaking of an heir to the Davidic throne ("a shoot from the stem of Jesse") and thus is a very fitting verse to connect to Jesus. The word for branch, nezer, bears some resemblance to the word Nazareth. Various speculations of an intentional connection have been made (e.g., that the village was founded by individuals looking for the branch to come), but these are purely a matter of creativity driven by a need for there to be a connection that Matthew did not likely feel.

For Matthew, Jesus is raised in a town that bears a resemblance to the word for branch. Jesus is the branch of David, the Messiah. Jesus' childhood thus "fills up" a hidden meaning that Isaiah 11:1 can have. There is absolutely no problem for Matthew here whatsoever. It simply undermines some contemporary rhetoric about prediction-fulfillment and it undermines the insistence of some Christian culture that the Bible must only be read in its exegetical context. 

But the first Christians were ancient Jews, and God spoke to them in their categories, not ours. Reading the Bible in context is an intercultural experience. This is how God speaks. God takes on the "flesh" of those to whom he wishes to communicate. Otherwise, we would not understand. Then God moves us in the direction he wants us to go from there.