IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus. (But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH --- GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS --- DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- THE BOOK OF RUTH --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- I & II CHRONICLES --- EZRA---NEHEMIAH---ESTHER---PSALMS 1-73--- PROVERBS---ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- LAMENTATIONS --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- PHILEMON --- HEBREWS --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS
<
SECTION 2. THE BIRTH AND RISE OF JESUS THE MESSIAH (THE CHRIST) (1.18-4.25).
In this section, following the introduction, Matthew reveals the greatness of Jesus the Christ. He will now describe the unique birth of Jesus, the homage paid to Him by important Gentiles, His exile and protection in Egypt followed by His subsequent bringing forth out of Egypt to reside in lowly Nazareth, His being drenched with the Holy Spirit as God’s beloved Son and Servant, His temptations in the wilderness which would then determine how He was to fulfil His role, and His coming forth to begin His task by the spreading of the Good News of the Kingly Rule of Heaven, to be entered by repentance and by looking to Him as the One Who is over that Kingly Rule. To this end He appoints disciples who are to become ‘fishers of men’, and begins His ministry of preaching and of ‘Messianic’ works in order to demonstrate the nature of the Kingly Rule.
The section (1.18-4.25) may be analysed as follows:
Note how in ‘a’ the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit reveals His true sonship, and in the parallel similar miraculous working of the Holy Spirit reveals Him for Who He is. In ‘b’ men who are Gentiles seek Him with expensive gifts to pay Him homage, and in the parallel He seeks men in Galilee of the Gentiles and demands from them the yielding of full homage to Him, and the giving of the most expensive gift of all, their whole lives. In ‘c’ He goes into exile from the earthly king Herod, and returns taking the way of humility, and in the parallel is Himself offered an earthly kingship and is tempted not to take the way of humility. In ‘d’ and centrally He receives the Holy Spirit on behalf of His people and is declared to be God’s beloved Son and blameless Servant.
The Birth of Jesus the Christ (1.18-25).
Jesus the Messiah having been introduced as a fulfilment of history from Abraham onwards, the narrative now commences with His birth. Given what a remarkable event it was the account is soberly told, and this underlines its reliability. An invented story would have greatly ‘improved’ on what happened, (as an examination of the apocryphal Gospels will confirm). The comment about Joseph (verse 19) adds to its veracity. The description of him is as a man of noble heart who nevertheless is aware that he must uphold the family honour and do the right thing. No taint must be allowed to enter the house of David. It is only those who refuse to let God act in His world in His own way who have any difficulty with the story.
In his account in Luke’s Gospel the writer only provides us with the details of Mary’s experiences and behaviour, and he takes almost no interest in Joseph’s part in things at all. For Luke was intent on stressing Jesus’ manhood, alongside His Messiahship, as the son of Adam, and that manhood came through His mother. But Matthew stresses Joseph because he wants all attention on His kingship. He wants us to be quite clear that He was of royal lineage. Matthew’s new material should not really surprise us. For we would expect something to be known about Joseph’s side of the story, for that would actually have been the side most taken notice of by most Jews, (excluding the bits that Joseph wanted to keep secret). And it must be quite apparent to anyone who thinks about it that Joseph would have had to be prepared by God in his own way for what was to happen, in order for the scheme to go through successfully. He was after all a man of noble ancestry caught up in something that was beyond him. So without God’s intervention the marriage would undoubtedly have foundered, with the baby being left without an earthly father. And yet unlike Mary he receives no direct vision of angels. He sees it all ‘in a dream’. From the divine point of view his part was secondary, and guidance was all that he required. However, from the point of view of Jesus’ acceptance as the heir to David’s kingship his part was crucial.
Luke’s account would not have suited Matthew’s purpose at all. Matthew was concerned to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah from the house of David, receiving His right to kingship through Joseph’s royal ancestry, and he was thus deeply concerned that his readers should be involved in Joseph’s side of the story, and see that Joseph fully accepted Jesus as his own son, and to this end he consigns Mary very much to the background. Matthew’s source for the information may well have been Mary, but if so the story contains some hint of the reserve with which Joseph must have told her what had happened to him. It is always, however, possible that Matthew had met Joseph before Joseph actually died. Furthermore Matthew’s stress should not surprise us for another reason. It was far more in line with what we would expect from a Jew, to whom the woman’s side would not be so important. Luke, however, on his side continually lays great emphasis on women.
The genealogy has already revealed that Jesus comes in fulfilment of Scripture, and this is now confirmed. It should be noted that neither the details in the quotation nor the name given in it are then incorporated into the text of the story, an evidence that the text has not influenced the story. Yet it is through the text that we discover that, in Jesus the Messiah, ‘God is with us’.
Analysis of 1.18-25.
Note the careful parallels. The statement concerning the birth and betrothal in ‘a’ is paralleled in reverse order by Joseph’s taking of his wife and ‘not knowing her’ (similarly to a betrothal) and Jesus’ birth. The description is then given in ‘b’ of the inevitable consequence of a miraculous birth, so that Mary is found with child by the Holy Spirit, and in the parallel the Scriptural explanation of this is given, demonstrating that she will be with child through God’s working. Central in ‘c’ is the significance of the baby’s birth, He will save His people from their sins. A further point to note is how central Jesus is throughout the passage:
1.18-19 ‘Now the birth of Jesus Christ came about in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit, and Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately.’
The verse opens with what almost seems to be a public announcement. This is what we would expect for the birth is of Jesus the Messiah, and how it came about is thus to be seen as important. Note that Mary is not seen as doing anything positive towards the child’s conception. It is simply seen as something that happens to her. She was ‘found with child’. All is of God’s activity through the Holy Spirit, and she remains secondary. After that Joseph takes over. Unlike the ancient myths which crudely saw ‘gods’ as mating with earthly women there is no suggestion here of any kind of sexual activity, even spiritual sexual activity. Indeed in Jesus’ eyes (and Matthew’s eyes) heavenly beings do not engage in such activity, for that is very much an earthly phenomenon (22.30), while what happens here is heavenly. There is no parallel in ancient literature to the way in which Jesus was born.
This lack of sexual activity is confirmed by the phrase ‘ek Pneumatos Hagiou’ which, apart from its being without the article, parallels the description of the four women in the genealogy (ek tes Thamar; etc). It indicates the woman’s part, not the man’s. The Holy Spirit is thus seen as cooperating with Mary in the conception and birth, not as impregnating her.
Note Matthew’s great emphasis on Joseph’s side of things, and this to such an extent that he puts Mary deliberately into the background, and plays down her part in things. This being his aim it is not surprising that he tells us nothing about the Annunciation and other activities in which Mary was involved. It would have placed too much attention on her and diverted his readers’ thoughts away from his main purpose, which was that of establishing Jesus as the heir of Joseph, and thus the titular son of David, even though at the same time he was emphasising His birth through a virgin.
Mary was at the time betrothed to Joseph, who was the heir to the throne of David, and thus a man of high honour from a proud family. Betrothal was a binding state from which it was only possible to be released by divorce or death. It was at betrothal that the marriage covenant was signed and sealed, and all settlements agreed on. The wedding was only the final confirmation. But it would not have been seen as acceptable in the best families that sexual intercourse take place during this period. She would still be living at her father’s house, awaiting the marriage. Indeed Joseph and Mary may well have had little to do with each other. Their marriage would have been arranged.
It is apparent that she had given him no notification of the pregnancy, but eventually the fact would have to come out, and the expression ‘she was found with child’ may possibly express this idea. Once this was clear her parents no doubt contacted Joseph and informed him of the situation. Recognising the situation as he saw it, and being a ‘righteous man’, that is, one who would do the right thing, he then determined to divorce her. It was not a matter of having an option. For him not to do so would bring disgrace on his name and on his family, and would be to be in breach of the Law and of public decency.
It would have been a very ‘liberal’ minded man who would not have done so, and it would have revealed one who would not have been respected in the best circles, for it would have been to go against the very principles of the Law which was that she now ‘belonged’ to the man who had ‘known her’. She had been made one with him. (See 1 Corinthians 6.15-16. This is also confirmed in the Mishnah). Love would thus not have come into it for a man in Joseph’s position. It would have been even more so if she had been raped.
But being also genuinely righteous in a godly fashion, in a way exceeding the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5.20), he did not wish to bring her into total and open disrepute by a public investigation (compare Numbers 5.11-31 for such an investigation, although that was where a child was not involved), so he decided to come to an arrangement for the divorce to proceed privately. This would involve the granting of a certificate of divorce before two witnesses and her then remaining at home in her father’s house until a suitable marriage could be arranged with someone else. He would probably by this forego his right to recover marriage settlements and confiscate her dowry, but he was a compassionate man and did not consider such things. In view of the fact that he knew that the child was not his, which emphasises the fact that he had not had sexual relations with her, no trial was necessary unless he wanted one. The matter could thus be quietly resolved, with as little public shame as possible to Mary. She would then be able to accept any offer that she might receive, probably from an older close relative looking for a nubile second wife who would recognise her place. That would be the best that she could hope for.
1.20 ‘But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, you son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” ’
Joseph dropped off to sleep thinking over how he would go about the arrangements, and probably deeply grieved over it. How natural this sounds. And then while he was asleep he had a dream. Such dreams were not common in the New Testament. Note that none of Luke’s accounts indicate such a dream situation, for Luke almost ignores Joseph at this stage, while here in Matthew there was no prophecy by Joseph and thus a dream was sufficient. This was taking place away from the centre of things in the house of Joseph. There is nothing of the excitement of Luke, only grief. It is a private situation between him and the Lord. And there is no imitation of Luke (or vice-versa).
And in the dream he is addressed by ‘an angel of the Lord’. This situation is unique. The angel of the Lord appears in the service of God regularly in the Old and New Testaments, but never, apart from to Joseph, in a dream (see 1.20, 24. 2.13, 19). Usually the angel only appears where there is a face-to-face confrontation. Furthermore in the Old Testament the ‘angel of the Lord’ is usually, but not always, synonymous with God. Thus this situation is unique. This is further demonstration that Matthew is describing it as it was, not inventing it on the basis of Old Testament ideas. Furthermore of the evangelists only Matthew ever speaks of ‘the angel of the Lord’, a further sign of his own Jewishness, and the fact that he has Jews very much in mind. Note also that there is no physical ‘appearance’ of an angel described. It is all in Joseph’s dream.
Some may not be happy with information received in a dream. But history (even recent history) contains many examples of accurate information received through dreams and premonitions, too many to be totally discounted, for it is a way by which God sometimes chooses to speak (Genesis 23.6; 28.12; 31.24; 1 Kings 3.5). Drugs can also speak through dreams too, but not reliably. However this was no drug induced dream. The Israelites in fact seem to have expected that information would sometimes come through dreams (Numbers 12.6; Deuteronomy 13.1; 1 Samuel 28.6). But it was very much a secondary method of revelation (Numbers 12.6-8).
On the other hand Scripture has also warned against over-reliance on dreams, and against the danger of ‘dreamers of dreams’ (Deuteronomy 13.1-5). Thus in the New Testament, in spite of God’s words through Joel (Acts 2.18) mentioned at Pentecost, dreams are a rarity. Both Jewish and Gentile believers receive information from God through visions rather than dreams (Acts 9.10; 10.3; 16.9; 18.9). A vision of the night was not necessarily a dream. Paul may well have been consciously engaged in prayer. It must be seen as more than a coincidence then that Joseph alone is seen as receiving all his messages, usually from the angel of the Lord, in dreams, and that over a period (see also 2.13, 19, 22). This suggests that Joseph was in fact unusually susceptible to dreams, and had the gift mentioned in Acts 2.18, which would explain their unusual prominence in this account. That the Magi (2.12) and Pilate’s wife (27.19) also received their messages through dreams is explicable by the fact that they were not strictly ‘believers’, even though the Magi may have been well on the way to being so. Unbelievers did not receive direct visions, unless with the purpose of making them believers. Warnings to unbelievers thus necessarily came through dreams, as they had to people like Laban of old (Genesis 31.29).
In his dream the angel of the Lord tells Joseph not to be afraid of finalising his marriage to Mary his (betrothed) wife, because what is conceived in her is ‘born of the Holy Spirit’, ‘ek Pneumatos Hagiou’ (see on verse 18). What is happening is the work of God and Him alone. ‘The Holy Spirit’ (or ‘Spirit of God’) is a term which is always used to describe God in invisible action where the results are outwardly apparent, and in the Old Testament it is very closely associated with the idea of God Himself. The Holy Spirit is never thought of as having a form. He is pure Spirit. (There is only one remarkable exception to this in the whole of Scripture, and that a unique one for a unique purpose, as found in 3.16).
‘Do not be afraid.’ Normally to take someone as a wife who was bearing someone else’s child would be seen as degrading and disobedient to the Law. It would be the equivalent of adultery. Under normal circumstances Joseph would not even have considered it. It went against everything in which he believed. Thus it is clear that Joseph certainly came to believe in the virginal conception of Jesus, and he would have taken some convincing! Those who do not accept the virgin birth have to explain how Joseph, the Son of the Davidic house, was persuaded to go against all his breeding at a time when such things were seen as all important (he could hardly have been in doubt about whether the child was his or not). However, by saying nothing at the time he at least kept their shame in the eyes of others down to the thought that they had had sexual relations when only betrothed, something not really satisfactory in the most righteous circles, but certainly understandable and something which in some ways would be sympathised with. The Mishnah sees sexual relations as sometimes bringing about a betrothal, and never specifically frowns on the idea.
The Holy Spirit is sometimes connected with the birth process in the Old Testament (see Job 33.4; Psalm 104.30), but here it is different. He takes it over completely in His creative power. Mary is merely a passive instrument. This is unquestionably totally different from anything that has happened before.
(It is completely different from the so-called virgin births of Greek mythology where they were not really virgin births at all but the result of gods having sexual relations with the woman in question).
1.21 “And she will bring forth a son, and you shall call his name JESUS, for it is he who will save his people from their sins.”
Mary is to bear a son and His name is to be called Ye-sus, ‘YHWH is salvation’, for he will save His people from their sins. We can compare here Psalm 130.8, where it is said, ‘and He (YHWH) shall redeem Israel from all her iniquities’. So Jesus is to act on behalf of YHWH as a Saviour. As in Luke the emphasis is on a Saviour acting on behalf of God the Saviour (compare Luke 1.47; 2.11). Here at the very commencement of the Gospel then we have the declared purpose of His coming. It is for the salvation of people from their sins (from their comings short, their missing the mark), and from the consequences of their sins. Its deliberate connection with His name means that the idea is thus to be seen as emphasised throughout the whole Gospel wherever the name of Jesus is mentioned. We can always therefore replace the name ‘Jesus’ with ‘God the Saviour’ (see especially 20.28. Also 10.22; 18.11; 24.13, 22).
While saving from sin was undoubtedly a trait of the ‘popular Messiah’, it was not a prominent one, certainly not as prominent as it is made to be here where it is pre-eminent. It was certainly a part of the future hope in general (Isaiah 1.18; 43.25; 44.22), but not as a major aspect of Messiah’s work, for Messiah was seen as coming to establish justice and to judge (Isaiah 11.1-4; Psalm of Solomon 17.28-29, 41), although that would necessarily involve a measure of forgiveness. But the thought of forgiveness was not prominent, and that is why Jesus had to emphasise that as the Son of Man He had the right on earth to forgive sins (9.6). Thus it is made clear that this was to be a different form of Messiah from the One Who was usually expected, One Who would equate with the Servant, Who would suffer on behalf of His own. Compare 9.2, 5, 6; 26.28; and see Isaiah 53; Jeremiah 31.31-34; Ezekiel 36.24-31. We note from the Lord’s prayer (6.12, 14-15; see also 18.21-35) how central forgiveness was to the ministry of Jesus. Forgiving and being forgiven were both essential aspects of the Kingly Rule of Heaven.
1.22 ‘Now all this is come about that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,’
Here we have the first prophetic formula, and yet this one shares its uniqueness with one other, for it is only here and in 2.15 that it is said to be ‘spoken by the Lord’. Matthew is very careful in his use of formulae (see introduction), and while he is quoting Isaiah here he does not mention his name. The mention of Isaiah’s name is reserved for a special section of Matthew which is openly based on the fulfilment of Isaianic prophecy (3.3; 4.14; 8.17; 12.17; 13.14; 15.7) in which is revealed the coming of the Messiah (4.14) and Servant (8.17; 12.17), and which is preparing for the revelation and reinterpretation of His Messiahship in 16.16, 21, His revelation in glory in 17.1-8, and the confirmation of His Redemptive Servanthood in 20.28.
The reason for the emphasis on ‘the Lord’ here and in 2.15 is that what is being described is God’s direct action in His Son. The point is that He Himself is bringing His Son into the world, and in Him He will bring His people out of ‘Egypt’ (2.15), that is out of the tyranny of darkness and of the world and under His own heavenly Kingship. The word ‘fulfilled’ means ‘fill to the full, bring to completion, bring to its destined end’. It is never to be read in Matthew as though it was just a glib ‘fulfilment of prophecy’. It always means more than that, indicating the bringing about of a greater purpose.
1.23 “Behold, the virgin will be with child, and will bring forth a son, and they will call his name Immanuel,” which is, being interpreted, God with us.’
This quotation is taken from Isaiah 7.14. There the birth of an heir to the throne of David (Isaiah 9.6-7) was to be by a virgin (in LXX, translating ‘almah - an unmarried woman of marriageable age who can be assumed to be a virgin (see Excursus below)). The reason for this was that God had rejected the house of David in His rejection of Ahaz because of his refusal to ask for the miraculous sign that God had offered him, which was simply because he did not want to have to do what God required. Ahaz wanted rather to trust in Assyria (with no real conception of what it would involve). Thus because of his refusal a miraculous sign was thrust on him, one that he did not want, and one which would signal the doom of his house. And that was that he must now recognise that the future hopes of the house of David would no longer rest in his seed, because the Coming One would be born of a virgin. God would by-pass the then current house of David.
(‘God Himself will give you a sign’ (Isaiah 7.14) meant, ‘God will now give you a sign which is expressed in the words that He now declares to you concerning a great wonder to occur in the future, a wonder which will indicate your rejection. It will be a wonder greater even than any you could ask for in Heaven and earth, and it will later be accomplished as a result of His miraculous power and be the end of the hopes of your house, for by it the Coming King will be born of no seed of man’. It was not intended to be a sign like the one that God had originally promised. Ahaz had forfeited that).
The virgin would bear a son without human father, thus supplanting the house of Ahaz, and this son would then be called ‘GOD WITH US’, a reminder to Ahaz that, while God had by Him come among His people, He would no longer be with him. The child would bring about what by his unbelief he had lost. So the point behind the sign is not as something from which Ahaz could take hope, something for Ahaz to believe in, but as something by which he would be made to recognise his own failure and rejection. When it actually took place would therefore not be important. What mattered was God’s emphasis on the fact that it would take place on the basis of His word, and that it COULD, (but not certainly) feasibly be sufficiently imminent for lessons to be drawn from it. (Compare how Abraham was told, ‘kings will be born of you’ (Genesis 17.6). But it did not occur for a long time)
Now, says Matthew, we see that prophecy being filled to the full. It is being brought to completion in that now a virgin will produce a child who will truly be the indication that ‘God is with us’ in a unique sense.
‘They will call.’ When ‘they’ is used as a vague subject, as it is here in Matthew’s version of the quotation, it is a regular Semitic generalisation indicating ‘Many will call Him’. (MT has ‘she will call’. LXX has ‘you will call’).
The names applied to the coming babe are important in Matthew, and are emphasised. Here He is Immanu-el, an indication of ‘God with us’. This is His prophetic name, a prophetic declaration of what He is. His given name, given by both God and man, will be ‘Jesus’, an indication that He is the Saviour from sin. In these two names are summed up the Christian message. He is God, He is with us, He is our Saviour.
EXCURSUS on Isaiah 7.14.
This is a prophecy concerning Immanuel, the expected Chosen One of God. The ‘prophecy’ (forth-telling) which is cited here in Matthew is, “Behold a virgin will be with child and will bring forth a son, and they will call His name Immanuel” which is being interpreted, ‘God with us’. As we have seen this is especially emphasised by Matthew as having been spoken by ‘the Lord’ and it is taken from Isaiah 7.14. It need hardly be pointed out that huge discussions have resulted from a study of this verse. To examine all those views is, however, beyond the scope of what we are trying to do here and we must therefore limit ourselves to what we see as the main points that come out of it.
The first is that the verse in Matthew refers to a ‘virgin’ (parthenos) who will bring forth a son, ‘conceived by the Holy Spirit’ (1.20). And we should note in this regard that 1.24-25 in Matthew certainly affirm that Mary had had no sexual intercourse with her husband until after the birth. So however sceptical some readers might be about his conclusion, there is no doubt that Matthew is indicating by this a ‘virgin conception and birth’, and moreover is indicating by it a supernatural birth in which only one party has been involved. This last fact is important. It demonstrates that it bears no resemblance to other so-called ‘virgin births’ in extant literature which are often cited as parallels. In those cases a god in the form of a man had had intercourse with a human maiden. But that idea is excluded here. It has therefore to be considered as coming from a totally different sphere and environment. Here this unique birth is seen to be the result of the working of the Holy Spirit producing a child ‘miraculously’ without any hint of sexual activity whether human or divine. It is not modelled on a pagan myth.
More likely parallels than pagan myths are ‘and the Lord visited Sarah as He had said’ (Genesis 21.1); and ‘and it came about that Hannah conceived and bore a son’ (1 Samuel 1.20), in both cases with divine assistance. But these are more parallel with the birth of John the Baptiser than with that of Jesus, for in those cases intercourse is assumed to have taken place.
But how then can the birth of Jesus be seen as the ‘fulfilment’ or ‘filling full’ or ‘bringing to completion’ of the words taken from Isaiah, which are seen as specifically the words of YHWH?
In Isaiah the promise was of an unmarried young woman of marriageable age (‘almah in Hebrew, parthenos in LXX) who would bear a child which would reveal to Israel that God was with them, and would be a sign to Ahaz that God had rejected him and his house.
The Hebrew word used for young woman in Isaiah 7.14 (‘almah) is never, as far as is known, used of a non-virgin or a married woman. It refers to a young woman of marriageable age, with growing sexual desires, who is not yet married, and thus is assumed to be a virgin. The use of ‘almah in Song of Solomon 6.8-9 especially confirms this. There it is contrasted with queens and concubines and clearly describes those who are in the same situation as the loved one also being described, unmarried and virginal, and in verse 9 is associated with ‘the daughters’ of their mothers, (they have not yet left their own households), the many compared with the one. It is a word containing the idea of sexual purity, without the taint that had come on the often cited word bethulah (often translated ‘virgin’). Bethulah was specifically linked with pagan deities of doubtful morality at Ugarit, and could be used to describe fertility goddesses, who were certainly not virgins. It did not strictly mean a pure virgin at the time of the prophecy, whatever it came to mean later. Compare Joel 1.8 where a bethulah mourning the husband of her youth is described where there are no grounds at all for considering that they had only been betrothed.
Some have used Proverbs 30.19 as an example of ‘almah being used of a non-virgin, when it speaks of ‘the way of a man with a maid’. But there are no real grounds at all for suggesting that that indicates sexual activity. Indeed it is the opposite that is more clearly indicated. There the writer is dealing with the movements of different creatures. Using sexual movements as an example of someone’s movements, as being watched by others, would, with an innocent couple in view, have been heavily frowned on. And we only have to look at what it is being compared with to recognise that it is being paralleled with flight and directional movement which is watched by others. The thought is thus more of a couple on the move in their flirtatious activity, or even of the man’s behaviour of which the young woman is not so much aware, the observers being the amused onlookers as he trails her and tries to be noticed by her. It thus rather supports the use of ‘almah for an unmarried maiden than the opposite.
We can therefore understand why here the LXX translators translated ‘almah by the word ‘virgin’ (parthenos), just as they did in Genesis 24.43. They recognised the emphasis that Isaiah was placing on this woman as being unmarried and pure.
It is true that the word used for ‘virgin’ (parthenos) does not always refer to what is today indicated by the term virgin, an intact virgin who has not had relations with a man, but there is nevertheless always behind it the thought of a kind of underlying purity. The term could, for example, be applied to sacred prostitutes in Greek temples, who were by no means intact virgins. But these were seen as having their own kind of ‘purity’ by those who wrote of them, for they were seen as daughters of the temples and of the gods, not as common prostitutes. They were ‘holy’. On the other hand, they were certainly not technically virgins. Furthermore after Dinah had been raped in Genesis 34.2 she was still called a parthenos in verse 3 (LXX). She was seen as pure at heart even though she had been violated and was no longer an intact virgin. And in Isaiah 47 the ‘virgin daughter of Babylon’ could lose her children and be brought to widowhood (Isaiah 47.1, 9). In none of these cases then are parthenoi seen as intact virgins. On the other hand, the idea of purity might be seen as lying behind them all.
Nor did Hebrew at this time have a word for ‘intact virgin’. Virginity was assumed for all unmarried young women, unless there was reason to think otherwise, and then it was a shame to speak of it. The often cited ‘bethulah’ did not indicate that at that time. Nor did it necessarily indicate purity. As we have seen above it was specifically linked with pagan deities of doubtful morality at Ugarit, and could be used to describe fertility goddesses, who were certainly not virgins, or even pure. They were far more lascivious and lustful than human beings. And in Joel 1.8 a bethulah mourning the husband of her youth is described. There are no grounds for thinking that she was a virgin. Indeed if she had had a husband for even one night she would not have been. (It is true that a betrothed man could be called a husband, but in a general statement like that in Joel it would not be the obvious meaning). Furthermore the word bethulah sometimes has to be accompanied by the words, ‘neither had any man known her’ (Genesis 24.16; compare also Leviticus 21.3; Judges 11.39; 21.12). That comparison would have been unnecessary if bethulah had specifically indicated a virgin. So a bethulah is a young woman, whether married or not, with no indication of her virginal state. An ‘alma is an unmarried young woman of marriageable age, who if pure (which she would be assumed to be) could in Israel be called a parthenos, a pure woman.
The next thing we note is that this unmarried and pure woman who is to bring forth a child is to be a sign to Ahaz of the rejection of him and his house (demonstrated by the coming of Assyria on them - Isaiah 7.17), and an indication that he will shortly see that God can really do what He says and can empty the lands of both his enemies, something which will also be a warning to him, for what can be done to them can also be done to him.
Who then was this son who would act as a sign in this way? A number of suggestions have been made of which we will select the three most prominent.
In order to decide which one was meant we must consider the context. In context God had offered to keep Ahaz safe under his protection, and in order to give him assurance in the face of what lay before him, had offered to give him a sign of miraculous proportions (an example of which we find later on when the sun goes back ten degrees under Hezekiah - Isaiah 38.5-8). God says, ‘Ask a sign of YHWH, whether it be as high as Heaven or as deep as Sheol’ (7.11). This was an offer which Ahaz suavely rejected, because he preferred to look to the King of Assyria. But if only he had accepted it in faith this sign once given would have been the sign that Ahaz would be ‘established’. It was thus related not only to the deliverance from the current problem, but also to the guaranteeing of the future establishment of the house of David through the line of Ahaz, protecting him from all comers.
And it is on his refusal to respond to God’s offer that God says that He will nevertheless give him a sign, but that this time it will be a sign that he will not like. Rather than being a sign of God’s help and protection, it will be the sign of the king of Assyria coming on him, (thus he will not be established). And the sign will be ‘that the coming child will be born of an ‘almah’.
The first thing that must be said about these words is that it suggests in context that God intends to bring before him a sign that will indeed be one of miraculous proportions, ‘as high as Heaven or as deep as Sheol’, in accordance with what He has previously described, even though it is one which will not be of benefit to him at all. For only such a sign could demonstrate the certainty that the future of the house of Ahaz was no longer ensured. And if that was to be so then only a virgin birth would fit the bill. It was the virgin birth of the Coming One that guaranteed that He would not be of Ahaz’ house, and that, instead of that being so, God Himself would have stepped in, in the production of a royal child.
1) The suggestion that it refers to a child to be born of the royal house, or of Isaiah’s wife, whose very birth would act as a sign.
The birth of a son to the royal house in the normal course of events (Hezekiah had already been born) or to the prophetess could hardly have been such a sign as the Lord has described above. For one thing no one would have believed that the child was born of a virgin. And indeed it was not possible for the prophetess who was no longer a ‘virgin’ to produce a child in this way. It is true the prophetess bears two sons, both of whom by their names will be signs to Judah/Israel, as would their father (8.18), but note that while the prophetess was mentioned earlier in respect of one of the sons (8.3), she is not mentioned in verse 18 where we have the mention of the ‘signs and portents’ referring to both sons and their father. There is therefore no emphasis on it being the prophetess who bears both sons who were ‘signs and portents in Israel’ (along with their father) even though she had in fact done so. The emphasis here is on the father.
However, the argument is often that that is the point. The emphasis is in fact on her bearing one of the sons, Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8.3), who will be a sign of the devastation of the two kings, something which in 7.16 was to be gathered from the sign of the ‘almah with child. But here we should note that in 8.3 this is not in fact specifically described as a sign. It is rather seen as a prophetic acting out of what was to be, which is not quite the same thing. Of course we may accept that it was an indication of what was to be, and in that sense a sign. But it was equally certainly not the kind of sign that the Lord had originally spoken of, a sign of startling proportions. Nor is it said to relate to the now greater matters that were involved, that Ahaz’s house would no longer be established, and that the king of Assyria was about to descend on him and his land because he had forfeited the Lord’s protection.
We may therefore justifiably see the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz as a partial sign, but not as the great sign. The child’s birth, through the name given to him, was indeed a sign that the kings would be destroyed from their lands within a short while, but that was all that he is described as being. But he was not born of an ‘almah, and he is not said to be a sign of the larger matter in hand, the rejection of the house of Ahaz as manifested by the coming of Assyria and devastation of Judah. Nor is he said to be the sign of the coming of a king who would achieve what Ahaz has failed to achieve (Isaiah 9.7), that is, of the fulfilment of the promises to the house of David. (A fact that will later be made even clearer by the rejection of his son Hezekiah and his seed - Isaiah 39.5-7). The same problems as these lie with any attempt to relate the birth of the child to the birth of any child in the house of Ahaz. The birth of such a child would hardly rank as an unusual sign, and would be even less significant than that born to the prophetess. For we must remember that the heir, Hezekiah, had already been born before this happened.
2) The suggestion that it refers to any child born at the time the emphasis being on the fact that before it was weaned what God had said would happen.
This suffers from even more disadvantages than the first, for it does not even have the partial support in context that the first interpretation has when related to the prophetess. It is fine as an evidence of how short a time it will be before both of Ahaz’s opponents are devastated, but it has nothing to say about the non-establishment of the house of Ahaz or of the coming of the king of Assyria, nor could it possibly be seen as in any way parallel with the kind of sign that the Lord had spoken about. For the truth is that if the Lord made His great declaration about ‘a sign almost as beyond the conception of man as it could possibly be’, and then gave one which was merely a birth in the usual run of things, it would appear to all that all that He had offered was a damp squib.
And this is especially so because in the past He had specialised in special births in that a number of past ‘greats’ had been born miraculously (even though not from an ‘almah), and almost with the same words. Thus Isaac was born ‘miraculously’ (Genesis 18.10-11, 14; 21.2 - ‘conceived and bore a son’), Samson was born ‘miraculously’ (Judges 13.3 - ‘will conceive and bear a son’), Samuel was born ‘miraculously’ (1 Samuel 1.5, 20 - ‘conceived and bore a son’). And all these births would be engraved on Israelite hearts. But there is no suggestion that they were born of ‘almah’s, nor was the child of the prophetess in fact born ‘miraculously’, even though she ‘conceived and bore a son’. Indeed she had already previously had another son. It will be noted that the only exact parallel to ‘will conceive and bear a son’ in the whole of the Old Testament is Judges 13.3, 5, 7, and that of a birth that was certainly unusual and unexpected.
3) The suggestion that it refers to the child described in Isaiah 9.6-7, the coming One Who would be greater than David, Who would be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, and would rule over the whole world, thus indicating that He would be miraculously born of an ‘almah (parthenos, virgin).
There can be no question that this suggestion of the virgin birth of the coming hope of the house of David has the most going for it from an Israelite’s point of view and from the point of view of the context. It would tie in with the past history of conceiving and bearing a ‘miraculous child’ as being signs to Israel. It would tie in with the Lord’s promise that He would give a remarkable miraculous sign. It would tie in with the following description of the ‘birth of a child’ in 9.6. It would give full weight to the use of ‘almah. It would explain why it demonstrated that ‘God is with us’. It would confirm that the hope of the house of David was indeed coming, in spite of present appearances, even though Ahaz’ house would be excluded. And in the context of Matthew it would explain why He would be able to save His people from their sins.
And as no one knew when the child would be born (it could be at any time) the indication that both kings would be devastated before the child could possibly grow to boyhood was a sufficient indicator of time, especially when associated with the actual example of the birth of the son to the prophetess. Indeed the only question that it might raise is, how could such a birth in the future possibly be a sign to Ahaz?
The answer to this question lies in the nature of the sign. It should be noted that it was no longer intended to be a sign to Ahaz that he was to be established (7.9). But what it certainly was, was a sign of the fact that he would not be established, and while that did not really require a great present miracle at the time then current, God was determined that the one who had refused a miraculous sign would be given a miraculous sign which would demonstrate the fact in an inescapable way. Ahaz lived at a time when all hopes were on the coming of the future triumphant son of David, who would be of the line of David, and who would rule the world (Psalm 2). And Ahaz would pride himself in the fact that it would be of his seed. Thus to inform Ahaz that he was now receiving God’s words as a sign that this coming David would actually in fact be born of a virgin, and not be of his seed, was indeed a sign that he would not be established, and was an unwelcome sign indeed. It was an indication vouchsafed by the word of YHWH that the future throne would go to one not born of Ahaz’s seed. The sign was thus now not a matter of when the child would be born, but of what his birth would signify as regards the hopes for the future. Furthermore we have a good example in the past of precisely such an idea of a sign that was given as a sign to its recipient, with the actual working out of the sign being a future event. For such an example see Exodus 3.12. There the sign that Moses had been sent would be the fact that the people to whom he went would one day ‘serve God on this mountain’. The sign was a promise of a better future that had to be believed in, and that they could hold on to, and in which they had to continue to believe. It was a sign that had to be accepted on the basis of God’s promise. It was a sign of a future which would actually be the result of their response of faith, just as this sign in Isaiah 7.14 was a similar promise of a better future in which the people were called on to believe, in contrast to Ahaz (Isaiah 7.9).
Strictly speaking in fact Ahaz did not want or merit a sign. He had refused it. He had already made up his mind to look to Assyria. Thus the point here is that he was now to receive a verbal sign that he did not want, which demonstrated the very opposite of what the original promised sign would have indicated. And that sign was God’s own word that the Coming One would now be born of a virgin, and not of the seed of Ahaz. It demonstrated his rejection by God. Meanwhile Israel could indeed be confident that one day it would receive its promised king Whose coming would prove that God was with them, but they would now know that He would not be born of the seed of Ahaz, but would rather be born of a virgin. We should also note that while this might cause problems to our scientific age, it would have caused no problems to Israelites, nor indeed to Matthew. They would not be looking for some interpretation that avoided the ‘miraculous’. They would have seen no difficulty in the idea of the Creator bringing about a virgin birth.
This being so it is quite reasonable to see that to Matthew Isaiah was seen as promising that the great Son of David would be born of a virgin, and that it therefore directly related to what had happened in the case of Jesus, Who, as that Son of David had indeed been born of a virgin. He thus saw His birth from a virgin as ‘filling in full’ the prophecy which had only partly been fulfilled by Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
End of EXCURSUS.
1.24-25 ‘And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took to himself his wife, and knew her not until she had brought forth a son, and he called his name JESUS.’
Note how it is made clear that this was a genuine dream. There is no suggestion that the angel had actually been present, except in his thoughts. Thus far from there being so-called ‘legendary accretions’ the opposite is the truth. On the other hand Joseph had no doubt that a messenger from the Lord had spoken to him, and the result was that he altered his plans and invited Mary to be wedded to him and come to live with him. ‘He took to himself his wife’. But what he did not do was ‘know’ her, that is, have sexual relations with her. And he did not do so ‘until she had brought forth a son’. The Greek construction used here clearly indicates that after that he did so. Had there been any truth in the idea of her perpetual virginity this would have been the point at which it would have been emphasised.
‘Called His name Jesus.’ Joseph’s naming of Jesus was important. It was his final act by which he acknowledged Him as his son. From then on no one could deny it. Compare Isaiah 43.1, ‘I have called you by name, you are Mine’. Jesus was now the acknowledged heir to the throne of David. Passing on the heirdom through an adopted son was perfectly acceptable.
The Visit of The Magi (2.1-11).
The visit of the Magi/Eminent Astrologers to Jesus is important for a number of reasons. It emphasises:
A number of instances are known of when Magi (learned astrologers) did attend at the birthplace of those with prominent connections because of what they considered to be indications from the stars (Augustus Caesar and Nero to name but two). And when this is combined with the fact that in the 1st century AD there was a great expectation of the rise of world rulers in Judaea, it should not surprise us that they felt guided towards Judaea. With regard to this last, Tacitus, the Roman historian tells us that ‘there was a firm persuasion --- that at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers coming from Judaea were to acquire universal empire’, while Suetonius, another Roman historian declares in the days of Vespasian, ‘there had been spread over all the Orient an old and established belief that it was fated at that time that men coming from Judaea would rule the world’. So it was very likely that Magi would be interested in Judaea, and rather than suggesting therefore that this is ‘borrowed material’ we should see in it an indication that these Magi, guided by God, were carrying out the normal practise of Magi, and, in accordance with the beliefs of the time, were following up their discoveries of signs in the heavens in a way that would be expected. Men like these believed that to those who could ‘see’ them the skies were constantly revealing phenomenon which had to be interpreted, and it no doubt led many of them on a considerable number of wild goose chases. But in this case God took the opportunity to speak through it. This was one time when their ‘art’ would have good results.
It must, however, be stressed that they did not follow the star about all over the place (‘field and fountain, moor and mountain, following yonder star’ as the carol quite wrongly suggests). They saw it when they were in the East (or ‘at its rising’) and they then only saw it again on the final stage of their journey on the Bethlehem Road after they had left Jerusalem behind. The remainder of their actions arose from their own interpretation of what they had seen, and from what they were told in Jerusalem. The star was noticeably absent.
In fact this draws attention to the fact that the very consistency of the narrative, without excessive embellishment, confirms its truth. It is ‘borrowed’ material that usually becomes absurd, not historical accounts like this. It is quite frankly impossible to think of Matthew embellishing wild legends about Moses (or anyone else) and then as a result producing so sober an account. Nor is it likely that as a Christian he would have introduced the idea of astrology had it not been known to have happened.
The basic idea is clear. While studying the stars in the East, these men (whose number we are not told) saw a particular manifestation in the heavens which indicated to them the birth in Jerusalem of a ‘world ruler’. The manifestation may well have been connected with the planet Jupiter (whose name itself indicates world ruler), and some have seen in this the conjunction of Jupiter (the world ruler) and Saturn (the last days) in the constellation of Pisces (which represents Israel) which occurred at least twice in the decade ending in 1 BC, namely in 7 and 5 BC. Experiments carried out at the London Planetarium have confirmed that this would in fact have appeared as one very bright ‘star’, but not so bright as to have significance for everyone.
There are, however, a number of alternative possibilities, for the last decade of the old era was full of interesting astrological phenomena. For example, in the September of 3 BC, Jupiter came into conjunction with Regulus, the star of kingship, the brightest star in the constellation of Leo, and Leo was the constellation of kings, and was associated with the Lion of Judah. The royal planet thus approached the royal star in the royal constellation representing Judah. Furthermore just a month earlier, Jupiter and Venus, the Mother planet, had almost seemed to touch each other in another close conjunction, also in Leo. After this the conjunction between Jupiter and Regulus was repeated, not once but twice, in February and May of 2 BC. Finally, in June of 2 BC, Jupiter and Venus, the two brightest objects in the sky apart from the sun and moon, experienced an even closer encounter when their discs appeared to touch. To the naked eye they would have become a single object above the setting sun. And in fact these are only the highlights selected out of an impressive series of planetary motions and conjunctions fraught with a variety of astrological meanings, involving all the other known planets of the period, Mercury, Mars, and Saturn, which occurred around this time. So the astrological significance of impressive events similar to these may well have been seen by the Magi as indicating the impending birth of a great king of Israel, especially when combined with the widespread expectation of a Judaean ruler of great importance.
Having seen ‘the star’ (the term signified any light in the Heavens) and interpreted it as indicating the birth of a King of the Jews, possibly in connection with what they had read in ancient Jewish books, for there were many learned Jews in places like Babylon, they naturally went to the religious capital of the Jews, Jerusalem, a city famed in antiquity, by following the recognised trade routes. On arrival there they then began to enquire as to where the king was whom they were confident, on the basis of their studies, had been born. When the ever-suspicious Herod heard this he immediately called them in. If such an event had happened he wanted to know about it, purportedly so that he too could greet the child, but really so that he could deal with the menace once and for all. It is then significant that it is the ‘wise men’ of Jerusalem who were able to provide the necessary directions from the Scriptures. If indeed such a king had been born, the Magi needed the guidance of the Scriptures, and it was through the Scriptures that the Jewish ‘wise men’ were able to point to Bethlehem (and when we read the verse that these Jewish wise men took into consideration we have no difficulty in seeing why).
Provided with this information the Magi took the road to Bethlehem, a mere five mile journey from Jerusalem, on a road on which they needed no guidance. But as they were on this final stretch they were excited when they saw the star again appear, this time ahead of them. Their excitement arose because this seemed to confirm that their interpretation had been correct, and that their journey was not in vain, and they hurried on to Bethlehem, with the star in front of them and seeming to go before them, as stars do when we are moving. But it should be noted that it does not say that they followed the star. They did not need to. There was only one road. And then when Bethlehem came into sight it was as though the star was shining over Bethlehem and thus indicating the presence of the young prince. This is not the stuff of legend (which would have been made much more exciting). This represents sober descriptions of real life, as it would actually appear to men. There is not a single one of us who has not seen the stars going on before us as we travel, and especially so for sailors where the stars were once important as a method of guidance. Once they had arrived in Bethlehem a few discreet enquiries would soon indicate the house of the royal line of Israel, so that entering in they were able to present their gifts to the young lad Whom they found there with His parents. (It is not as picturesque as the carols, which tend to show what Matthew could have done with the story had he been prone to invention or to using so-called ‘pesher’ methods of inventing stories to illustrate a passage of Scripture, something which would not happen for another three hundred years. Matthew’s account is pure fact).
As we have seen Matthew’s purpose in describing this was as confirmation that here was the true son of David, honoured and owned by the wise of the world. It also demonstrated that Gentiles came to Him bearing gifts as the Scriptures had promised (e.g. Isaiah 60.6; Psalm 72.10, 11, 15), for it was well recognised that He was to be a light of revelation to the Gentiles and to be the glory of His people Israel (Luke 2.32; compare Isaiah 42.6; 49.6). Yet interestingly Matthew cites no Scripture to suggest this. It may even suggest that he did not think of them. His concentration was on what really happened, not on artificially contrived stories.
We will now consider the passage in more detail.
Analysis (2.1-11).
Note how in ‘a’ the Magi come from their home in the East seeking the new born King of the Jews, they are guided by the star, and they come in order to pay Him homage, and in the parallel they are again guided by the star, they do find the young child whom they are seeking, and they pay Him homage. In ‘b’ Herod enquires of his ‘wise men’ where the Christ is to be born, and in the parallel he enquires of the Magi at what time the child was signified as due to be born. Centrally in ‘c’ is the fact that the Scriptures are being filled to the full by what is happening.
2.1-2 ‘Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east (or ‘at its rising’), and are come to pay him homage.”
Matthew makes quite clear here that he is dealing with what he sees as historical facts. He could not have made it more obvious. If he did not believe that it really happened then here he was being deceitful. He declares that Jesus was born, without going into detail (in line with his emphasis on Joseph, the son of David, and not on the bearer, Mary), that it was in Bethlehem of Judea, and that it was in the days of Herod the king, that is, of Herod the Great who died between 5 and 1 BC. The ‘of Judea’ differentiates this Bethlehem, five miles from Jerusalem, from other Bethlehems such as Bethlehem in Zebulun, which was north west of Nazareth (Bethlehem means ‘the house of bread’ or ‘the granary’). All this agrees with Luke and yet is distinctive. And all is clearly intended to be historical.
It should be noted that Matthew had had no reason to mention Bethlehem before this (he has not mentioned places). In chapter 1.18 ff, apart from the opening summary in verse 18a, the recognition of Mary’s pregnancy probably occurred in Nazareth, and Joseph might well have posted there to deal with the matter, with only verse 25 occurring in Bethlehem. But at that stage place was hardly of importance. Indeed it is normal for Matthew to be indistinct about geography except when he thinks that it matters. And here geography only became of importance when the birth took place.
(Matthew appears to deliberately ignore the use of place names, so much so that when he does use them we need to prick up our ears and ask why. In this chapter he mentions Bethlehem (four times) and Nazareth but in each case so as to connect with a quotation from Scripture. He mentions Nazareth and Capernaum in 4.13 again connected with a ‘that it might be fulfilled’ statement. Thus the first straight mention of a place name in Matthew is Capernaum in 8.5 (‘his own city’ in 9.1) followed by ‘the country of the Gadarenes’ in 8.28. After that the next place name is Gennesaret in 14.34. We would not have known that Jesus visited Chorazin and Bethsaida, along with Capernaum, had it not been for His condemnation of them (11.21). In general He visits ‘cities and villages’. Thus NOT to have a place name mentioned is normal for Matthew).
‘Magi from the East.’ The word ‘Magi’ could indicate either ‘high level’ astrologers or crude magicians. The context suggests the former. Their interest in and response to the message of the stars indicates it. There is nowhere any indication of magic. These are distinguished men who read the stars as part of their studies. We are not told whether ‘the East’ indicates Babylon, Persia or Arabia. The point is that they came, with their caravan, from distant, and possibly mysterious, places.
Note on Herod the Great.
By this time Herod the king had been on the throne for over thirty years. Although a tyrant he generally kept the peace, was loyal to his Roman masters, and was adept enough to keep in with different emperors. He was usually militarily successful, and engaged in splendid large-scale building, including commencing the building of the magnificent Temple in Jerusalem. He established spectacular athletics contests, and was skilled in providing famine relief. In some ways therefore he was a good ruler. But there was a very much darker side to his character. Certainly those who were heavily and brutally taxed in order to pay for his building projects did not appreciate it, nor did they like the added brutality of the ‘games’ which the Romans and Greeks delighted in. Furthermore being an Idumaean (Edomite Jew) he was looked on as a usurper by many of the Jews, and in return treated the high priesthood with contempt, installing and removing high priests (whose tenure was Scripturally life-long) at will, and he similarly removed all the powers of the Sanhedrin. He was a brute of a man, and had a very cruel streak which became worse with increasing paranoia. He struck out left, right and centre at any whom he saw as rivals, even members of his own family, and overall behaved with total arrogance towards the Jewish leadership (which they on the whole attempted to reciprocate), and even at times towards the people as a whole. In his declining years he executed his wife and three of his sons, and finally died hated by the nation. His aim had in fact been that his death be turned into a bloodbath, and he had left instructions accordingly (ordering a number of executions to take place when he died) so as to ensure that there would be mourning at his funeral, but these instructions were fortunately not carried out. Such a man would have seen the slaughter of twenty or so innocents at Bethlehem (2.16) as just a sideshow.
End of note.
Note on Bethlehem.
We know that Mary was originally growing up in, and living in, Nazareth. We know nothing about where Joseph was living over the period before his marriage, and he may have had businesses in both Nazareth and Bethlehem, living at the family home when in Bethlehem. Or he may simply have lived at Bethlehem. He may well hardly ever have seen Mary. The marriage would almost certainly have been an arranged one. However, once the position with regard to Mary was settled in his mind he would go to Nazareth in order to sort things out. On their marriage taking place they would return to Bethlehem at a time when Mary was ‘great with child’ (there is no indication in the Gospels that the birth happened on the night of their arrival in Bethlehem). At the time when all the family gathered for the enrolment mentioned in Luke the guest chamber (kataluma - resting place, not necessarily an inn and possibly the guest chamber) may well have been taken over by his father and his relatives. This would explain why he and Mary had to sleep downstairs on the ground floor in what would be seen as a normal ‘bedroom’ even though it was shared with the domestic animals in accordance with good Palestinian practise. This in order to make room for everyone at a difficult time. The fact that he slept there does not mean that normally he did not live in Bethlehem. Nor would the room have been especially uncomfortable, while the manger would be utilised because it was both comfortable and warm. (Were it to have happened in my household it would not be the first time that I have given up my bedroom for guests).
So once the marriage had taken place Mary naturally joined her husband in Bethlehem. When, however, circumstance rendered Bethlehem unsafe Nazareth was a natural place to go to, once they had been warned to avoid Judaea. (They were not ‘directed’ to Nazareth, even though it turned out to be within God’s purposes. They were simply directed to avoid Judea). And from then on Nazareth was ‘home’.
To suggest that this does not accord with Luke 2.39 is ultra criticism. In Luke that verse is simply a bridging verse between events, and summarises a period in Jesus life that ends up in Nazareth. It is not particularising. Luke simply has no interest in providing the intermediate detail.
End of note.
Matthew then goes on to describe how some Magi (learned men who were also astrologers) arrived in Jerusalem from the East, asking concerning the birth of a ‘King of the Jews’, the typically Gentile way of describing the King of Israel (e.g. 27.11, 29, 37). For no sooner had they gathered from the stars that a special King of the Jews was shortly to be born, or had been born, then Jerusalem would have seemed to them the best place to make for. It was the ancient central city of the Jews. (We note that there is no suggestion that they ‘followed the star’. The ‘star’ that they had seen would have been no longer visible as such. But the star, which was quite possibly a conjunction of another heavenly light with Jupiter, had by its appearing told them all that they wanted to know. Many people might have seen an extra bright star which had appeared for a short while, but for most it would have passed them by as simply a curiosity. Bright stars were not all that unusual, apart from to those in the know. But these men constantly watched the stars, and connection with the planet Jupiter would have brought out the importance of this young prince to the ‘wise’, and thus these men had come to acknowledge Him and pay Him homage.
‘In the East.’ This should probably be translated ‘at its rising’, indicating a special astronomical phenomenon, or it could signify that they had spotted it immediately on its occurrence.
It should be noted that reference to the ‘star which arises out of Jacob’, in Numbers 2.7 refers to the ruler himself. It is therefore irrelevant here, and Matthew gives no indication of any connection with it.
2.3 ‘And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.’
The arrival of such men in Jerusalem asking questions about a royal birth and speaking of a ‘King of the Jews’ would soon become known to Herod’s informers, and when the bloodthirsty Herod heard the news of the possibility of the birth of a young prince important enough to be heralded by a star, and bearing a title that he saw as his, he was greatly troubled, for he was superstitious enough to believe it. Indeed there were many among both Jews and Gentiles who believed in astrology, even though the Scriptures discouraged it (Isaiah 47.13-15; Daniel 1.20; 2.27 etc.). All his life Herod had fought to keep his throne, and in the process had killed off a number of perceived threats, including some of his own sons and his beloved wife Mariamne. He was totally paranoid, and when it came to keeping the throne, he was completely determined to do so, whatever the cost in bloodshed. And none knew better than he the stories going around about the coming of a promised King to deliver Israel from all their troubles, for he had feared it all his reign. So if such a king was to be born he wanted to know about it as soon as could be.
Jerusalem would also be troubled along with him. Some because they knew that they would lose out by his being replaced, and the majority because of their fear of the way in which such news might cause Herod to behave. They had seen it all before. No one would be safe. It is understandable therefore that the arrival of the Magi with their questions thus produced huge concern throughout the whole city. Both Herod’s friends and Herod’s enemies were upset, for differing reasons.
But Matthew’s purpose in stressing this was in order to bring home the importance of the news, and the reaction of Jerusalem to it. John says a similar thing when he says, ‘He came to His own and His own received Him not’ (John 1.11). It is being made apparent that on the whole Jesus was not initially received by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who were the ones who finally condemned Him. They did not want the status quo upset, except in their favour, although a substantial minority did become more amenable after the resurrection, as we learn from Acts. Jerusalem on the whole, however, was anti-Jesus, as Matthew recognised here, and as their behaviour in Acts 12 demonstrates, and as the martyrdoms of the two James’s were to prove (consider the martyrdom of James the Apostle in Acts 12 and the description of the martyrdom of James the Lord’s brother in Josephus), both occurring in order to please the people of Jerusalem in one way or another, even though many deplored what happened to James, the Lord’s brother.
We should note how this picture of a troubled Jerusalem is in direct contrast with the exceedingly great joy of the Magi (2.10). The holy city rejects the Holy One, while the unholy Gentiles exalt Him and rejoice in Him. Had they gone out to Him Jerusalem too would have had great joy. It is salutary to recognise that they discovered the truth in the Scriptures, but left it to the Gentiles to seek Jesus. As Paul would later put it, a veil was over their hearts (2 Corinthians 3).
2.4 ‘And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he enquired of them where the Christ should be born.’
Aware that he needed to discover the whereabouts of such a prince, if one had indeed been born, Herod gathered together all the leaders of the Jews, ‘the chief priests’ who were responsible for the Temple. This definition would include the high priests past and present, the Temple treasurer, the overseers of the priestly courses, and other leading priests. ‘The Scribes’ were the learned teachers of the Law. And from them he enquired where the Messiah was to be born. If anyone knew, they would.
‘Scribes of the people’ contrasts with the chief priests. The chief priests received a certain respect because of their position but were mainly not appreciated by the people, whereas the Scribes tended to be looked up to by them. The chief priests and Scribes were enemies and they may in fact have been called in separately. But even if not, they would hardly have allowed their enmity to prevent them from responding to Herod’s ‘invitation’. It would have been dangerous to do so. And they may well have thought that he was calling a meeting of the almost defunct Sanhedrin which included both chief priests and Scribes.
We should possibly note that ‘the Scribes’ could include both Sadducees and Pharisees, as well possibly as more general Scribes. ‘Scribes of the people’ may thus be intended to distinguish the ones who were at loggerheads with the Sadducean priesthood. Matthew seems to have taken a delight in linking the Sadducees and Pharisees together, who whilst being enemies with each other, were united by their common bond of hatred of Jesus. Once the Sanhedrin again came into its own they would necessarily have to work together, however much they hated each other (something that is constantly brought out - Acts 5.33-34; 23.6-9). And even Paul the Pharisee was appointed by the Sadducees for his task of rooting out Christians (Acts 9.1-2), being prepared to work under their authority for the greater ‘good’. Compare ‘elders of the people’ who were the independent, usually wealthy, aristocrats, although that is not to deny that they may have had various leanings one way or the other.
2.5 ‘And they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judaea, for thus it is written through the prophet,”
Whether they were able to answer almost immediately, or whether they had to go into in depth consultation we are not told, but if the latter we can be sure that they took a great deal of trouble about it. For Herod in this mood was not a man to be crossed. Eventually (or possibly even immediately, although if so they probably made the most of it) they were able to give him his answer. According to the prophet it would be in Bethlehem of Judaea. For that was what was written ‘through the prophet’ (in Micah 5.2 with a sprinkling of 2 Samuel 5.2). The citation is an amplified translation of combined texts, which may well be why he does not name ‘the prophet’. For such combined texts compare Mark 1.2-3. The version from which they were taken is not known to us, and it may have been Matthew’s (or the Scribes’) own paraphrase.
The verse in Micah comes in a context which is dealing with the days when God will finally establish His king in triumph over Jerusalem and the world, after the tribulations that they have been through. The idea is that then will arise the promised Davidic king. Bethlehem was the home of the house of David, and thus the king was seen as necessarily coming from Bethlehem, David’s home town. The thought is that small though Bethlehem might be, it had produced a great house (1 Samuel 16.4-13), the house that God had chosen, and the house through which He would establish His name. Thus as David had come forth from Bethlehem, so would the greater David.
2.6 “And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are in no wise least among the princes of Judah, for out of you will come forth a governor, who will be shepherd of my people Israel.”
We have no evidence elsewhere that this verse was commonly seen as declaring where the Messiah would be born, for it is not cited in such a way anywhere else (but compare John 7.27, although that may simply be a reference to the mysteriousness of the Messiah, not to his birthplace), but it seems unlikely that such a clear reference had never been spotted before, at least as the source from which the Davidic Messiah would come. They would naturally have expected a son of David to be connected with Bethlehem. Certainly, however, to a group of men fearing the worst if they discovered nothing, Micah’s reference would have seemed like manna from Heaven. But they did not follow up their words with action. It may be that they were too apathetic to follow the situation up, or it may simply be that they had no confidence in ‘those astrologers’.
We may compare the rendering here with MT (Hebrew text) and LXX (Greek text). There are some differences, although they make little difference to the overall sense.
-------MT-------------------------------LXX-----------------------------Matthew
‘But you, Bethlehem----------‘And you, Bethleem, house,---- ‘And you, Bethlehem
Ephrathah, which is little-----of Ephratha are few in----------in the land of Judah
to be -------------------------------number to be reckoned---------are in no wise least
among the thousands----------among the thousands ----------among the princes
(clans) of Judah, out of ------- (clans) of Juda, yet out of -----of Judah, for out of
you will one come forth-------you will one come forth--------- you will come forth
to me, to be a ruler of Israel---to me, who is to be ruler-------a governor, who will
in Israel, whose goings---------in Israel, and his goings----------------------------------
forth are from of old,-----------forth were from the---------------------------------------
from everlasting. ----------------beginning, even from-------------------------------------
---------------------------------------eternity. - - - - - - -
And he shall stand and --------And the Lord shall stand, -----be shepherd of my
shall feed his flock in -----------and see, and feed his flock---- people Israel.
the strength of the Lord.--------with power,
It will be noted that MT and LXX are very similar to each other, while the ‘Matthaean’ version differs, in that in MT and LXX Bethlehem is described as little or few in number among the clans of Judah, whereas in Matthew Bethlehem is described as in no wise least among the princes of Judah. At first it appears to be a contradiction, but it is in fact not so, for Matthew’s version does not say ‘is in no wise few in number’, but ‘in no wise least among the princes’. ‘In no wise least’ suggests small, but not the smallest, and yet for all that its prince is not insignificant. He merely then stresses that its status is not small princewise (it produced David). It is true that it does at first sight appear, probably deliberately, to give a different impression. But the difference is more apparent than real, for what follows in MT and LXX confirms that while few in number they are not ‘least’ in status as a result of what will ensue, the coming forth of a ruler of Israel. That could only indicate a higher status. No town that produced the glorious Davidic house could be called insignificant. Thus in the end they are all three saying the same thing. The alteration simply helps to draw attention to what all are saying, that the One Who is to come forth from Bethlehem gives to Bethlehem a prestige that lifts up its head among the clans/princes of Judah.
The other difference in emphasis is that MT and LXX are assessing Bethlehem’s size in contrast with the size of the clans of Judah, while Matthew’s version appears to be assessing Bethlehem’s status in the eyes of the princes of Judah, the leaders of the clans. (That is unless we assume that by using ‘princes’ he is really indicating ‘princedoms’, and therefore signifying ‘clans’, which is quite possible. The same consonants in Hebrew can in fact mean both). Thus he is saying that while few in number, Bethlehem is high in status, either in contrast with the princedoms of Judah or in the eyes of the Princes of Judah. We may certainly feel that Matthew’s version is giving an additional boost to Jesus’ Messianic status in that He is thereby being seen as recognised by the princes of Judah, but that is not his major emphasis, nor does it on the whole disagree with the significance of the other renderings. All are in the end saying that Bethlehem is exalted because of the house of David that has sprung from her. Indeed it is unlikely that Matthew, if it had not already been in his text, would have invented this, as the MT would have been more suitable to his purpose, in that the princes of Judah on the whole did not acknowledge Jesus, (although of course some like Joseph of Arimathea did). It may, however, be that Matthew wants to draw out a contrast between Herod and the princes of Judah.
Matthew’s version then goes on to add the clause about the shepherd, (possibly making use of 2 Samuel 5.2, but having in mind Micah 5.4), while excluding the reference back to eternity. Certainly the shepherd theme points forward to the coming David (compare Ezekiel 34.23). But then so does the reference to a ruler coming from Bethlehem. This additional phrase immediately brings out the fact that Matthew’s is not to be seen as a direct quotation from Micah 5.2 but as an accumulation of ideas. Nor does it actually claim to be an exact rendering of Micah 5.2.
But none of these alterations were in fact needed in order to get over the point, and it therefore seems probable that we are to see Matthew’s citation as taken from some paraphrase known either to him, or to the Sanhedrin, with the differences not being seen as important. After all the main point of the quotation in all versions, is that while Bethlehem is small it should not be discounted for that reason, because one day it will produce a great King who will watch over his people. And thus it will be the home of the Messiah. And that was what whoever quoted it was wanting to bring out.
(We should possibly note here the struggles of some scholars to try to prove that the Messiah was not in fact expected from Bethlehem, while others seek to prove that this ‘revised version’ was inserted precisely because He was. We might feel justified in thinking sometimes that their efforts simply cancel each other out).
2.7 ‘Then Herod privately called the Magi, and learned of them exactly what time the star appeared.’
Having learned from his own ‘wise men’ what he wanted to know, Herod now summoned the Magi in private audience and discovered from them at what time the star had appeared. It was important to him for it would tell him something about the age of the child.
2.8 ‘And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, “Go and search out exactly concerning the young child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I also may come and pay him homage him.’
Having discovered from them what he wanted to know he then informed them that their destination must be Bethlehem, no doubt knowledgeably citing the Scripture to them so as to impress them. Then he earnestly told them to seek out what they could about the young child, and then bring him back word so that he too could hasten to pay Him homage. As he said it he must have leered to himself. He knew exactly what kind of homage he intended to pay Him. See verse 13, ‘For Herod will seek the young child to destroy Him.’
Some have asked why Herod did not send his own men with the Magi, but as he would have had no reason to doubt that they would do as he asked, he would not necessarily have thought it necessary, especially because any of his own men would have been instantly recognised had they gone with them, which might well have hindered what the Magi were seeking to do. If they saw any of Herod’s men, no one who knew him, especially in a suspicious small town, would have been in any doubt about what his intentions were, and why he had sent them. The group would then have been met with a look of innocent surprise and a total lack of knowledge about any such child. So he obviously felt it better to leave the initial search in the hands of these men who clearly had unique powers.
2.9 ‘And they, having heard the king, went their way, and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.’
Having heard what the king had to say the Magi took the well known route to Bethlehem. It was now simply a matter of following this well defined route, and then making enquiries in Bethlehem. And then something happened that rejoiced their hearts. For as they travelled they saw in front of them the same star as they had first seen ‘at its rising’. That is, it was the same astronomical phenomenon as they had previously observed when in the East. Here was evidence that they were on the right track both physically and intellectually. It confirmed their greatest hopes.
The star ‘went before them’. It does not say that they specifically followed it. That was unnecessary. They only had to follow the road, and there is no more reason to think that the star moved as it ‘went before them’, than there would have been to think that the road moved if it had said that they ‘followed the road’. It is the language of appearance (just as we say that ‘the sun rises’ when we know perfectly well that literally it does not). All that was necessary was that they thought that it moved before them, because that was what it appeared to do. After all they knew that stars moved, otherwise their months and years spent in calculating their movements would have been a waste of time, and those who travel widely often feel that the stars are moving before them. Many a mariner has spoken of following the north star, and of the north star, or some other heavenly lights, going before their ship, when it was only their ship that moved.
And then Bethlehem came into sight with the star still in front of them and to their delight it appeared as though the star hovered over Bethlehem. There was Bethlehem below them, and the light of the star appeared to be reflecting on the town. It was clear to them from this that the wonder child was indeed there. They had reached the end of their journey. Note the very vague ‘over where the young child was’. It is totally open to interpretation. We may make of it what we want.
(Whether the star did actually in any way stop, apart from because they were stopping, we do not know. But for any who quibble about whether a star could ‘stop’ we supply the following extract from an article by an expert astronomer, based on the assumption that having seen the conjunction of Jupiter with another star, producing an excessively bright star, they had continued to monitor Jupiter while on their travels, something which must be considered quite likely. They were after all observers of the stars. “The word "stop" was used for what we now call a planet's "stationary point." A planet normally moves eastward through the stars from night to night and month to month, but regularly exhibits a "retrograde loop." As it approaches the opposite point in the sky from the sun, it appears to slow, come to a full stop, and move backward (westward) through the sky for some weeks. Again it slows, stops, and resumes its eastward course. It seems plausible that the Magi were "overjoyed" at again seeing before them, as they travelled southward, the ‘star’, Jupiter, which at its stationary point was standing still over Bethlehem. We do know for certain that Jupiter performed a retrograde loop in 2 BC, and that it was actually stationary on December 25, interestingly enough, during Hanukkah, the season for giving presents.
But it should be noted that there is nothing in this story that any modern twenty-first century man and woman could not have said in the same circumstances, given a recognition of astrology and a descriptive frame of mind. It must not, however, be seen as vindicating astrology, which is disapproved of in Scripture. It simply indicates that God can use any instrument in His purposes. For we should note that no magic was involved. All that happened was a matter of interpretation. Had this been simply an invented account we can be sure that it would have been made much more exciting. But Matthew simply gives us the facts as he was probably told them by either Joseph, Mary or the Magi (from whom Joseph and Mary would have learned it).
2.10 ‘And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.’
The sight of the star filled them with great joy. It vindicated the activities of the past few months, justified their journey, and indicated that they would shortly see this great prince for themselves. No wonder then that they were filled with joy. However, it might well be that Matthew wants us to see in it the joy of the believer (13.44; 25.21; 28.8). His Gospel thus begins with joy and ends with joy (28.8), both at the anticipated thought of Jesus.
2.11 ‘And they came into the house and saw the young child with Mary his mother; and they fell down and paid him homage, and opening their treasures they offered to him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.’
And then, having made enquiries, they came to the house where the young child was, and saw Him with Mary His mother. And they fell down before Him and paid Him homage, opening up their treasures and offering Him gold and frankincense and myrrh (compare Isaiah 60.6; Psalm 72.10, 11, 15). Note how Joseph, who has been prominent all the way through chapter 1 is here kept out of sight. All the homage, and even worship, was for the young child. There were eyes for no one but Jesus only. Mary is only introduced because He was on His mother’s knee, being little more than a year old. To have introduced Joseph would have been to distort the picture and detract attention from Jesus. Mary is only mentioned because she was the necessary framework so as to emphasise that the young child was an infant (note her description as ‘His mother’ and the ‘Him’ --- ‘Him’). The centre of attention had to be kept on Jesus.
(Any suggestion that this non-mention of Joseph therefore indicates another ‘source’ is to miss the point completely. Whatever sources there may have been they cannot be found by this means).
‘They offered to him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.’ These were three of the greatest portable treasures that the world could afford, and all three were involved in Israel’s worship. But gold is the delight of the hearts of men, indicating kingship and wealth; frankincense (Isaiah 60.6; Jeremiah 6.20) was used in worship and for perfuming king’s palaces; and myrrh is what sweetens men and women in both life and death (Genesis 37.25; 43.11; Esther 2.12; Psalm 45.8; Proverbs 7.17; Song of Solomon 1.13; 3.6; 4.6 etc.; Mark 15.23; John 19.39). They are in the end simply illustrations of luxury gifts fit for a King. Frankincense is an odiferous resinous gum coming from certain trees growing in Arabia, India and Somalia. Myrrh is similar and is found in Arabia and Ethiopia. It is noteworthy that there is no verse in Scripture where all three are brought together as gifts, apart from here. Had Matthew simply wanted to deliberately imitate Scripture he would surely have chosen alternatives about which he could find a quotation.
We may close our dealings with the passage by emphasising its significance.
Jesus is Driven Into Exile And Finally Returns to Lowly Nazareth (2.12-23).
As a result of a warning dream the Magi did not return to Herod but slipped out of the country ‘another way’, while Joseph sought refuge in Egypt as Israel had done long before. And there he remained with his wife and Jesus until Herod was dead. (Had he had other sons at the time, it is unlikely that they would not be mentioned here). Meanwhile the innocent suffered as so often happens in an evil world. All the male sons around Bethlehem of under two years old were slain by Herod in a desperate attempt to ensure that the young prince did not escape (they would probably not have numbered more than twenty). But quick though he was, Herod was not quick enough for God.
Yet in all this Matthew saw clearly written the hand of God. All was bringing to the full what the Scriptures revealed about life and about the future:
And all in accordance with what was written in the Scriptures. No earthly threat could hinder the workings of God.
Analysis (2.12-23).
Note how in ‘a’ the Magi were warned of God in a dream and avoided Jerusalem, and in the parallel Joseph is warned by God in a dream and avoids Judaea. In ‘b’ the angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream, and directs his movements, and in the parallel he does the same again some time later. In ‘c’ it is ‘until the death of Herod’ and in the parallel Herod is dead. A certain inevitability about his death is indicated. In ‘d’ the Scriptures are filled to the full, and in the parallel they are again filled to the full. Notice how the positive act is described as spoken ‘by the Lord through the prophet’, while the negative result is spoken ‘by the prophet’, for the latter was not the Lord’s direct doing. Centrally in ‘e’ is the gruesome behaviour of Herod in dealing out death to the children of Bethlehem which we can gather finally led to his death, as what precedes and follows makes clear, ‘until he dies’ - ‘he died’.
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.’
Having paid homage to the King of the Jews the Magi began to plan their journey home, but they were warned in a dream that they should not return to Herod. But to whom did the dream come? We are not told. Perhaps then it was to Joseph, the man with the gift of dreams? (Note how there is here the same wording as where Joseph is in mind in 2.22). Or perhaps it was to one of the Magi or even to more than one? Matthew is not interested in who the recipient of the dream was, (and perhaps his source did not tell him). He is only interested in its divine source. He does not want to direct attention to human beings, for salvation history is being played out. Joseph therefore may well have been the source and it would fit in with his clear gift in that direction. On the other hand we can argue that it was anonymous precisely because it was to one or more of the Magi. The angel of the Lord might very well not have appeared to them in this dream. A warning dream would be sufficient.
In strict obedience to the dream the Magi took a way out of Judaea which avoided Jerusalem, and made their way back to where they came from.
2.13 ‘And when they were departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and you must remain there until I tell you, for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.” ’
Then as soon as they had departed the angel of the Lord approached Joseph, again in a dream (compare 1.20), and bade him ‘Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and you must remain there until I tell you, for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.” Note the emphasis on the young child. The mother is again secondary. (It is not ‘take your wife and child’). And they were to flee to Egypt and remain there until they were told further what to do. They were now under divine supervision. And the reason for the urgency is then explained, Herod will seek the young child to destroy Him.
We should note here the reason why Herod was seeking to destroy Him. It was because He was ‘the King of the Jews’. This has not only been stated by the Magi but has also been the burden of Matthew’s presentation up to this point. So the King of the Jews was now to take refuge in Egypt where Israel had once taken refuge so long before. This is not surprising. Egypt regularly acted as an asylum for threatened Jews, and there were in fact at this time already over a million Jews in Egypt.
2.14-15a ‘And he arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod.’
Obediently Joseph did as he was told, and taking the young child and His mother by night, fled to Egypt. Egypt had always provided a place of refuge for Israel in times of danger, and indeed over a million Jews lived there at that time. It had sheltered Israel in the days of the previous Joseph as described in Genesis, it would do the same for the hope of Israel now. Note how Jesus is treading the same path as Israel trod, as He takes refuge in Egypt.
2.15b ‘That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.’
And all this was to be seen as a ‘filling full’ of God’s purposes for Israel. Matthew here refers back to a passage in Hosea 11.1. That verse had referred to God’s call to Israel as His ‘firstborn’ in the time of Moses (Exodus 4.22), and it was at that time that He had ‘called them out of Egypt’. He had looked on them as His son. But Hosea does not stop with that. He then goes on to point out that they had not obeyed the call. They had not responded to God’s love. They had left Egypt physically, but their hearts had remained in Egypt (verse 2). And thus God had caused them to return again to Egypt until such a time as they were ready to truly respond (This is described in verse 5, in MT by taking it as a question, ‘shall he not return to Egypt, and Assyria shall be his king?’, (which is what is required in context) or in LXX by literal translation ‘they will return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria will be their king, because they refused to return to Me’). Then He would one day call them again. But this had never happened. Israel’s heart had remained in Egypt, and a million Jews were still there in order to prove it. Now, however, God was going to call them one last time in the person of their Messiah. For He had sent Him to Egypt too, as an exile, and He would call Him from there and He would come. His heart would not remain in Egypt. The idea would seem to be that through Him their call out of Egypt would also become a reality, at least in so far as the faithful were concerned, for they would come out in Him. Their hearts would be wooed from Egypt once and for all through the activity of this child Who was His Son as no other had been. For He was the Saviour.
And that this would now proceed with reasonable urgency comes out in that what has been spoken has been spoken directly by ‘the Lord’. He will Himself act to bring it about, as the next few years would reveal. There was nothing of Egypt about Jesus.
The idea contained here is important if we are to understand what follows in Matthew. God is calling His King to come out from Egypt. But with what purpose? There could surely only be one purpose, so as to fulfil the original purpose of God in calling His son out of Egypt, in other words to initially establish in Palestine the Kingly Rule of God. That had been the original intention previously, and Moses had gone into the mountain in order to view that kingdom afar off, but God’s purpose in this had failed because of Israel’s failure to truly come out of Egypt in their hearts. Now God was in action again, and was bringing His Son out of Egypt. It is no accident that John the Baptist will shortly declare that, ‘The Kingly Rule of Heaven is at hand’ (3.2) as he begins to prepare the way for the King, and that God will declare of His King, ‘This is My beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased.’ It was His coronation.
In view of the complexity of this verse we will now consider it in more detail, on behalf of those who are puzzled about it, in an Excursus.
EXCURSUS. On ‘Out of Egypt Have I Called My Son.’
In considering this quotation one or two factors need to be born in mind. And the first is as to what is meant by ‘prophecy’. The prophets are not to be seen as a kind of glorified fortune-teller. That is not how they saw themselves at all. Rather they are to be seen as men who spoke from God, and who spoke in God’s name, and who in that speaking sought to cover the whole range of history. They were forth-tellers rather than fore-tellers. Thus the greatest of the prophets ‘prophesied’ about the past, they ‘prophesied’ about the present and they ‘prophesied’ about the future. And they sought to bring it all together as one, as descriptive of the purposes of God. In other words they were God’s mouthpiece as regards the whole of the past, the present and the future. And thus all their writings were to be seen as ‘prophecy’, the forth-telling of the mighty ways and acts of God.
That means that they were not all to be seen as simply foretelling future events. Far from it. Rather they were to be seen as relating the future to the past and the present. Clearly the future was important to them, but it was important, not as something to be forecast so as to show how clever they were, but as something that was in the hands of God, and as something in which God was going to act in fulfilling the promises of the past, precisely because of that past, taking into account the present. And their main aim in speaking was in order to affect that present. So even in the case of their looking into the future it is better to think of them as declaring what God was going to do in the future in fulfilment of the promises and warnings of the past, rather than as simply an attempt to discern the future. That is not to doubt that sometimes they did specifically act to discern the future, and did even lay claim at times to be heard because what they said came about (for they were confident that God was speaking through them), but it was not to be seen as the central purpose of prophecy. (It is the modern not the ancient view of prophecy that prophecy is merely about foretelling).
A further thing that we need to keep in mind when considering the application of Old Testament Scriptures to the days of Jesus was the Jewish sense of being a part of their past. They did not see the past as something that was of little concern to them apart from being a matter of historical interest. They felt themselves as bound up in that past. Thus each year when they met to celebrate the Feast of the Passover, they felt that they were at one with those people in Egypt who had first celebrated the Passover. As they ate ‘the bread of affliction’ they saw themselves as sharing in their experience. And they looked ahead for a similar great deliverance for themselves. They believed that the past would be repeated in their own futures. And it was not only so with the Passover. In the whole of their worship there was the same sense of unity with the past, for they saw themselves as connected with Moses and the past in all that they did. Thus prophecies concerning Israel could very much be seen as equally applying in their day. They felt that the promises of Moses and the prophets had been made to them. For they considered themselves to be the same as the Israel of the past, the same as those to whom the promises and warning were originally given, they were YHWH’s firstborn son. So when Matthew spoke of ‘fulfilment’, of prophecy being ‘filled to the full’, it would be an idea close to their hearts
The next thing that must be recognised as we consider these ‘prophecies’ is that Matthew saw Jesus as very much a continuation of the promises and history of the Old Testament. Indeed he saw Him as the One Who summed them up. Jesus is the son of Abraham (1.1). He is the son of David (1.1). He is, in His family, One Who has, as it were, endured Exile (1.12, 17), just as the patriarchs with their families had long before (Exodus 1.1). And now He is One Who has left behind the ties of Egypt (2.15) and is therefore the hope of all who are in exile. His coming spurs again the weeping of Rachel as she awaits the deliverance of her children (2.17). He is One Who bears the name of being despised and rejected, ‘a Nazarene’ (2.23). Like Israel of old He goes into the wilderness to be tested, although in His case He emerges from it as triumphant (4.1-11). He is the One Who confirms and establishes the Law, bringing out its deeper meaning (5-7). He is the Servant of the Lord of Isaiah (12.17-21) Who has been described as ‘Israel’ by God (Isaiah 49.3). Thus in His person He is to be seen as representing Israel in every way, and in such a way that God would be able to say of Him, just as He did of the Servant in Isaiah 49.3, ‘You are My Servant Israel, in Whom I will be glorified’. This idea that Jesus represents Israel is elsewhere most obviously emphasised by John in John 15.1-6 where Jesus declares Himself to be ‘the true Vine’ in contrast with the old Israel, the degenerate vine, and in the other synoptic Gospels by, for example, the cursing of the fig tree. It is also confirmed by the fact that the New Testament writers saw the new people of God as being the continuation of the true Israel of the Old Testament, what are often called the Remnant. They saw them as the new ‘congregation (of Israel)’ set up on the rock of Christ and His Apostles and on what they believed about Him (Matthew 16.16-19). Or to put it in modern parlance, they believed that the true church, as made up of all true believers, was the true Israel (so Romans 11.16-28; Galatians 3.27-29; 4.26-31; 6.16; Ephesians 2.11-22; 1 Peter 2.5-9; etc.).
And this therefore is partly why Matthew can see Him as ‘fulfilling’ certain prophecies. But in saying this we must not stop there. We must also note again what the content of the word ‘fulfilled’ has for Matthew, as for Judaism. The word means ‘to fulfil’, ‘to complete’, and often ‘to complete something already begun’. Thus Matthew is not necessarily saying that the prophecies that He ‘fulfils’ referred solely to Jesus, so that first we have the foretelling out of the blue, and then He fulfils that foretelling. The argument is often rather that in the end things which are stated by the prophets, which have never really come to their final completion, do find their completion in Him (see above).
So even if we stopped there we could see good reason for Matthew applying this verse to Jesus on the grounds that 1). He was Israel. 2) Because they were His people and had come out of Egypt He could see Himself as being involved with Israel in coming out of Egypt. 3) Because it could be seen as a further fulfilment of the prophecy.
But in fact we do not have to stop there, because when we look at what Hosea actually said we realise that there is an even greater significance in the words. So keeping these ideas in mind we will now consider these words cite in Matthew 2.15 in their original context. There we read, ‘This was to fulfil (or ‘bring to completion’) what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt have I called my son”.’ Here Matthew is undoubtedly referring to the fact that Jesus had been taken to Egypt, and would therefore return from there as the representative of Israel in accordance with God’s calling and purpose. But while at first it might seem as though Matthew has simply done this, he did not in fact do it by simply selecting a convenient prophecy, and then giving it a new meaning on the basis of the ideas described above. He did it as something which was to be seen as genuinely ‘completing’ the original prophecy.
Many fail to see this because they do not sufficiently consider the context in Hosea. They suggest that here Matthew (or whoever previously brought this citation to notice in connection with the coming of Jesus) has merely taken the words of Hosea 11.1 out of context, and has given them a meaning which has little to do with what Hosea prophesied or meant, and that he (or they) have done this in order to give the impression (to ignoramuses?) of ‘fulfilled prophecy’. They then speak of a list of such ‘prophecies’ as occurring in Matthew, which are all treated in the same way, that is simply as proof texts wrenched out of context, and they therefore look on Matthew also as naive. But the question that must be asked is, ‘is that really what Matthew was doing? Is that really what he saw himself as signifying?’
Having this in mind let us first consider the words of Hosea 11.1, and see them in context so as to understand what their significance was to Hosea. Hosea 11.1 reads, ‘when Israel was a child I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son’. Now it cannot be doubted that this was in a sense a clear ‘prophecy’ about the past. That is, that initially it was looking back to the original calling of Israel out of Egypt. Hosea is here declaring that God had said that He had set His love on Israel, had seen them as His son and had ‘called them out of Egypt’ (see Exodus 4.22-23), and this with the purpose of delivering them from Egypt and all that it stood for. And not only was this so, but we should also note that the events that appear to demonstrate this are themselves recorded in Israel’s history, as Hosea was well aware. At first sight then it seems clear that this prophecy cannot strictly be applied to Jesus because it had already been fulfilled.
But before we come to too hasty a decision on that question there is something else that we ought to do. We ought to ask ourselves why Hosea said this? For when we do we will see that he makes it clear that it was not in fact just his intention to speak about something that happened in the past. He had a specific reason for saying it, a reason that applied to the future. And the reason for his declaration is in fact then made crystal clear. For these words are spoken in a context in which we discover that in Hosea’s eyes that ‘calling’ failed, it did not happen. For to him the problem was that although bodily the people of Israel had moved from Egypt, in their minds they had brought Egypt with them. Mentally and spiritually they were still in Egypt. Thus the point was that they had not truly responded to God’s call. God’s call had not been effective. It had not been fulfilled. Yes, he said, they had left Egypt in their bodies. But the problem was that they had brought Egypt with them. They were still indulging in the same old idolatries and spurning God’s love in the same old way. And thus, because he knew that God could not in the end fail in His calling, he recognised that that calling which had been made had not been fulfilled, and that as yet that calling had not proved effective. He saw that that calling was in fact still a continuous process, which was in process of fulfilment. It was something that went on and on, and would go on and on, until it was finally achieved. God had called His people out of Egypt, and out of Egypt therefore they would surely have to come, even though as yet they had not done so.
This is made clear in the verses which follow, for if we follow texts on which the Septuagint was probably based, he then says, ‘The more I called them the more they went from Me’ (11.2 RSV, which takes into account LXX. LXX has here the 1st person singular). There the idea is quite clearly that up to this point the calling of God had been ineffective because their hearts had remained in Egypt. They had brought Egypt with them. He continued to call them, but the more He did so the more they rejected Him. They had not really been delivered from Egypt at all, because they still continued with the same old idolatry as they always had, and looked to other gods, spurning the love of the Lord (11.2-4). They were still refusing to listen to His calling. It was a calling that had as yet not been made effective. Thus while He had called them out of Egypt, with the intention that they leave Egypt behind, they had not truly come. In their hearts ‘His son’ was still in Egypt.
Alternately if we go by the MT it says, ‘as they called them, so they went from them’. In this case there are two possibilities.
So whichever way we take it Matthew here saw Hosea as declaring that God’s call from Egypt was a continuing process that had not yet been completed. God had called but as yet His people had not truly responded. And then he saw Hosea as going on to describe the continuation of that call as outlined in the following verses. For the idea all the way through Hosea 11 is that while Israel may have left Egypt physically, they had not done so spiritually. In their hearts they were still in Egypt, as was evidenced by their idolatry and lack of love for the Lord. And thus the call of God had not been inwardly effective. Their hearts still needed to be ‘called out of Egypt’. But because the call was the call of God it was still active, and would have to remain active until it came about.
Thus Hosea sees that there is only one solution to this problem. In order to achieve His purpose God would have to return His people to Egypt so that He might be able to call them out again, so that this time, hopefully, having learned their lesson, His previous call might be made effective, with the result that they would be wholly delivered from Egypt. Thus, (following RSV, again translated with LXX in mind), he says in verse 5, ‘they will return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria will be their king, because they refused to return to Me’. In other words, God is saying, the initial result of their calling out of Egypt will have to be temporarily reversed by their being returned to Egypt (and to Assyria) to await another deliverance. And that theologically there must be another deliverance comes out in the fact that, although the calling of God may be delayed, it cannot be cancelled. ‘The gifts and calling of God are without repentance’ (Romans 11.29). For the promises to Abraham must be fulfilled.
Alternatively, if we read in the text the negative as in MT, we must translate as, ‘Shall they not return to Egypt, and Assyria be their king, because they would not return to Me?’. (This is an equally possible translation of MT). That this translation is required is evidenced in verse 11 which again shows them as later being in both Egypt and Assyria. So whichever way the text is taken, whether as in LXX or as in MT, the same thing is in mind. The idea basically is that their particular calling has been reversed because of their disobedience, so that they are being returned to Egypt, and to its equivalent Assyria, but that that calling will then need to be ‘fulfilled’ or brought to completion at a later time. God had indeed called His son out of Egypt, but because as yet ‘he’ had not fully and completely come out, God will repeat His call, or ‘make it full’. For as God’s original call must finally be effective because of Who He is, there will have to be a further re-calling out so that His purposes are really fulfilled.
That this is so comes out in that in verse 11 Hosea once more sees Israel as again coming out of Egypt. ‘They will come trembling like birds from Egypt and like doves from the land of Assyria, and I will return them to their homes (or ‘make them dwell in their houses’)’. The idea here is that God, having first removed them from their homes and having taken them back to Egypt and Assyria because their hearts had proved to be still there, would once again ‘bring them out of Egypt’, and this time would bring ‘home’ not only their bodies but their hearts, so that they would worship and serve Him only. His call out of Egypt would therefore at last be fully effective, it would be carried out to the full. It would be ‘fulfilled’.
So, to Hosea, God’s original call was seen to have failed, and was seen as something still in process of completion, and ‘out of Israel have I called My son’ was thus to be seen as still having to be fulfilled. This is not just Matthew’s view. This is Hosea’s view which Matthew accepts. But even then, as always, we must assume that its completion will depend on their final obedient response to Him. For if the calling is really God’s it must finally be effective. Until that was so the call of God could not be said to have been ‘fulfilled’. And the problem was, as Matthew saw clearly, that that kind of obedience had never really happened. Even in his own time he recognised that their hearts were still ‘in Egypt’, and that in fact over a million Jews literally were still there, largely in Alexandria..
So when Matthew cites this verse in respect of Jesus coming out of Egypt, having first represented Jesus as the expected seed of Abraham, and as thus the representative of Israel; as David’s son, the Messiah who was to be Israel’s representative before God (for the king always represented his people); and as the One who had in His ancestors previously been in Exile (1.12), it is with these factors in mind. Matthew is saying, ‘as yet, while it is true that God did call His son Israel out of Egypt, this calling of Israel out of Egypt has not yet been fully consummated’, and we should note that this is not just what Matthew says, it is what Hosea had also declared. Indeed it was the whole point of what Hosea was saying. God did call with a call which must eventually be effective because it was His, but the problem was that in their hearts Israel had up to this point not fully responded to the call. So at the time of the birth of Jesus Israel was therefore still to be seen as ‘in Egypt’ in their hearts. And this could not have been more emphasised than by the fact that in the time of Jesus there were over a million Jews in Egypt just as Hosea had said.
‘And thus,’ says Matthew, ‘God has now acted in Jesus in such a way as to commence the final deliverance from Egypt that Hosea had spoken of so long ago.’ He has now brought out of Egypt the One Who represents in Himself the seed of Abraham, the son of David, and the children of the Exile, He Who is the new Israel, the Messiah, the Servant, the One Who embodies in Himself the whole of Israel, so as to bring back Israel to Him and also in order to be a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 49.3, 6). His heart will not be left in Egypt. He will come out totally, in body, soul and spirit. Nor will the hearts of those who follow Him remain in Egypt.
Through Jesus therefore this ‘prophecy’, says Matthew, which had never been fully completed, will come to its final consummation, so that the true Israel might finally be delivered from ‘Egypt’. By this means the prophecy is being ‘brought to completion’, it is ‘being filled full’. His return from exile is the beginning of a genuine ‘coming out of Egypt’ for the true Israel. In Jesus God’s purposes for Israel will now come into fulfilment. Thus far from Matthew’s quotation being naive, it is full of deep significance, and that by taking it in its true context. (Some may not like Matthew’s interpretation, but they have no right to despise it, for it is based firmly on what Hosea was saying, and it was an interpretation that would certainly have spoken quite clearly to his Jewish readers. They still very much saw Israel as not fully established in Palestine. This is a further indication of how much Matthew, in his Gospel, has in mind the Jews, both Christian and otherwise).
That Jesus did in fact see Himself as Israel in this way comes out in His description of Himself as the Son of Man (which in Daniel 7 represented both Israel and their king) and especially in John 15.1-6, where He depicts Himself as the true Vine. It is also found in His recognition that He Himself would need to found a new nation (‘My congregation’). This last comes out clearly later on in Matthew, for there He speaks of founding ‘My congregation’ (the new congregation of Israel - 16.18; 18.17-18) on the rock of His Messiahship. Furthermore He also speaks of the ‘bringing forth of a new nation’ in 21.43, which will replace the old. So the thought in Matthew’s words in 2.15 is to be seen as far more complicated than just a simplistic ‘fulfilling’ of some convenient words which have been misapplied. It is not an attempt to ‘prove’ anything by a rather conveniently worded prophecy. Rather it is indicating that Jesus is an essential part of Israel’s ongoing history and promised deliverance, and is evidence of the fact that the final fulfilling of that first call of God to His people is about to take place. God had called them out of Egypt, but the calling had not succeeded, and now therefore He will finally make that call effective so that they will never yearn to return there again, but will at last respond to God’s cords of love (Hosea 11.4), and this will be through Jesus Christ, just as Isaiah had in his own way promised (19.23-25).
Rather therefore than being a naive claim to be a successful piece of fortune-telling, this is a declaration that God’s calling is always finally effective, even though its fulfilment might take over a thousand years.
End of EXCURSUS.
2.16 ‘Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the Magi, was extremely angry, and sent forth, and slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had exactly learned of the Magi.’
Meanwhile Herod was livid with anger. The impossible had happened, and it had become apparent that those lily-livered Magi had deceived him. They had basically cocked a snook at him. And he immediately gave the command that all male children in Bethlehem and its surrounds who were of two years old and under should be put to death at once without delay. No quarter was to be shown. And in accordance with his command all male children within his definition were sought out, and were put to death. It was not, however, a large massacre by his standards, probably encompassing around twenty children. And the reason for his choice of age is then given. It was according to the time since the star had first appeared, in accord with the information he had been given by the Magi. How wise he had been not to leave anything to chance.
We can only cringe at the thought of the deaths of these children, but in ancient warfare children were killed indiscriminately without a second thought. It would not therefore have been looked at with quite the same eyes as we look at it, except by the people involved. People would simply have said when they heard of it, ‘How typical of Herod’. But a further thought needs to be born in mind. This purposeless killing was precisely because God was seeking to do good to the world. God did not cause the killing. It arose because He had sent His Son to die to save men and women. It was actually caused by a man who was so evil that God’s very act in sending a Saviour resulted in the killing.
2.17 ‘Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying,’
Again this suffering was seen as adding to the ‘filling full’ of the warnings that Scripture had given. For Scripture regularly emphasises the sufferings that Israel had yet to face, in the same way as they had at the Exile. For there it had included the loss of their children to exile, and prior to that the deaths of children in their own land in the face of the merciless invading armies. Large numbers had been slaughtered. Large numbers had gone into exile. And now it was to happen again, even if on a smaller scale. But the scale did not matter. The grief would be the same for those involved. One of their children would disappear into exile in Egypt, and others would be slain in the land. It was all part of the expected ‘Messianic sufferings’, the birth pangs that would introduce the last days.
Note how Matthew uses a special formula for introducing Jeremiah’s prophecies, which is only used of them. It is probably only a technicality, but it demonstrates what thought he had put into composing these formulae, and interestingly the formulae that introduce Jeremiah are the ones that have no stress on ‘in order that’ (hina or hopows). Perhaps it was because they were in a savage context.
2.18 The prophecy is taken from Jeremiah 31.15. There Israel is seen in terms of Rachel, the mother of the clans of Joseph and Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh. But the sons of her slave would also be seen as hers, and apparently Leah’s children as well. For Rachel is seen as weeping for all Israel. And why is she weeping? In context it is because her children have gone. They are either dead or in exile. They ‘are not’. And now another child has gone into exile, and others are dead, slaughtered by man’s inhumanity to man
But why was she weeping in Ramah? The answer is that it was because Ramah is where she was buried. So she is seen as weeping in her grave at Ramah for her beloved children, both dead and exiled, originally at the time of Jeremiah, but continuing on to the present day. And her weeping is not just for them. It is a weeping that reaches out into the future because of what is yet to come on Israel. It is a weeping that will not cease until she sees all her children restored. For just prior to the words in Jeremiah is his description of the hoped for restoration of God’s people (Jeremiah 31.10-14). And her weeping is to precede this hope of theirs, a hope which will be fulfilled ‘in the latter end’ (Jeremiah 31.17), when her weeping will be rewarded by their restoration, when the new covenant will be made with them by God which will transform their hearts (Jeremiah 31.31-34).
So, says Matthew, do not be surprised at this cause of weeping which results from Herod’s cruelty and slaughter, and at the need for the One Who represents Israel to go into exile. Such weeping is but a sign that God’s purposes are still going forward, even in the midst of suffering. And in this case it is a sign that Messiah is coming, indeed is almost here. Soon He will return from exile bringing with Him the hopes of Israel. Here Israel’s weeping is seen as being brought to its climax in view of the good time that is coming, which will result from the coming of Jesus, Who will bring them to God’s perfect rest. The experience is coming to its ‘filling full’, after which it will cease. (In future there will be weeping, but it will be because of the machinations of evil men, including many Jews, who will persecute God’s people. But it will no longer be a weeping of hopelessness).
EXCURSUS on Rachel’s Weeping.
We must apply similar methods of interpretation to Matthew 2.17-18 as we have done previously. Here we read, ‘Then was fulfilled (or ‘filled to the full’) that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be comforted for they are not.” ’ It is then often asked, ‘what has Ramah to do with Bethlehem-judah?’ As we have already seen it need not have anything to do with it. It may simply be indicating where Rachel was to be found in her tomb at Ramah. However, other significant facts are that Ramah was on the way between Bethel and Bethlehem, and that Rachel’s death was also in fact connected with Bethlehem (Genesis 35.16-19). But that is clearly not the full answer, and again we must consider its context, this time in Jeremiah 31.15.
In Jeremiah’s prophecy these words in reality stand very much on their own, but the principle behind them is nevertheless clear and that is that it is Israel who are seen as weeping, and this in terms of their deceased ancestress Rachel. And she is weeping because many of their people are either dead or in exile, because ‘they are not’. As with the quotation from Hosea he has in mind those who are far from the land and ‘in exile’. This Ramah was presumably the Ramah near Gibeon (Joshua 18.25) some miles north of Jerusalem, in Benjamite territory. In contrast Bethlehem-judah was six miles south of Jerusalem in the territory of Judah. But Jeremiah’s words are not based on the association of the one with the other but almost certainly on the fact that Rachel was thought to be buried near Ramah.
(In 1 Samuel 10.2 it is said to have been at Selsah, on the border of Benjamin, which is not definitely identified, but must have been near Ramah, while Genesis 35.16, 19 says that it was ‘on the way to Ephrath’, the old name for Bethlehem, a road that passed through what would later be Benjamite territory by Ramah. It was thus on the approach to Bethlehem (see also Ruth 4.11). We must remember that in ancient days geography was not an exact science and places would therefore be identified by the nearest well known name).
But the vivid picture is not of the children of Ramah. It is of Rachel in her tomb at Ramah weeping because all her children, the whole of Israel, were suffering (we must remember that she was mother of Joseph and Benjamin, and therefore grandmother of Ephraim and Manasseh, and that the children of her maid would also be seen as hers, but she is probably to be seen as weeping for all Israel and Judah). And her weeping was because they were no longer before her eyes. Many were in Exile, others were dead. The verse is then followed by the promise that there is hope for their latter end (Jeremiah 31.17), hope following the Messianic feast (Jeremiah 31.13-14) when presumably Rachel (Israel) will be able to cease weeping, and when will be fulfilled the change of heart and mind in Israel that God requires (Jeremiah 31.31-34). Thus Rachel’s weeping is seen by Jeremiah as something that would carry on until the end times when through God’s activity it would cease because God’s work of restoration would begin. It was therefore very appropriate for what Matthew saw as the beginning of ‘the last days’, the times of the Messiah. For the Messiah would remove the necessity for this kind of weeping. And to Matthew this exiling of the One Who represented Israel, and the accompanying needless destruction of twenty or so male children by Herod, was therefore to be seen as the last throes of the old dispensation as Rachel (Israel) continued to weep for her children.
Rachel’s death was a tragic one, although not in an uncommon way, for she died in childbirth (Genesis 35.16-19) as did so many women in those days. Her tears would thus have been seen as very apt for a situation where children were involved. And the fact that she was depicted as weeping for children who were lost to her, and would continue to do so until they were brought home, made it very applicable to this case. Thus Matthew is simply pointing out that Rachel (as representative of mother Israel) wept whenever children who were born in Israel ‘were not’ as a result of man’s inhumanity. And that was why this slaughter of Israel’s children was to be seen as one of ‘her’ causes of weeping, and a very significant one because it heralded the coming of the Messiah. He is taking the verse as signifying the perpetual grief of the symbolic Rachel for Israel’s suffering, in whatever form that suffering takes, right up to the end times, and especially in such cases as this, until her children return to her. She is therefore also weeping for the return of the Exiled One. So the present generation are to be comforted by the thought of the past, and to see their suffering as part of the completion of the process whereby finally the good times would come through the appearance of the Messiah.
Each time Israel suffered, a partial fulfilment of these words was to be seen. At such times Rachel was to be seen as weeping in Ramah, especially when the problems related to children. And now when the coming of the Messiah seemed to be bringing hope to the world, it was not, says Matthew, to be seen as surprising that this weeping was intensified as a result of the sufferings that accompanied His birth. This weeping then represented and symbolised the birth pangs of the Messianic age which had been so clearly portended (Isaiah 13.8; 26.17; Jeremiah 4.31; 6.24; Micah 4.9-10. See also 2 Esdras 16.38-39). And ‘Rachel’ therefore felt them most intensely. Who better to have in mind in view of how she died? Here at last Jeremiah’s words were being ‘filled to the full’
So Matthew clearly saw that the weeping for these children in Bethlehem was all part of the weeping of ‘Rachel’, a weeping that was expected in the end to result in the coming of the Messianic Banquet (Jeremiah 31.13-14). And he knew that it would speak to the hearts of those who were still weeping, awaiting His coming. He may well also have wanted the actual mothers of these slain sons to know that ‘Rachel’, as one who understood such situations, was weeping for them, something which would help to comfort all who were finding their suffering difficult to understand. It would make them aware that God was not insensitive to their cries, but knew what was happening (compare Luke 18.7). Matthew may even himself have known people who were still grieving over their lost sons in Bethlehem. But even more was he aware of unbelieving Israel’s constant weeping as they looked ahead in hope of deliverance. Thus again, far from being a naive application of words that were irrelevant, this is to be seen as something pregnant with meaning concerning the coming of Jesus, and as having a direct message at that time for his Jewish readers. The weeping of Israel was soon coming to an end. For Israel would finally be ‘called out of Egypt’ in Jesus, and true Israel would genuinely respond to Him in their hearts, and would no longer need to see themselves as ‘in Exile’ and away from where God could be worshipped (John 4.20-23), and this all because of the activity of Jesus.
This then links his use of this prophecy, with the previous one. When God ‘called His son out of Egypt’ it followed a time when Rachel truly had been weeping for her children, for the Gentile world had been seeking to destroy them in the form of Pharaoh’s annihilation of the sons of Israel (Exodus 1.15-22), a destruction that Herod was now imitating. But one son survived that annihilation and led Israel out of Egypt. Now Rachel is weeping for her children again, but again one child will survive the annihilation, and will ‘lead His people out of Egypt’. It is to be the end of Rachel’s weeping.
End of EXCURSUS.
2.19 ‘But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appears in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying,’
This comment contains within it the idea of the inevitability of Herod’s death. It was to be expected in view of what he had done. For death comes to all who sin. And immediately after it God sprang into action. The angel of the Lord again appears to Joseph, this time in a dream in Egypt. God was about to effectively call His Son out of Egypt, the next stage in His process of salvation.
2.20 “Arise and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel, for they are dead who sought the young child’s life.”
Joseph is told to arise and take the young child, with His mother, and go into ‘the land of Israel’. Note again the reference to His mother as an added extra. All attention is on Jesus. She is mentioned in order to emphasise Jesus youthfulness. He is still a ‘young child’.
The description ‘the land of Israel’ (repeated in the next verse, and nowhere else in the New Testament), deliberately takes the mind back to the time of early Israel when Israel was a newish nation in the time of the Judges, and even more to Ezekiel’s vision of the return from exile. It was a reminder of the land that was available to them but which for a time they had lost. ‘And you will know that I am the Lord, when I bring you into the land of Israel, into the country for the which I lifted up my hand to give it to your fathers’ (Ezekiel 20.42, compare 11.17). Now Jesus is entering in to possess ‘the land of Israel’.
‘For they are dead who sought the young child’s life.’ Compare Exodus 4.19. They had tried to kill Him, just as another once had Moses, but now it was they who were dead. The plural suggests that it was not only Herod who was unhappy about the prospective alteration to the status quo. The ‘they’ probably has in mind Herod’s commanders and his sycophants, whose influence would be dead even if they were not. However, it may well also have arisen because the Exodus 4.19 parallel is in mind. But whoever they were, His enemies were all known to God, and for the time at least they had been seen off.
The loose use of the phrase from Exodus 4.19 draws our attention to the parallels between Jesus and Moses. Moses had been delivered when children around him had been slaughtered, and he had also fled from a king to a place of safety, and had been called back once that king was dead. But that had been in a foreign land. In Jesus’ case it had been in His own land, and by a supposed King of the Jews. He is as it were rejected even before He begins His mission, but like Moses enjoys God’s protection. In the back of Matthew’s mind may also have been the thought that while Moses returned to Egypt, Jesus was, on behalf of His people, leaving Egypt behind for ever. Here was a greater than Moses, taking the final stage in the deliverance of God’s people. (In general there are no real grounds, apart from here, for thinking that Matthew was trying to portray Jesus as a new Moses. Elsewhere He is seen as representing the whole of Israel).
2.21 ‘And he arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.’
And Joseph did precisely as God had commanded. Note the repetition of the phraseology in order to bring out the point. They ‘came into the land of Israel’. In Jesus Israel had at last come into their land with their hearts freed from Egypt, and Jesus would now seek to build a new, true Israel who were faithful to the Messiah. God’s will and purpose from the beginning was going forward through full obedience in the face of hardship. (Meanwhile God was training up a young boy, who’s name was John, who would prepare the way for His Son)
2.22-23a ‘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 Joseph 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, they would be 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.
2.23b ‘That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.’
To be ‘called a Nazarene’ was to be looked down on as backward and insignificant, for Nazareth was an obscure hill town in Galilee, and even Galilee was spoken of contemptuously by the people of Judaea as ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’, unorthodox and tainted by association with the Gentiles. So to be a Nazarene was to be a nonentity, living in an obscure town in despised Galilee. It was to be like a root struggling to survive in dry ground (Isaiah 53.2). For while Galilean Jews were accepted as being full Jews, (although many of their fathers had been forced to become so by compulsory circumcision), they were seen as somewhat unorthodox, and even their Rabbis were not considered to be quite as orthodox as they should be. And they were intermingled with Gentiles. Thus they were ‘looked down on’ by their more orthodox brethren in Judaea and Jerusalem (see for example John 7.41, 52). But even more looked down on were the residents of Nazareth in Galilee. For Nazareth was a smallish out of the way town in the hills, away from the main thoroughfares, which it overlooked from a height, a town which had somehow gained a reputation for being a backward nonentity. Thus if Galilee was despised, Nazareth was even more despised, for it was despised even by those who lived in Galilee. It was the lowest of the low. That was why Nathaniel could say, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ (John 1.46). And even at the time that Matthew was written, (whenever it was), the Jews looked down on Christians and called them ‘the sect of the Nazarenes’, which was intended to be insulting indicating these backward people living in obscurity (Acts 24.5).
Note that this ‘quotation’ is not said to be a direct citation. His statement is not referred to ‘a prophet’. It is referred to ‘the prophets’ as a whole. It is thus to be seen as representing a general principle spoken of by the prophets which was to be ‘filled to the full’.
So Matthew’s point here is that quite deliberately Joseph and Mary have gone back to live in that unpretentious town in the hills where Mary at least had once had her home, thus fulfilling all the Old Testament prophecies which spoke of the Coming One as being the lowliest of men (see especially Psalm 22.6; Isaiah 53.1-5; Zechariah 9.12; 11.7-14). Here therefore ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’ indicates that He would be seen as the lowest of the low, as the Scriptures had declared would be the case.
Matthew has previously not mentioned any connection of Mary and Joseph with Nazareth, and that has been deliberate. For he had been concerned to emphasise the Davidic connection of Jesus, and His royal birth and treatment by the Magi, but now he also seeks to draw attention to His lowliness as He ‘returns from Exile’, thus filling in both aspects of Zechariah 9.12. The One Who was the Son of David, born in royal Bethlehem and honoured by the Magi, had like Israel of old fled to Egypt, and had now descended in status to lowly Nazareth. It was fitting for One Who would later have nowhere to lay His head, and was to be depicted as the humble Servant of the Lord.
Other have connected the words with Isaiah 11.1, where the ‘branch’ is a ‘netser’. Thus ‘He will be called a netser’. But the connection of this with the name of Nazareth is tenuous, and if Matthew had intended that he would surely have drawn attention to the fact, for it is not obvious in the Greek. The same is true of interpretations that seek to connect the idea with Nazirites, which is spelled differently and comes from a different root. All also founder on the fact that Matthew referred it to ‘the prophets’ not ‘the prophet’. Thus the probability is that we are to see Matthew as reading into the words ‘He will be called a Nazarene’ all the contempt that was intrinsic in the idea of being an inhabitant of Nazareth.
Note on Galilee.
That Galileans were despised by the Judeans is unquestionable, but this should not hide from us the fact that Galilee was a flourishing country, with a large population for its size (it was fifty miles by twenty five miles), with many populous ‘cities’, and very fertile, rich soil and pasturage. Indeed its fertility was proverbial. The Galileans were innovative, courageous, and ‘disposed to change and delighting in seditions’. They were ever ready for a fight. But they were also brave, true and honourable. Many of them were fanatical Jews, even though looked on by Judeans as a little unorthodox, although their Jewishness was not in question. Furthermore the trade routes all passed though Galilee. It thus had far greater contact with the Gentile world than did out of the way Judaea. Indeed it was surrounded by Gentiles, and had the Samaritans to the South. Many Gentiles lived among them. It had in fact, in the past, been largely Gentile, but 100 or so years earlier Aristobulus had conquered Galilee for the Jewish nation, with the result that many Gentiles had been forced to be circumcised and become Jews. So it was not for nothing that it was called ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’.
End of note.
Other FREE scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our
best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.
(But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH ---
GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS ---
DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- THE BOOK OF RUTH --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- I & II CHRONICLES ---
EZRA---NEHEMIAH---ESTHER---PSALMS 1-73--- PROVERBS---ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON
--- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- LAMENTATIONS ---
EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1
CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- PHILEMON --- HEBREWS
--- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S
LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION
--- THE GOSPELS & ACTS
IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
