There is nothing in chapter 2 that describes Jesus Himself. Therefore Matthew's purpose was not simply to give the reader information about Jesus' childhood. Rather he stressed the reception that the Messiah received having entered the world. The rulers were hostile, the Jewish religious leaders were indifferent, but the Gentiles welcomed and worshipped Him. These proved to be typical responses throughout Jesus' ministry as Matthew's Gospel reveals. This literary device of presenting implication and then realization is common in the first Gospel. Also in this chapter there are several references to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (vv. 5-6, 15, 17-18, 23). Matthew wanted to continue to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah who fulfilled what the prophets had predicted. Another purpose of this chapter was to show God's providential care of His Son.
2:1-2 When did the Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem?74There are several factors that point to a time about a year after Jesus' birth. First, Matthew described Jesus as a "child"(Gr. paidion, v. 11), not an "infant"(Gr. brephos, cf. Luke 2:24). Second, Jesus' family was residing in a house (v. 11), not near a manger (cf. Luke 2:1-20). Third, Herod's edict to destroy all the male children two years old and under (v. 16) suggests that Jesus fell within this age span. Fourth, Joseph and Mary brought the offering of poor people to the temple when they dedicated Jesus about 40 days after His birth (Luke 2:24). After receiving the Magi's gifts, they could have presented the normal offering (cf. Lev. 12). Fifth, Joseph and Mary's decision to return to Judea from Egypt (v. 22) implies that Judea is where they had lived before they took refuge in Egypt.
Matthew carefully identified the Bethlehem in Judea, in contrast to the Bethlehem in Zebulun (Josh. 19:15), as the birthplace of Jesus. This was important because the prophecy of Messiah's birthplace was specifically Bethlehem of Judah, the hometown of King David (v. 6; Mic. 5:2).
"Herod the Great, as he is now called, was born in 73 B.C. and was named king of Judea by the Roman Senate in 40 B.C. By 37 B.C. he had crushed, with the help of Roman forces, all opposition to his rule. Son of the Idumean Antipater, he was wealthy, politically gifted, intensely loyal, an excellent administrator, and clever enough to remain in the good graces of successive Roman emperors. His famine relief was superb and his building projects (including the temple, begun 20 B.C.) admired even by his foes. But he loved power, inflicted incredibly heavy taxes on the people, and resented the fact that many Jews considered him a usurper. In his last years, suffering an illness that compounded his paranoia, he turned to cruelty and in fits of rage and jealousy killed close associates, his wife Mariamne (of Jewish descent from the Maccabeans), and at least two of his sons . . ."75
"Behold"(Gr. idou) is a Hebraic expression that Matthew used to point out the wise men. They are the focus of his attention in this pericope.
It is not easy to identify the Magi (from the Gr. magoi) precisely. The Greek word from which we get "magi"comes from a Persian word that means experts regarding the stars. Centuries before Christ's time they were a priestly caste of Medes who could interpret dreams (cf. Dan. 1:20; 2:2; 4:7; 5:7). Later the term broadened to include men interested in dreams, magic, astrology, and the future. Some of these were honest inquirers after the truth, but others were charlatans (cf. Acts 8:9; 13:6, 8). The Magi who came to Jerusalem came from the East. Probably they came from Babylon that had been for centuries a center for the study of the stars.76
"The tradition that the Magi were kings can be traced as far back as Tertullian (died c. 225). It probably developed under the influence of OT passages that say kings will come and worship Messiah (cf. Pss 68:29, 31; 72:10-11; Isa. 49:7; 60:1-6). The theory that there were threewise men' is probably a deduction from the threegifts (2:11). By the end of the sixth century, the wise men were named: Melkon (later Melchior), Balthasar, and Gasper. Matthew gives no names. His magoicome to Jerusalem (which, like Bethlehem, has strong Davidic connections [2 Sam 5:5-9]), arriving, apparently . . ., from the east--possibly from Babylon, where a sizable Jewish settlement wielded considerable influence, but possibly from Persia or from the Arabian desert. The more distant Babylon may be supported by the travel time apparently required . . ."77
The magi's question (v. 2) was not, Where is He who has been born to becomeKing of the Jews? but, Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? Jesus' status as Israel's king did not come to Him later in His life. He was born with it (cf. 27:37). In this respect He was superior to Herod who saw the young child as a threat to his throne.78
What Jesus' star was remains problematic. Some scholars have suggested a conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. Others believed it was a supernova (a star that explodes and emits unusual light for several weeks or months), a comet, or some other planetary conjunctions or groupings. Still others believed it was something strictly supernatural. Whatever it was, it was the same star that guided the Magi to Jesus' house in Bethlehem or at least to Bethlehem (v. 9).79
"Could it be that the star' which the Magi saw and which led them to a specific house was the Shekinah glory of God? That same glory had led the children of Israel through the wilderness for 40 years as a pillar of fire and cloud. Perhaps this was what they saw in the East, and for want of a better term they called it a star.'"80
Probably the Magi connected Balaam's messianic prophecy of a star that would rise out of Judah (Num. 24:17) with the Jewish King. Balaam evidently originated in their part of the world (Num. 23:7). The Jews in Jesus' day regarded Balaam's oracle as messianic.81
The Magi's statement that they intended to "worship"the new King does not necessarily mean that they regarded Him as divine. They may have meant that they wanted to do Him homage. However in view of chapter 1 we know that the new King was worthy of true worship. "Worship"(Gr. proskyneo) occurs 13 times in Matthew and is something the writer stressed. Apparently the Magi recognized the King as Israel's Messiah.
2:3-6 This news troubled Herod because he was very aware of the Jews' desire to throw off the Roman yoke and his own rule in particular. He was an Edomite, a descendant of Esau, and the prospect of a Jewish Messiah's appearance was one he could not ignore. The rest of Jerusalem's citizens became disturbed because they realized that this news from the Magi might lead Herod to take further cruel action against them. This is what happened (v. 16).
Herod assembled Israel's leaders to investigate the Magi's announcement further (v. 4). The chief priests were mainly Sadducees at this time, and most of the scribes ("teachers of the law,"NIV) were Pharisees. The chief priests included the high priest and his associates. The high priest obtained his position by appointment from Rome. The scribes were the official interpreters and communicators of the law to the people, the lawyers. Since these two groups of leaders did not get along, Herod may have had meetings with each group separately.
Notice that Herod perceived the King the Magi had spoken of as the Messiah (v. 4). Some of the Jews--particularly the Essenes whom Herod did not consult, but not the Sadducees and Pharisees--were expecting a Messiah to appear soon because of Daniel 9:24-27.82Daniel had been a wise man in the East also.
"Matthew adroitly answers Jewish unbelief concerning Jesus Christ by quoting their own official body to the effect that the prophecy of His birth in Bethlehem was literal, that the Messiah was to be an individual, not the entire Jewish nation, and that their Messiah was to be a King who would rule over them."83
"In the original context of Micah 5:2, the prophet is speaking prophetically and prophesying that whenever the Messiah is born, He will be born in Bethlehem of Judah. That is the literalmeaning of Micah 5:2. When a literal prophecy is fulfilled in the New Testament, it is quoted as a literal fulfillment. Many prophecies fall into this category . . ."84
Matthew's rendering of the Micah 5:2 prophecy adds the fact that the Ruler would shepherd the Israelites. This statement, from 2 Samuel 5:2, originally referred to David. Thus Matthew again showed the connection between the prophecies of Messiah and the Davidic line, a connection he also made in chapter 1. Perhaps the religious leaders put these passages together in their quotation. Such seems to have been the case. The quotation is free, not verbatim from either the Hebrew or the Greek (Septuagint) texts.
2:7-8 Evidently Herod summoned the Magi secretly to avoid arousing undue interest in their visit among Israel's religious leaders (v. 7). He wanted to know when the star had appeared so he could determine the age of the child King.
Under a pretext of desire to "worship"the new King, Herod sent the Magi to Bethlehem as his representatives with orders to report what they found to him. His hypocritical humility deceived the wise men. He must have sensed this since he sent no escort with them but trusted them to return to him.
It is remarkable that the chief priests and scribes apparently made no effort to check out Jesus' birth as the Magi did.
"It is strange how much the scribes knew, and what little use they made of it."85
Their apathy contrasts with the Magi's curiosity and with Herod's fear. It continued into Jesus' ministry until it turned into antagonism.
". . . the conflict on which the plot of Matthew's story turns is that between Jesus and Israel, especially the religious leaders."86
"Except for Jesus himself, the religious leaders are the ones who influence most the development of the plot of Matthew's story."87
2:9-12 Perhaps "the"star (v. 2), whatever it was, was so bright that the wise men could see it as they travelled in daylight. Travel at night was common to avoid the heat, so they may have made the five-mile trip south to Bethlehem at night. Nevertheless this would have been winter, so they probably travelled during daylight hours.88
The star could have identified Bethlehem as the town where Jesus abode, and the Magi could have obtained his exact location from the residents. On the other hand, the star may have identified the very house where Joseph and Mary dwelt. This seems more likely in view of verse 11. God supernaturally guided the seekers so they found the Messiah. God's provision gave them great joy (v. 10).
The reaction of the wise men to discovering "the child"and His mother was to bow and worship Him. Notice that they did not worship Mary nor did they worship Jesus through Mary.
It was customary in the ancient Near East to present gifts when approaching a superior (cf. Gen. 43:11; 1 Sam. 9:7-8; 1 Kings 10:2). The wise men produced these from their "treasures"or coffers. The expensive gifts reflected the great honor the Magi bestowed on the Christ child. The gold probably financed Joseph and Mary's trip to Egypt (vv. 14-21). Frankincense is a gum obtained from the resin of certain trees that was particularly fragrant. Myrrh was also a sap-like substance that came from a tree that grew in Arabia. People used it as a spice and as a perfume often in embalming as well as in other applications. Many commentators, ancient and modern, have seen symbolic significance in these three gifts. Some have said gold suggests royalty while others have seen deity. Some say incense represents deity while others believe it better represents perfect humanity. Most expositors view myrrh as prefiguring Jesus' death and burial. It is unlikely that the Magi saw this significance, but Matthew may have intended his readers to see it. This act by Gentile leaders also prefigures the wealth that the Old Testament prophets said the Gentiles would one day present to Israel's Messiah (Isa. 60:5, 11; 61:6; 66:20; Zeph. 3:10; Hag. 2:7-8). This will occur in the fullest sense at the Second Coming of Christ.
God supernaturally intervened to keep the Magi from returning to Herod who would have then been able to target Jesus precisely. Dreams were a common method of divine guidance during the Old Testament economy in which Jesus lived (cf. Num. 12:6).
Several contrasts in this section reveal Matthew's emphases. Herod, the wicked Idumean usurper king, contrasts with Jesus, the born righteous king of Israel. The great distance from which the Magi travelled to visit Jesus contrasts with the short distance Israel's leaders had to travel to see Him. The genuine worship of the wise men contrasts with the feigned worship of Herod and the total lack of worship of the chief priests and scribes. The Gentile Magi's sensitivity and responsiveness to divine guidance contrasts with the insensitivity and unresponsiveness of Israel's leaders.
"The first to worship the King in Matthew's Gospel are Gentiles, an implication of the last command of the Messiah. The supernatural stellar manifestations attest the divine character of the person of Jesus. Matthew also notes the fact that the Magi who worship the Messiah of Israel are forced to take refuge from Bethlehem. This, too, is a hint of the future antagonism of Israel to their King."89
". . . he [Matthew] contrasts the eagerness of the Magi to worship Jesus, despite their limited knowledge, with the apathy of the Jewish leaders and the hostility of Herod's court--all of whom had the Scriptures to inform them. Formal knowledge of the Scriptures, Matthew implies, does not in itself lead to knowing who Jesus is . . ."90
"Even though Israel is cognizant of the prophecies, they are blind to spiritual realities. The King of Israel is worshiped by Gentiles, while His own people do not bother to own Him as their King. The condition of Israel is clearly implied in the early verses of Matthew's Gospel. They are cold and indifferent."91
"The Gentile wise men worship the King of the Jews; the Jews are apathetic; and Herod is concerned only for his throne. Herod's interest in his own political well-being marks the attitude of the governmental authorities throughout the remainder of the Gospel."92
Matthew continued to stress God's predictions about and His protection of His Messiah to help his readers recognize Jesus as the promised King.
2:13 For the second time in two chapters we read that an angel from the Lord appeared with a message for Joseph (cf. 1:20). This indicates that the message had unusual importance.
The order of the words "the child and His mother"is unusual. Normally the parent would receive mention before the child. This order draws attention again to the centrality of Jesus in the narrative.
Egypt was a natural place of refuge at this time. Its border was just 75 miles from Bethlehem, and it provided escape from Herod's hatred. Herod had no authority there.
Joseph learned that he was to remain in Egypt until God directed him elsewhere, not until Herod died. Again the sovereignty of God stands out.
"In obeying at once this command from God and the other commands that follow, Joseph's righteousness (1:19) casts Herod's wickedness in ever sharper relief."93
In many respects Jesus recapitulated Moses' life and experiences. Moses had also been the target of the ruler of his day who sought to destroy him and all the other male Hebrew babies by ordering them slain (Exod. 1:15-22).
2:14-15 Herod died in 4 B.C.94Josephus recorded that he died a horrible death, his body rotting away and consumed by worms.95His grandson, Herod Agrippa, later suffered a similar fate (Acts 12:23).
As I have already noted, Matthew frequently used the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies to show that Jesus was the Christ. Verse 15 contains another fulfillment. This one is difficult to understand, however, because in Hosea 11:1 the prophet did not predict anything.96He simply described the Israelites' Exodus from Egypt as the departure of God's son (cf. Exod. 4:22). Old Testament writers frequently used the term "son"to describe Israel in its relationship to God. What did Matthew mean when he wrote that Jesus' departure from Egypt fulfilled Hosea's words (Hos. 11:1)?
Note first that Matthew did not say that Jesus was fulfilling a prophecy. Another significant factor is the meaning of the word "fulfill"(Gr. pleroo). It has a broader meaning than simply "to make complete."It essentially means "to establish completely."97In the case of predictive prophecy, the complete establishment of what the prophet predicted occurred when what he predicted happened. In the case of prophetic utterances that dealt with the past or present, the complete establishment of what the prophet said took place when another event that was similar happened. This is the sense in which Jesus' departure from Egypt fulfilled Hosea's prophecy (cf. James 2:23). Jesus was theSon of God (2:15; 3:17; 4:3, 6; 8:29; 11:27; 14:33; 16:16; 17:5; 26:63; 27:40, 43, 54). The history of Israel, the son of God in a different sense, anticipated the life of Messiah.98To state the same thing another way, Jesus was the "typological recapitulation of Israel "99
"There were similarities between the nation and the Son. Israel was God's chosen son' by adoption (Ex. 2:22), and Jesus is the Messiah, God's Son. In both cases the descent into Egypt was to escape danger, and the return was important to the nation's providential history."100
". . . Matthew looked back and carefully drew analogies between the events of the nation's history and the historical incidents in the life of Jesus."101
2:16-18 Some critical scholars discounted Matthew's account of Herod's slaughter of the Bethlehem children because there is no extra-biblical confirmation of it. However, Bethlehem was small, and many other biblically significant events have no secular confirmation, including Jesus' crucifixion. Compared to some of Herod's other atrocities this one was minor.
"Emperor Augustus reportedly said it was better to be Herod's sow than his son, for his sow had a better chance of surviving in a Jewish community. In the Greek language, as in English, there is only one letter difference between the words sow' (hyos) and son' (hyios)."102
"The selfsame character traits Herod exhibits in chapter 2, the [religious] leaders will exhibit later in the story. To enumerate the most obvious of these, Herod shows himself to be spiritually blind' (2:3), fearful' (2:3), conspiratorial' (2:7), guileful' and mendacious' (2:8), murderous' (2:13, 16), wrathful' (2:16; cf. 21:15), and apprehensive of the future' (2:16)."103
Matthew again claimed that another event surrounding Jesus' birth fulfilled prophecy (v. 17). Matthew is the only New Testament writer who quoted Jeremiah (cf. 16:14; 27:9).104
"Matthew is not simply meditating on Old Testament texts, but claiming that in what has happened they find fulfillment. If the events are legendary [rather than historical], the argument is futile."105
It is not clear whether Jeremiah was referring to the deportation of the northern tribes in 722 B.C. or to the Babylonian Captivity in 586 B.C. Since he dealt primarily with the second of these events in his ministry, he probably did so here too. Poetically he presented Rachel as the idealized mother of the Jews mourning from her grave because her children were going into captivity. Since Rachel's grave was near Bethlehem mention of her ties in nicely with the events of Jesus' early childhood near Bethlehem.
"In the original context, Jeremiah is speaking of an event soon to come as the Babylonian Captivity begins. As the Jewish young men were being taken into captivity, they went by the town of Ramah. Not too far from Ramah is where Rachel was buried and she was the symbol of Jewish motherhood. As the young men were marched toward Babylon, the Jewish mothers of Ramah came out weeping for sons they will never see again. Jeremiah pictured the scene as Rachel weeping for her children. This is the literalmeaning of Jeremiah 31:15. The New Testament cannot change or reinterpret what this verse means in that context, nor does it try to do so. In this category [of fulfilled prophecy], there is a New Testament event that has one point of similarity with the Old Testament event. The verse is quoted as an application. The one point of similarity between Ramah and Bethlehem is that once again Jewish mothers are weeping for sons they will never see again and so the Old Testament passage is applied to the New Testament event. Otherwise, everything else is different."106
Matthew evidently used Jeremiah 31:15 because it presented hope to the Israelites that Israel would return to the land even though they wept at the nation's departure. The context of Jeremiah's words is hope. Matthew used the Jeremiah passage to give his readers hope that despite the tears of the Bethlehem mothers Messiah had escaped from Herod and would return to reign ultimately.107
"Here Jesus does not, as in v. 15, recapitulate an event from Israel's history. The Exile sent Israel into captivity and thereby called forth tears. But here the tears are not for him who goes into exile' but because of the children who stay behind and are slaughtered. Why, then, refer to the Exile at all? Help comes from observing the broader context of both Jeremiah and Matthew. Jeremiah 31:9, 20 refers to Israel = Ephraim as God's dear son and also introduces the new covenant (31:31-34) the Lord will make with his people. Therefore the tears associated with Exile (31:15) will end. Matthew has already made the Exile a turning point in his thought (1:11-12), for at that time the Davidic line was dethroned. The tears of the Exile are now being fulfilled'--i.e., the tears begun in Jeremiah's day are climaxed and ended by the tears of the mothers of Bethlehem. The heir to David's throne has come, the Exile is over, the true Son of God has arrived, and he will introduce the new covenant (26:28) promised by Jeremiah."108
Matthew concluded his selective account of the events in Jesus' childhood that demonstrated His messiahship and illustrated various reactions to Him with Jesus' return to Israel.
2:19-20 God's sovereign initiative is again the subject of Matthew's record. This is the fourth dream and the third mention of the angel of the Lord appearing to Joseph in the prologue. The phrase "the land of Israel"occurs only here in the New Testament. Evidently Matthew used it since it recalls the promises and blessings God gave to Jacob and his descendants.109
2:21-23 Joseph obediently responded to the Lord's command. However before he could do so news reached him that Herod the Great's son, Archelaus, had begun to rule as ethnarch over Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. The rest of Herod the Great's kingdom went to his sons Antipas, who ruled as tetrarch over Galilee and Perea (4 B.C. - 39 A.D.), and Philip.110Philip became tetrarch of Iturea, Trachonitis, and some other territories (4 B.C. - 34 A.D.).111
"One of the first acts of Archelaus was to murder some three thousand people in the temple because some of their number had memorialized some martyrs put to death by Herod. Like father, like son."112
Archelaus proved to be a bad ruler. Caesar Augustus banished him for his poor record in 6 A.D.113Philip was the best ruler among Herod the Great's sons.
Evidently God warned Joseph not to return to Archelaus' territory. Joseph chose to settle in Nazareth in Galilee instead, undoubtedly guided there by God. This had been his and Mary's residence before Jesus' birth (13:53-58; Luke 1:26-27; 2:39). Matthew noted that this move was another fulfillment of prophecy (v. 23).
Careful attention to the terms Matthew used to describe this fulfillment helps us understand how Jesus fulfilled Scripture. First, Matthew said the prophecy came through "prophets,"not aprophet. This is the only place in the first Gospel that he said this. Second, Matthew did not say that the prophets "said"or "wrote"the prediction. He said "what was said or spoken"through them happened. In other words, Matthew was quoting indirectly.114
There is no Old Testament passage that predicted that the Messiah would come from Nazareth or that people would call Him a Nazarene. How then could Matthew say that Jesus fulfilled Scripture by living there? The most probable explanation seems to be that Nazareth was a specially despised town in the despised region of Galilee in Jesus' day (John 1:46; 7:42, 52). Several of the Old Testament prophets predicted that people would despise the Messiah (Ps. 22:6-8, 13; 69:8, 20-21; Isa. 11:1; 42:1-4; 49:7; 53:2-3, 8; Dan. 9:26). Matthew repeatedly picked up this theme of Jesus being despised (8:20; 11:16-19; 15:7-8). The writer appears to be giving the substance of several Old Testament passages here rather than quoting any one of them. There may also be an allusion to the naser("branch") in Isaiah 11:1 that the rabbis in Jesus' day regarded as messianic. In that passage David's heir appears to be emerging from a lowly, obscure place.
"In the first century, Nazareneswere people despised and rejected and the term was used to reproach and to shame (John 1:46). The prophets did teach that the Messiah would be a despised and rejected individual (e.g.Isa 53:3) and this is summarized by the term, Nazarene."115
"Jesus is King Messiah, Son of God, Son of David; but he was a branch from a royal line hacked down to a stump and reared in surroundings guaranteed to win him scorn. Jesus the Messiah, Matthew is telling us, did not introduce his kingdom with outward show or present himself with the pomp of an earthly monarch. In accord with prophecy he came as the despised Servant of the Lord."116
Less satisfying explanations of this prophecy and its fulfillment are the following. First, some connect "Nazarene"with "Nazarite"(cf. Judg. 13:5). However, Jesus was never a Nazarite (11:19). Furthermore the etymologies of these words do not connect. Second, some believe the Hebrew word translated "branch"(naser) in Isaiah 11:1 sounds enough like Nazareth to justify a connection. The problem with this view is that the Hebrew word and the town of Nazareth have nothing in common except similar sounding names. Also naseroccurs in only one passage, but Matthew quoted the "prophets."Third, some writers have posited a pre-Christian sect and suggested that Matthew referred to this. There is no evidence to support this theory. Fourth, some believe Matthew was making a pun by connecting the names Nazareth and Nazarene. If this were true, how could he claim a fulfillment of prophecy? Fifth, some think the writer referred to prophecies not recorded in Scripture but known to and accepted by his original readers. Matthew gave no clue that this unusual meaning is what he intended. Furthermore later readers would not only reject such an authority but would charge Matthew with fabricating such a source to support his argument.
Matthew chapter 2 advances the writer's argument significantly by making three major points.
"The first relates to the Gentiles. The Magi come from the East and worship the King of the Jews. A glimmering foreview of all the nations of the earth being blessed in Abraham is seen in this act. . . . The second point Matthew makes concerns the Jews. They are shown to be unconcerned and indifferent to any report concerning Him. Finally, Matthew, by his use of the Old Testament, proves that Jesus is the promised Messiah. He is the fulfillment of all that is anticipated in their Scriptures. These three things form the basis of Matthew's Gospel. Jesus is presented as the Messiah prophesied and promised in the Old Testament. The Jews reject Him. Because of this rejection the King turns to the Gentiles and the kingdom program for the Jews is postponed.
"Chapter one declares the theanthropic character of the person of the Messiah. The reception which is to be given the claims of the Messiah is set forth in chapter two. Matthew three begins the narrative of the historical account of the presentation of Israel's Messiah to that nation."117
"Matthew 1-2 serves as a finely wrought prologue for every major theme in the Gospel."118
