Matthew 2

EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER TWO

TREASURING THE TRUTH

No sooner was Jesus born into this world than men began grouping themselves into three groups, into which men are always divided by the Lord. In the historic facts of this chapter we have the types of these classes which have ever demonstrated their true nature by their reaction to God’s truth:

I.

HATRED AND HOSTILITY: those who are fearfully alarmed at the truth. Like Herod, they may seek it and yet violently hate the truth when it interferes with their plans. Others, like Herod, may know the prophecies of Christ’s coming but hope they would not be fulfilled in their lives and time, preferring their Herods with peace to the Messiah with revolution which would disturb their lives and plans. But look at the absurdity of all their crafty counsels to overthrow the truth: if the truth be not at all true, they need not worry, since nothing will come of it, But if the truth be the very word of God, their efforts to thwart it and Him must ever be fruitless and useless! If the Child be not the Messiah, Herod need not have been alarmed; but if He be the Christ, all of Herod’s best plots could never succeed.

II. COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE: those who rest in the letter of the truth but do nothing about it. The scribes and Pharisees, who were called into council by Herod to answer his demand for truth. knew the right answers. But when faced by Him who arose from Bethlehem to proclaim Himself to be the Truth. they rejected the truth. It is shocking that those who had the most knowledge regarding the coming of the truth into the world were not the ones most interested in searching for it. If they had any wish to go to Bethlehem to investigate or any inclination to surrender their worldly lust for reputation and position, it was insufficient to make them brave Herod’s wrath or the scorn of their fellows. III. ADORING WORSHIP: those who earnestly seek and affectionately guard and willingly obey the truth:

A. The Magi, at great pains and expense, had willingly followed every bit and piece of divine revelation entrusted to them. B. Joseph and Mary were, from the very first, ever ready to lay their lives and reputations on the line, to act at a moment’s notice to obey God’s will by protecting and rearing Him who would be God’s clearest demonstration of His truth.

CONCLUSION: Why do we seek God’s truth?

To hate and attempt to thwart its effect in our lives when we see that it contradicts our will, our desires and our plans? Do we seek it to attempt to mold it around our ambitions? The man whose one desire is to do what he likes never has any use for Jesus Christ. The Christian is he who has ceased to do what he likes, surrendering his life to do what Jesus wills.

Or, do we seek God’s truth in order to rest in our rigid orthodoxy and knowledge, however accurate, of the letter of the Scripture, never condescending to expend time and energy to investigate the message nor make careful application to our own lives? Are we so interested in our own affairs that Jesus Christ, frankly, does not interest us?

Or, are we earnestly seeking the truth as heaven’s highest prize and earth’s most precious reward? Do we know the meaning of instant obedience to the voice of God? Do we desire to lay our lives at the feet of Jesus, the noblest gifts we may bring?

SPECIAL STUDY: HOW DOES MATTHEW USE THE PROPHECIES?

Under this innocent title lies a very vital question which touches not only the veracity of an apostle, but also the question of his inspiration, and, consequently, the question of inspiration in general, and the acceptability of the NT books as an authoritative, normative collection of historic documents as a basis of Christian faith. These statements are characteristic of the problems touched by this question:

What becomes of Matthew’s supposed reliability as an eyewitness of the events he records, if he unblushingly uses as a prophecy about Jesus just any OT text which can be made verbally to fit, even though the ancient text originally had nothing to do with Matthew’s material, and was never meant to have anything to do with it? If he unconscionably misappropriates texts in the revered prophets to bolster his case, perhaps he invents facts to support it as well. If an apostle be shown to be intellectually dishonest at this point, who could trust him to tell the truth about the resurrection of Jesus?

Perhaps the so-called fulfilments of prophecy are merely convenient interpretations of then present circumstances in order to support the pretences to Messiahship made by Jesus of Nazareth. who in reality had no right to that grand title and deserved to be crucified for his blasphemous assertions of Messiahship. (Cf. Luke 4:16-29)

Are there more ways than one in which the word fulfil may be understood, so that both the veracity and inspiration of Matthew may stand, thus indicating something of the authority of an apostle’s declaration that this was done with the result that it fulfilled the word of the Lord spoken by the prophet?

A proper understanding of this third problem will help solve the other two. For, if it be possible to ascertain the intended meaning of Matthew behind the word fulfilled in each case of its use, it will lead to a clearer answer to the question of Matthew’s use or supposed misuse of a given prophecy. In attacks upon Matthew’s integrity, the assumption is generally made that he used the word fulfilled in an exact, fixed sense in every instance, somewhat along the lines of this definition: The fulfilment of any prophecy must conform in every respect to the details of the supposed prediction. But does our author so intend his word in every case?

Two particular observations should be made at the outset regarding Matthew’s use of the word fulfil:

A. Matthew never precisely defines fulfil in such a way as to require a precise, literal fulfilment of a prophet’s words in every case. Rather, he uses the word in its popular sense in a manner suited to each specific prophecy in question, leaving to his reader to decide in each case what is meant by the term. Had Matthew limited himself by so precise a definition as would require a point-by-point fulfilment, the reader would not have this liberty of interpretation according to the requirements of each case, and Matthew would then be chargeable with flagrant manipulation of OT texts.

B. It must be noted that the word fulfil is used in popular speech, both among the Jews and their writings as well as in modern English, to mean not only point-by-point identification but also the more general realization or more complete manifestation of a design, plan or intention. To force one specific meaning arbitrarily upon Matthew’s word would violate the most basic rule of interpretation of human writings: the only correct interpretation of an author is that which he intended to say by the words he used. If the author does not declare his intended meaning for specific words he uses, the only recourse is to the general use of the word among his contemporaries. The word fulfil is used in the Scriptures and in other writings in the following senses:

A fulfilment is said to occur when a thing predicted clearly comes to pass as predicted. Or, it may be that there was a partial, literal fulfilment in the days of the prophet which leaves the remainder of the prophet’s words for later fulfilment. This is the way Matthew (Matthew 1:22-23) makes use of Isa 7:14, since the promise of a virgin-born Son who would be called Immanuel is not at all fulfilled in Isaiah’s day, although other parts of the prophecy were certainly fulfilled, as a sign to king Ahaz. Here, then, Matthew uses fulfil in its strictest sense. In Matthew 2:4-6, where the prophecy of Mic 5:2 is quoted by the Jewish authorities as the literally-predicted birthplace of the Christ, Matthew tacitly accepts the traditional reading of this passage with almost verbal insistence upon its strict, literal fulfilment. (cf. Matthew 2:1)

It is well-known that a writer sometimes speaks more than he or his age can comprehend. Should it be thought strange that God should make his prophet the partially unconscious agent for the expression of a great truth the implications of which might be hidden to the prophet himself or to his age? Depths of meaning, hidden both from the original writer or from his earlier interpreters, may be disclosed only by later historical developments. Such is the case with Matthew’s treatment of the prophecy of Hosea (Hosea 11:1). Hosea’s words, taken at face value, amount up to the nation of Israel only. However, God’s intention, voiced through Hosea-s words and seen through the perspective of the history of Israel which focuses itself upon Jesus, was to bring His Son out of Egypt. From the naturalistic viewpoint, we would say that Matthew read history more accurately than all his contemporaries, since he had already seen in Jesus the fulfilment of all of Israel’s prophecies. Accordingly, the personal exodus of Jesus from Egypt merely facilitated the true deduction that God, speaking through Hosea, really intended Jesus. On the other hand, speaking from the point of view that for good and sufficient reasons accepts the supernatural inspiration of Matthew, one could say that God inspired Matthew to reveal his correct interpretation of Israel’s history, and thus also of Hosea’s words regarding that history. Thus, Matthew is revealing the real meaning that God intended behind Hosea’s words. Edersheim (Life, I, 215) comments:

In point of fact the ancient Synagogue did actually apply to the Messiah Exodus 4:22, on which the words of Hosea are based. See the Midrash on Psalms 2:7. The quotation is given in full in our remarks on Psalms 2:7 in Appendix IX.

3. In describing the broken-hearted mothers of Bethlehem, Matthew (Matthew 2:17-18) chose rather to use the touchingly beautiful symbol used by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15) of the weeping Rachel. Here Matthew uses the word fulfilled in a clearly figurative sense, since the fulfilment was not of a prediction of the prophet, but of certain of his words due to their aptness to describe a different situation. There is no predictive element in Jeremiah’s words except the promise of Israel’s return from captivity, which is not used by Matthew.

Once again the voice of weeping motherhood is heard in Israel. The tender and beautiful imagery is applicable in this sense and is used with true might, but with no intention of trying to justify a claim of prediction and fulfilment in the literal sense.

Frequently, the apostles speak of Jesus as not only fulfilling specific predictions but also fulfilling the very trend or message of the prophets (See John 1:45; John 6:45; Acts 3:18; Acts 3:24; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:40; Romans 1:2) It is in this general sense that Matthew describes Jesus in Matthew 2:23 as fulfilling the prophets by His being called a Nazarene. Thus, Matthew uses fulfil literally, although the prediction to which he refers is found in no one prophet, but in the general trend of the prophets who describe the Messiah as God’s Suffering Servant. (Cf. Luke 24:44 ff)

There is a fifth use of prophecy and fulfilment that indicates how fulfilment may be intended: language is said to be fulfilled when, though it was used to express one event, it may be used to express another. Sayings, fables, parables and other such figures, drawn from a particular event, may have fulfilment in another event similar to the case from which they were originally taken. For example, Jesus asserts (Matthew 13:14) that in the unbelief of the people of His day the prophecy of Isa 6:9-10 is fulfilled. While the words of Isaiah were not predictive, they are susceptible of repeated application or realization, because of the general principle they contain. They applied to the prophet’s own day. They also apply, and in that sense are fulfilled, to Jesus-’ own day. By a legitimate extension of meaning, they apply to the stubborn unbelief of any age.

Therefore, we should stand as warned against a too-rigid and literal interpretation of any formula implying fulfilment. While it may certainly be intended to imply literal prediction and an equally literal fulfilment, it may also be intended to suggest nothing more than a harmony of principle. Since our author does not define which of these intentions he is using in each case, we are not at liberty to assert dogmatically a meaning that manifestly does not permit to Matthew the same liberty accorded to other writers in their use of words.

A major difficulty is seen in Matthew’s use of a formula which implies fulfilment: thus it was done to fulfil the word of the Lord spoken by the prophet, This formula is his consistent expression both for a literally predicted fulfilment and a figurative, general fulfilment of some figure of speech or of a principle. However, Matthew’s Gospel, directed as it was to one segment of a popular, oriental mind of his period, must not be charged with inaccuracy or misappropriation of prophetic texts by those of a critical, western mentality fond of mechanical precisions. If it be objected that Matthew’s formula is a loose use of language, let it be answered that Matthew is in good company and that such an objection ignores the cultural background within which the Evangelist wrote. (Cf. Mark 14:49; John 12:38; John 13:18; John 15:25; John 17:12; John 18:32; John 19:24; John 19:28; John 19:36)

Are the fulfillments of prophecy merely convenient interpretations of co-incidental circumstances made to support Jesus-’ pretensions?

In the one point where the identification of Jesus with the Messiah by His followers can be tested most severely, they are most completely triumphant. It would be comparatively easy to invent incidents suggested by OT prophecies, and to take dignities and titles wholesale from the same source - but given all these, to find one capable of realizing and fulfilling the expectations so aroused is the chief problem. Here fabrication is impossible. And here too the NT meets and answers the challenge of truth. (ISBE, 2518b)

The anti-supernaturalist might ask, But can it be said that the apostles, who were for the most part no scholars, could more correctly interpret the OT, better even than their own religious leaders? It is not likely that fishermen understood the prophets better than the Sanhedrin and the rabbis who gave their time to nothing but the study of the Law and the prophets. To this it may be replied, yes, but such simple men had not all the prejudices of rabbinical learning to forget as they studied under Jesus, although they admittedly had their own rabbinically-oriented prejudices. (Cf. Matthew 15:12 ff; Matthew 16:5-12; Matthew 16:21-23) According to Jesus, almost all of the Jews had either ignored the spirit of the Law or misinterpreted the prophets (Matthew 5:17-48; Matthew 9:10-13; Matthew 11:12; Matthew 15:1-20; Matthew 22:15 to Matthew 23:39; John 5:38-40; John 5:46-47; John 7:19-24; John 12:34), and consequently were not expecting the kind of Messiah that God actually had sent in the person of Jesus. Those fishermen and tax-collectors, who accepted Jesus-’ authority on the basis of His proof of identity as the Revealer of God, were indeed better interpreters of the OT than the rabbis, because they had sat under Him who was the Author of that testament! (1 Peter 1:10-12) They had heard His expositions of those prophetic passages (Luke 24:25-27; Luke 24:44-48), and, were they to be considered from a mere naturalistic viewpoint, they would still be better qualified to interpret the Scriptures than any rabbi! But their source of authority is always Jesus. Back of the question of the authority and supernatural inspiration of the apostles always stands the more basic demand: What do you think of Jesus? If He be the Revealer of God, then, the interpretations of the OT He teaches the apostles to declare to the world are the only correct, possible interpretations. If Jesus fulfilled His promise to empower them to reveal truth as yet unknown to them, then, the apostles may be trusted when they declare with all the authority of God: This was done with the result that it fulfilled the ward of the Lord spoken by the prophet.

The same Spirit which foretold through the lips of the prophet now interprets the fulfilment, using the pen of the Apostle. Are we at liberty to differ with the conclusions of an Apostle?

Matthew 2:1-12

CHAPTER 2 Section 3. THE VISIT OF THE WISE MEN

TEXT: 2:1-12

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Wisemen from the east came to Jerusalem, saying,

Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

And gathered together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ should be born.

And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written through the prophet,

And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel.

Then Herod privily called the Wise-men, and learned of them exactly what time the star appeared.

And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search out exactly concerning the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word, that I also may come and worship him.

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.

10. And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great
11. And they came into the house and saw the young child with Mary his mother; and they fell down and worshipped him; and opening their treasures they offered unto him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.
12. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

What interest would these Wise-men have in a Jewish king worthy

b.

Why did not Herod know where the Christ should be born?

c.

Why did the star point out a house instead of a manger?

d.

Why should the Wise-men give such gifts and reverence to an apparently quite ordinary baby?

e.

What are the important lessons to be learned from this story?

f.

What do you think was Herd’s real intent behind the question as to the time of the appearing of the star?

g.

Why do you think Herod would send the Wise-men to seek the Babe, when he might have better sent an armed force?

h.

Why did the wisemen rejoice greatly-’-’ upon seeing the star?

i.

Do you think that the scribes and chief priests could have known that Jesus had been born?

PARAPHRASE

After the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem in Judea during the reign of Herod, there arrived some astrologers from the East, asking as they came to Jerusalem, Where is the child born to be King of the Jews? For we observed His star in the East and are come to pay Him homage.

Now when King Herod heard of this he was greatly perturbed, and so, too, was all Jerusalem. So he called a meeting of all the chief priests and men of letters of the people and put before them the question, Where is the Christ to be born?

At Bethlehem of Judea, was their answer, for it stands written by the prophet Micah (Micah 5:1-3), -And you, O Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd Israel my people.-'

Herod next called the astrologers to meet him in private, to ascertain from them the date of the star’s appearance. And, sending them to Bethlehem, he commanded, Go and make careful inquiries about the child. Whenever you have found Him, tell me, SO that I myself may go and offer Him homage also.

The astrologers, when they heard what the king had to say, went their way. And the star, which they had seen in the East, went in front of them as they traveled, until at last it came and stood immediately above the place where the little Child lay. At the sight of the star they were filed with indescribable joy.

Entering into the house, they saw the little Child with Mary His mother, and falling on their knees they bowed to the ground in homage to Him. Then they unpacked their treasures and offered gifts to Him: gold, frankincense and myrrh.

But afterwards, having been warned of God in a dream not to return to Herod, they set out for their own country by another route.

SUMMARY

Some time after Jesus-’ birth. oriental sages appeared in Jerusalem asking news about Him. Frightened and suspicious, Herod sought information on the Messiah’s appearance. Indicating to the sages Bethlehem as the site, Herod sent them to make his inquiry, facilitating his own plans. Instead, they found the Babe and returned home another way.

NOTES

I. THE SEARCHING SAGES

Matthew 2:1 **Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. **With these words Matthew locates the birth of Jesus, whereas he had not located the preceding events (the betrothal of Mary and Joseph. the annunciation to Joseph and their marriage, Matthew 1:18-25). The phrase until she had borne a son (Matthew 1:25) is not to be construed as locating that entire series of events at Bethlehem, connecting them with Jesus was born in Bethlehem, (Matthew 2:1) for probably all that is implied in those events occurred at Nazareth (Cf. Luke 1:26-39; Luke 1:56; Luke 2:4-6). Though the English would give the thought that when Jesus was born, ,, wise-men came from the East, yet Matthew’s Greek does not link the two ideas, The Greek construction expressing Jesus-’ birth is a genitive absolute (a genitive participle grammatically unrelated to the sentence with which it is connected and which merely provides additional facts). It is better rendered: Jesus having been born in Bethlehem, ,. behold, magi were proceeding to Jerusalem. Thus it is clear that the visit of the wise-men did not take place immediately after the birth of Jesus, a fact which harmonizes with other known facts mentioned in the narrative.

How much time had elapsed between the birth of Jesus and the visit of the magi, which ends in the flight of Joseph and Mary with Jesus into Egypt, must be learned from Luke (Luke 2:21-24; Leviticus 12:2-8). Hence, at least the forty days of purification, the presentation of Jesus in the temple at Jerusalem, and a supposed return to Bethlehem, were past. Add to this the last forty days of Herod’s life spent at Jericho in almost total physical incapacity, whereas the magi had found him at Jerusalem. Jesus must have been born at least eighty days before.

In the days of Herod the king. With these words Matthew both dates this chapter and introduces a character in the short but dramatic part which he will play in the life of Jesus. The days of Herod the king, as the effective, continuous ruler of Judea, began in 37 B.C. when he obtained the crown of Judea as a satellite-king under the imperial overlordship of Rome. They ended in the spring of 4 B.C. after a rule characterized by a struggle for supremacy, by brilliant and progressive administration, by magnificent building programs and splendid improvements of existing structures, and by domestic chaos. He has been well called a Jewish Nero because of his personal character of jealousy for his power and a maniacal suspicion and because he bathed his own house and kingdom in blood. As he entered the scene for his brief part, he is fully in character: crafty, of an uncontrollable rage, superstitious, ruthless and bloody. Josephus called him Herod the Great.

The Herodian line of kings, being Idumean, was only nominally Jewish due to an enforced circumcision of the Edomites (Idumeans), a conversion by force of arms about 125 B.C. Alexander Jannaeus, the Maccabean conqueror, appointed an Idumean, Antipater I, as governor of Idumaea. This latter’s grandson, Herod the Great, quickly won Roman favor and rapid promotions. However, through his emulation of the habits and philosophy of the Gentiles, his introduction of heathen sports and temples within his realm, his robbing his own people that he might give rich gifts to curry Roman favor, and his flagrant domestic immorality, he also won the well-deserved hatred of the Jews.

Matthew’s brief notice of Herod’s reign affixes the date for the birth of Jesus at least fair years earlier than the date usually assigned, since Herod died in 4 B.C. This mistake of four years was made by Dionysius the Small, an abbot in Rome about 526, who apparently ignored the date of Herod’s death and the relation of Christ’s birth to it. The four-year miscalculation could possibly be greater as the time is not known from the birth of Jesus until the death of Herod (Matthew 2:1; Matthew 2:15). It may be that God has deliberately left the month and day and especially the year of our Lords birth hidden among the other unremembered facts of history in order that we might give attention and obedience to the Lord Himself rather than that we should be lost in the unessential elements of His life.

**Behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem. **These mysterious visitors entering the Jewish capital city with their even more curious questions must have raised many questions: Who are they? Whence have they come? What do they want? Various answers as to their identity and country of origin have been offered, due to the appearance in history of several types of oriental philosopher-priests, The term Magi refers to a Persian, or also a Babylonian, wise man and priest, who was expert in astrology, interpretation of dreams and various other secret arts, (cf. Daniel 2:10; Daniel 2:27; Daniel 2:48; Daniel 4:6-9; Daniel 5:7; Daniel 5:11-12) Magi could be used in a good sense, as in the case of Daniel, (cf. Daniel 2) or in an evil sense, as in the case of Simon (Acts 8:9) or Elymas Barjesus (Acts 13:6; Acts 13:8). At best, these magi were skilled in philosophy, medicine and natural science and probably were the possessors of what real learning existed in their period; at worst, many imposters among them were little more than fortune-tellers, sorcerers, magicians and charlatans.

From the East probably refers to the countries just east of the Euphrates River: Babylonia, Persia or Uialdea, whence many wise-men of the so-called magi priest class arose, The East would be the Mesopotamian valley, as viewed from Palestine and so regarded by the ancients (Genesis 29:1; Genesis 29:4; Numbers 22:5; Numbers 23:7). The suggestion that Arabia was their home, based upon the gifts they brought, which are supposed to be Arabian in origin, is not necessary, as Arabia was neither east geographically but south. and the gifts could have been purchased by trading with Arabia.

Matthew 2:2 As they were coming into Jerusalem, they were probably thinking that their question was an obvious one, which surely by that time possessed a well-known answer: Where is he that has been born king of the Jews? To this city they had come to pay Him homage, not because they imagined that He must be born in the Jewish capital but because they would naturally expect there to obtain authentic information where He might be found. Had they known the true state of affairs in the capital, especially the heart of Herod its king, perhaps they might not have asked such a politically dangerous question.

**We saw his star when it rose and came to worship him. **This declaration of the magi may be thought to emphasize one particular aspect of the studies of these priest-scholars: i.e. as astrologers scanning the heavens, they observed some extraordinary astronomical phenomenon and concluded from their astrological tables that a king of the Jews should be born about this time in the land of the Jews. Such a conclusion, at best, is highly doubtful, because of the extraordinarily arbitrary guesswork that created those astrological charts in the diabolical attempt to divine the future. It is hardly likely that God, who had condemned the attempts to discern the future through study of natural phenomenon (Deuteronomy 18:9-14; 2 Kings 17:16-17; 2 Kings 23:5; Isaiah 44:25; Isaiah 47:13; Jeremiah 10:2; Acts 7:41-43), would stamp His approval upon such pseudo-knowledge as was contained in the astrological systems. It is also a dubious conclusion that any such astrological calculation could actually lead to the true determination that a king should be born in Judea, an event which, by its nature, was unique, different from all other births. Certainly true is the conclusion that it was not astrology that led these wise-men to the Christ, but OT prophecy (Micah 5:2) coupled with the moving of the star to Bethlehem, Direct, divine revelation, given to the magi while yet in their own country to explain the meaning of the star, must not be ruled out.

**His star. **The star described by Matthew has the following character:

It was seen from the East when it arose (Matthew 2:2) and then again in the west as it led the magi to the house of Joseph in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:9).

It was going before the wise-men; i.e. south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem (Matthew 2:9), and therefore it did not continue the westward movement of normal stars,

It came to rest over the place where the child was (Matthew 2:9), thus apparently distinguishing it from all other houses in Bethlehem.

Obviously, these characteristics mark this sidereal appearance as something other than natural phenomenon. Unless the language adopted to describe the star be taken in some other way than its literal import, conjunctions of stars, comets, and the like may be rejected as the naturalistic explanation of what the magi beheld. Astronomically speaking, the narrative has been purposely left too incomplete for any simple or naturalistic conclusion to be drawn from it. One short verse could have answered all our questions but that verse was not given, The star, whatever its physical property may have been, was of no further importance than to serve as guide to the wise-men until they found the home of Joseph where they might find the Messiah, and having found Him, they had no further need of its direction. Having accepted the extraordinary character of the Evangelists-’ narrations as sober history containing supernatural elements, we see no serious objection to considering the star as a miraculous phenomenon provided by God for the specific purpose of guiding the magi. If ordinary means are not sufficient, God is able to employ the extraordinary. This consideration is fully in harmony with the supernatural appearance to Joseph (Matthew 1:20-21), with the angel’s messages to Zechariah (Luke 1:8-20), with the appearance to Mary (Luke 1:26-38) or with that to the shepherds (Luke 2:8-15). Even as the children of Israel were led supernaturally by God by means of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night from Egypt to the promised land, similarly are the wise-men led by the miraculous star from the East to the Promised One.

How the magi came to know that the special star was of particular significance regarding the birth of the king of the Jews, and that His station above them required their homage and made Him worthy of their gifts is not told. Nor is it possible to relate the magi’s knowledge to the national messianic hopes of the Jews scattered throughout the East (Acts 2:9), for there is no OT passage that clearly predicts the appearance of a star as the signal of the birth of the Messiah, To Balaam’s prophecy (Numbers 24:17) appeal is made to provide just such a passage, but is it credible that the magi could have so understood the passage to refer to the star they were beholding or that they understood the passage as directing them to undertake such a journey as they did to pay homage to the king of the Jews? Besides, if they were familiar with the OT prophecies, why did they not know that the Christ should be born in Bethlehem? Even though the magi themselves might have possessed a copy of the OT scriptures for personal study, no star prophecy can therein be found. Regarding the so-called world-wide expectation of a Jewish Messiah, Edersheim (Life, I, 203) comments:

There is no historical evidence that at the time of Christ there was among the nations any widespread expectancy of the Advent of a Messiah in Palestine. Where the knowledge of such a hope existed, it must have been entirely derived from Jewish sources. The allusions to it by Tacitus (Hist. v. 13; 75-125 A.D.) and Suetonius (Vesp. 4; 70-123 A.D.) are evidently derived from Josephus, and admittedly refer to the Flavian dynasty, and to a period seventy years or more after the Advent of Christ, ,.

Since the wise-men were warned in a dream not to return to Herod, by direct revelation from God, is it inconceivable that their concept of the meaning of the star and their undertaking this westward journey should have been directed in the same manner?

We have come to worship him. If we knew more of the mind of the magi, we might be better able to appreciate what they intended to offer the infant King of the Jews. The Greek word for worship is defined by Arndt-Gingrich (723) as meaning:

proskuneo; used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before -a person and kissing his feet, the hem of his garment, the ground, etc.; the Persians did this in the presence of their deified king, and the Greeks before a divinity or something holy; (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully,. This reverence or worship is paid:

to human beings who, however, are to be recognized by this act as belonging to a supernatural realm: to a king; a slave to his master, see Matthew 18:26; Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 3:9.

To God; also used of the various divinities:

a.

of the God worshipped by monotheists (Christians, Jews, Samaritans).

b.

of the idol-worship of polytheism (see Acts 7:43)..

To the devil and Satanic beings (see Matthew 4:9; Luke 4:7; Revelation 9:20; Revelation 13:4; Revelation 13:12; Revelation 13:15; Revelation 16:2; Revelation 19:20; Revelation 20:4;

to angels; Revelation 22:8-9

to Jesus, who is revered and worshipped as Messianic King and Divine Helper: Matthew 2:2; Matthew 2:8; Matthew 2:11; Matthew 8:2; Matthew 9:18; Matthew 14:33; Matthew 20:20; John 9:38. The demons ask a favor of Him, Mark 5:6. Mock worship on the part of soldiers, Mark 15:19. The Risen Lord is especially the object of worship: Matthew 28:9; Matthew 28:17.

The inquiry of the wise-men indicates their expectation that the birth of the King should have been a matter of common knowledge at least by the time they arrived at Jerusalem. What a surprise it must have been for them to find those who lived at the very center of this great event to be ignorant of it. Ignorance and unbelief are still familiar faces among those by whom Jesus ought to be best known. The question of the wise-men may not be at all naive or politically dangerous from their view, since they came seeking what they considered to be a Babe known to all.

II. THE CRAFTY KING

Matthew 2:3 **When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled. **The wicked, suspicious heart of Herod would undoubtedly have caused him to place informers everywhere in Jerusalem, Matthew does not say whether the magi came directly to the official head of the nation with their question, He does declare that they were coming, asking (literally: imperfect indicative and a present participle). So probably their query outran them to the old king. God could have told them to go to Bethlehem to ,find the Child, but this would have left Jerusalem without announcement. Their inquiry served to stir up the whole city with the exciting news that a king had just been born in Judea. The sensational question of the magi, because it agitated Herod’s suspicious nature, now became a matter of life and death to all. Thus, when Herod heard this unwelcome question, he was visibly shaken and all Jerusalem with him. he source of their fears differed:

The fear of Herod was kindled by a stubborn fact that had dogged him throughout his intrigue-filled, bloody rise to power: he was neither king nor a Jew. He ruled under the control of Rome and had won the title of king from his true masters. By birth he was Edomite and thus was a usurper to the throne of David. He had spent his whole life seizing and holding this throne. Now, after stifling the Maccabean princes by murder and after sacrificing the wife of his love and the children of his Ibins, he trembles to hear that dreaded question, Where is he that is born the king of the Jews? Herod instantly understood well enough that that king could only be the promised Messiah of the Jews. Such an unanticipated question coming from such an unexpected source shocked Herod deeply enough to believe the wise-men and to realize that all his previous precautions would have been in vain if he could not, by some swift stroke, slay that Child and thus secure to himself and his posterity his coveted throne.

2. The fear of the Jerusalemites cannot have been the same which animated Herod. Jerusalem knew Herod, and she shivered as she awaited Herod’s inevitable reaction: the violent measures which the bloody old despot might take in quelling any rival movement. And all Jerusalem with him must not be construed to say that the city was devoted to her king and feared that her interests would suffer with his. Naturally, Herod had his sycophants, his political supporters, the Herodians, and those among the Jerusalemites who were dedicated to his secular philosophy. But even these latter would not be able to hide themselves from the searching beam of Herod’s unreasoning suspicion. Among those who openly opposed Herod were the powerful Pharisees. As Josephus says:

These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees, who were in a capacity of greatly opposing kings. A cunning sect they were, and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting and doing mischief. Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good will to Caesar, and to the king’s government, these very men did not swear, being above six thousand; and when the king imposed a fine upon them, Pheroras-’ wife paid their fine for them. In order to requite which kindness of hers, since they were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by divine inspiration, they foretold how God had decreed that Herd’s government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it; but that the kingdom should come to her and Pheroras, and to their children. (Antiquities XVII, 2, 4)

Although the Pharisees were basically wrong in their prediction and it may be supposed that Herod considered their prophecy as arising from wishful thinking rather than divine inspiration, yet when the influential Pharisees announced the finish of Herod’s kingdom and the magi asked concerning the birth of the (new) Jewish king, Herod could not but tremble, But his fear did not block immediate, cunning decisions.

III. THE INFORMED BUT INDIFFERENT

Matthew 2:4 And assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. Though there be one high priest whose unique function it was to enter the Most Holy Place once a year (Leviticus 8, 9, 21) and who was particularly set apart to his office, yet there were other chiefs of the twenty-four courses into which David had divided the priests (1 Chronicles 24:1-17). In the time of Herod, the high priests were set up and deposed for political reasons at Herod’s pleasure, The Romans did the same, changing the personnel so frequently that the position became almost an annual appointment, (Cf. John 11:49; Acts 23:1-5) Though many changes were thus made, the high priest was always chosen from certain priestly families. Thus, the plural chief priests probably refers to this group of deposed high priests who retained their title although not their position, or to the family of chief priests in general, The scribes were the learned rabbis, the professional students of the Law and experts in its exposition and renowned in teaching it, Herod’s move to call together these authorities of Israel is at once marked by his usual cunning, for apparently Herod does not commit himself on the subject. Rather, to all appearances, his pretence to be devout in his attitude toward Old Testament prophecies could also serve to enhance his image. He simply placed before these scholars the question of the Messiah’s birthplace. Doubtless he did so in the absence of the magi (Cf. v. 7), for it would not have served his murderous designs to permit these eastern sages to compare notes with the scholars of Judaism if indeed the Messiah had been born. Observe how he who, under ordinary circumstances, would have nothing but. contempt for the divine message, now becomes anxious to know its predictions so that he might render them harmless by secret measures of his own. What irony: Herod trusted the Bible’s message enough to act upon it by sending the wise-men to Bethlehem according to the prophecy, but he totally ignored the all-knowing God who gave the prophecy and who would be fully capable of thwarting Herd’s scheme!

The wise-men had asked for one born king of the Jews. Herod laid before the council the demand for the Christ. The kind of Christ expected by the Jews was a worldly king of the Jews who would have indeed been a true rival to Herod.

Matthew 2:5 **They told him, In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet. ** Herod may have already known this, as it was generally known (John 7:40-52), but he required an official, authoritative declaration from the highest authority available. To Herod’s demand, they could return only one answer and quote the Scripture which so declared it, Micah 5:2. This prediction of Micah was generally accepted and universally understood to point out the Messiah’s birthplace.

The prompt, unequivocal answer, given by these highest authorities in Judaism, indicate three clear facts:

That the expected Messiah is an individual, not the Jewish nation itself;

That the Messiah’s birth must occur at Bethlehem and nowhere else;

That those who reject Jesus as Messiah must reject that natural interpretation by those Jewish scholars, must re-interpret Micah, or must reject the possibility of predictive prophecy altogether.

Matthew 2:6 Matthew reproduces here the prophetic utterance of Micah exactly as such quotations were popularly made at that time and with the same freedom in quoting that we use today. The fact that there are verbal differences between Matthew’s reproduction of Mic 5:2 and the OT original should be no cause for alarm. If it be remembered that Hebrew was practically a dead language, at least so far as the common people were concerned, and that a translation into the popular dialect was necessitated, then it will not be surprising to heat one of the Sanhedrin or even Matthew himself give neither a literal version nor a complete paraphrase, but rather something between them which would be an interpretative translation. Edersheim (Life, I, 206) demonstrated the universally practiced method of so rendering the Scriptures for a popular audience.

How aptly Micah-s prophecy refers to the birthplace of Christ Jesus! He pictures the future Ruler of Israel whose goings forth reach back into eternity, as springing from the insignificant Bethlehem whence had arisen David. It was well known that the Messiah should be the Son of David and should come from Bethlehem (Matthew 22:41-45; John 7:41-42). Not only the name of the birthplace of the Messiah is given in advance, but also the description of the condition of the Jewish nation in general and the family of David in particular. The birth of the Christ in the almost insignificant country town of David, instead of in Jerusalem, the great city of David, presupposes that the family of David would have 10st the throne and fallen into poverty and obscurity. To a people who gloried in false greatness, these words must have been a stumbling-block. (Cf. the context of Micah’s message.)

The famous teachers of the Law who answered Herod’s question were no fools. They would not have been duped by Herd’s outwardly devout attitude, nor could they have rationally supposed that his demand concerning the birthplace of the Christ have other than sinister motives, Nor would they have been ignorant of the magi’s dramatic entrance into Jerusalem, It could be safely assumed that they had basically the same information as Herod. What kept them from making their own independent investigation of these marvelous circumstances: the sudden appearance of magi seeking him who is born king of the Jews, led by a star, the abrupt interest of Herod in messianic prophecy. And had they not perhaps seen the strange star also? Yet, they were not sufficiently aroused to initiate their own private inquiry, It is impossible to know just how much these Jewish rulers had seen of the strange events, and thus to ascertain their guilt in not turning aside to see this thing which is tome to pass. (cf. Exodus 3:3-4) Nevertheless, they have their representatives in every age, who, faced with greater light guiding them to more exciting truth, yawn and refuse to investigate and apply the will of God to their lives. Unfortunately, their great learning did not profit them, since they missed the joy surrounding the Messiah’s birth.

Matthew 2:7 Then Herod summoned the wise-men secretly. The less publicity that should be given the magi, the better it would be for Herod’s plan. This may have been the first time that the magi actually stood before Herod. He ascertained from them what time the star appeared. To all appearances, Herod’s interest now is merely curiosity as if prompted by innocent motives, He had learned the location of the birthplace of the Messiah and would be able to trade that knowledge with the wise-men in exchange for their knowledge of the time of the birth. Herod assumes that the time of the rising of the star coincided with either the Christ’s conception or His birth. and thus he is better able to judge with what age king he must now deal. It cannot be known what answer the magi gave, for two years old and under (Matthew 2:16) may be an ample margin decided by Herod.

Matthew 2:8 He sent\them to Bethlehem, saying, Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him bring me word, that I too may come and worship him. These hypocritical words, not intended for the ears of any who knew Herod, would deceive these strangers who would now suppose the same religious interests motivated the king as animated them, The plot was simple; it could not fail. The innocent dupes now become Herod’s tools. But why did he not have the wise-men followed instead of trusting them to bring back word to him after they had found the Child? Matthew is not writing a murder mystery; hence, he does not tell every detail. But who could say that Herod did not send along spies after them? If so, his attempt must have failed, as the story shows. Of course, the seeming naiveté in Herod’s scheme may be merely the folly of a mad king failing in his closing years.

Matthew 2:9-10 When they had heard the king they went their way the six-mile journey south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. On the star, see on Matthew 2:2. The miraculous star, immediately observable, coupled with the confident, supernatural prediction of the prophet Micah, worked together to produce the multiplied comfort in the hearts of the magi: they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. Their search had not been in vain. Though their goal had not yet been realized, they were able to rejoice in the likely prospect of its soon realization. Why they should rejoice upon their seeing the star is not clear: had it been invisible during their conversation with Herod due to clouds or daylight? Had it appeared once when they were yet in their homeland, causing them to undertake their journey to Jerusalem and disappearing until this moment? At least**, it came and stood over the place where was the young child.** It thus enabled them, without enquiries which could arouse the unwanted curiosity of the Bethlehemites, to find Jesus. If the magi entered Bethlehem by night, this too contributed to the privacy of their coming and, consequently, to the future safety of Jesus.

Matthew 2:11 By this time, Joseph had been able to secure a suitable dwelling and move the little family from the feeding-place of the animals into a house. (Luke 2:7) The immense crowd, that had come to Bethlehem to enroll themselves, had finished their business and returned home. The magi entered the simple quarters, provided by the carpenter, to find the object of their search: the young child (not a newly born baby). The marvel here described lies in the reaction of the magi: they fell down and worshipped him! Every worldly circumstance that usually declares the power and position of the world’s great was absent. This Babe was born, not in the palaces of the capital of the empire, but in the stable of a dusty country village. Few even knew that He had been born. Here was a rented house, a lowly heritage, some simple baby clothes. But the star and the prophecy had directed them to THIS Babe and through the eyes of faith the wise-men were able to see the King in that small Child.

On worship, see Matthew 2:21, In the typical oriental manner, they fell down before Him, indicating in such gestures that they have found in Him the King they sought. Whether they worshipped Him as divine or merely reverenced Him as a Jewish prince somehow destined for greatness is not known since we are -not told the extent of God’s revelation to them, Their homage offered to Jesus under such circumstances is certainly a memorial to their honesty: they brought and gave the best: gold, frankincense (a resin used in making incense), and myrrh (also a resin used as one ingredient in incense, but also used as an anesthetic when mingled with wine; also used in embalming). Gold would be a natural gift, but why the others? What was this Child to do with them? Perhaps the magi had other reasons, but if their gifts are religiously inspired, they are the more readily intelligible. If these wise-men see before them a Divine King, then incense is quite appropriate. Their worship and gifts indicate forethought. What a condemnation of half-hearted worshippers who are content to give Jesus the left-over scraps of their lives! Refusing to give Him their best, they degrade themselves and bring dishonor to their King.

Matthew 2:12 Again God breaks into history to give warning by a dream (see on Matthew 1:20). The reappearance of the star to guide the magi to Bethlehem and this dream both suggest that the intervening events occurred at night. Is there any over-riding reason why they should not have all occurred the same night? Even if the magi left the next morning, the whereabouts of Jesus is yet unimportant even if known. The shepherds had excited the entire village several weeks before (Luke 2:17-18; Luke 2:20); hence, Bethlehem knew something of Jesus, but until the coming of Herod’s murderers, this information did not closely touch its citizens.

How simply are the plans of the scheming Herod thwarted. The magi, arising from sleep, take the road northeast from Bethlehem to Jericho, thus avoiding the return to Jerusalem. By the time Herod realized that the magi were not to return to him, they were beyond his vindictive grasp, east of the Jordan returning to their own country. Thus, they disappear from Matthew’s pages as suddenly and mysteriously as they entered. But by them, God has identified the Child as the universal Messianic King, not only as the hope of His ancient people, the Hebrews, but also the anticipated joy of those afar off.

FACT QUESTIONS

1. When and why did Joseph take Mary to Bethlehem, thus providing such a background for the birth of Jesus?
2. How does Matthew date the birth of Jesus?

Did this visit of the magi take place immediately after the birth of Jesus? How do you know?

Who is Herod the king? Tell all you know about his reign, his character, etc.

Who were the wise-men? Whence did they come?

How did they know about the birth of Jesus?

Why did they come?

Answer the following objection to the account of the magi as represented in the biblical narrative: If the magi were rightly guided by astrological calculations, and if their conception of the relation between the movements of heavenly bodies and earthly events actually led them in this case to the Christ, then God’s stamp of approval is put upon a harmful pseudo-science. The magi and those who came into contact with them upon their return to the East would be confirmed in their superstition, and such confirmation of what is false is unworthy of the God of truth.

What was the star they saw? Is there any astronomical confirmation of such a star? List all the characteristics of the star as implied in the account of Matthew.

10. Is it possible to explain Matthew’s description of the star and its movements as a figurative representation of some purely natural astronomical phenomenon? Or, in other words, is it necessary to interpret Matthew’s account of the star literally in order to be true to his intent, granted that the objective phenomenon be regarded as having reality? On what basis do you answer thus?

11. How could the magi have known the meaning of the phenomenon?

12. Why was Herod so greatly troubled about this one born king of the Jews?

13. What reason had the inhabitants of Jerusalem to fear such news of a new king of the Jews?

14. To whom did Herod go for information and what did he ask?

15. T h e wise-men had asked about the king of the Jews. So why did Herod ask the peculiar question he did?

16. To what prophecy did they turn in order to answer Herod?

17. What does their ready answer indicate about the meaning of the prophecy?

18. If there should be only one high priest (Exodus 28, 29; Leviticus 4:3; Leviticus 4:16; Leviticus 21; Numbers 20:28; Numbers 35:25; Acts 22:30 to Acts 23:5), how can Matthew speak of a group of chief priests? Who are these chief priests?

19. Who are the scribes?

20. How would you answer these attacks on. the historical probability of this entire narrative:

a.

Would Herod have excited messianic hopes by calling such a meeting of the chief priests and scribes to ask where the Messiah was to be born? These very hopes ran counter to his every design and he could hardly have hoped to gain his purpose by arousing them.

b.

Would the wise-men have been so naive to ask so politically dangerous a question in such a public way under the very eyes of so suspicious a king as Herod?

c.

After the scribes had pointed to Bethlehem, why would Herod have used secrecy in calling the magi to him? What possible purpose could such secrecy now serve?

d.

Would Herod actually have thought the magi so naive as to suppose that he really wanted to worship a rival claimant to his throne?

e.

It would have been more true to Herd’s well-known character had he simply sent spies after the magi so that upon their finding the Child they could have killed him.

21. Standing in Jerusalem, how would you give directions to the knowledge concerning the king of the Jews whom they came seeking?
22. To whom did the magi offer their gifts and worship: to the child with Mary his mother, or to the child alone?
23. In what usual ways were the various gifts brought by the magi used? Is there any significance in this when they are considered as offered to Jesus?
24. How did the wise-men know not to return to Herod as they had promised? What does this indicate about the source of their knowledge concerning the king of the Jews whom they came seeking?

Matthew 2:13-23

Section 4. THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT AND RETURN

TEXT: 2:13-23

13. Now when they were departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I tell thee: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14. And he arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt;
15. and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.
16. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the Wise-men, was exceeding wroth. 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 Wise-men.
17. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying,
18. A voice heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she would not be comforted, because they are not.
19. But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying,
20. Arise and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead that sought the young child’s life.
21. And he arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
22. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; and being warned of God in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee,
23. and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

What characteristics do you see in Joseph that reveal some of the reasons why God chose him to be Mary’s husband and Jesus-’ protector?

b.

What does this incident reveal about Herod’s nature?

c.

Why do you think God allowed His only Son to grow up in such a despicable little town as Nazareth? Had not the byword said, Can anything good come from Nazareth?

d.

Why would God have Joseph take the family out of the country when Herod never did see the Baby and could not have identified it anyway?

e.

What does the age two years old and under indicate about:

(1)

the appearing of the star to the magi in the East?

(2) the age of Jesus when Herod sought to slay Him?

f.

Why would God send Joseph to Egypt and not to Edom or Arabia or perhaps to Mesopotamia?

g.

Why should Joseph be afraid to return to Bethlehem, even though Herod the Great was dead as well as those that sought the child’s life?

h.

Why should not Joseph be equally afraid of the ruler of Galilee, who was also another son of Herod the Great?

i.

Would the Bethlehemites have known the location of the house where dwelt the Babe born to be King?

PARAPHRASE

Now when the magi had departed, it was then that the angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph and said, Get up now: you must take the little Child and His mother and escape to Egypt, and stay there until I direct you further, For Herod is about to search for the Child to do away with Him.

So Joseph awoke and, taking the Child and His mother by night, they made their escape to Egypt where they remained until Herod’s death. This resulted in the fulfilment of what the Lord had declared through His prophet Hosea (Hosea 11:1): I called my Son out of Egypt.

When Herod realized that he had been trifled with by the magi, he flew into a furious rage. He issued orders for the massacre of all baby boys in Bethlehem and its whole neighboring vicinity, of the age of two years or less, corresponding to the time he had ascertained from the wise-men.

Then Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jeremiah 31:15) was which reads:

A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel is weeping for her children, Refusing all consolation, Because they are gone.

After the death of Herod, an angel of the Lord appeared by dream to Joseph in Egypt, commanding, Rise and take the little Child and His mother with you and make the trip back into the -land of Israel. For they who sought to slay Jesus are now themselves dead! So Joseph got up and took the little Child and His mother and journeyed toward the land of Israel. Hearing, however, that Archelaus had succeeded his father Herod as king of Judaea, Joseph was afraid to go there. So, having been instructed by God in a dream, he withdrew to that part of the country called Galilee where he settled down in the old hometown of former years called Nazareth. This action resulted in the fulfilment of the message of several prophets who said, He shall be called a Nazarene.

SUMMARY

God, indicating Egypt as the place of secure refuge, warned Joseph of Herod’s murderous intent. Joseph instantly obeyed by taking Jesus and Mary into Egypt. Herod carried out the massacre of the innocents and later died. Then God informed Joseph that it was safe to return to Palestine. They settled in Nazareth. The incident results in the fulfilment of two prophecies.

NOTES

Matthew 2:13 The magi having left the house of Joseph. each settled down for the night. But this night was to be troubled by dreams: one which warned the wise-men not to return to Herod; another warning Joseph to save Jesus-’ life by flight into Egypt. It would seem that it was Joseph’s plan to remain indefinitely in Bethlehem, but this was to be their last night there. To the little family this was a night of conflicting emotions: happily surprised by the adoration and offerings of the magi, they had gone to sleep only to be shaken by the angel’s warning to flee. The high honors of being parents of God’s Son are also accompanied by sorrow, pain and great self-sacrifice. Whatever plans Joseph had laid for the support of his family there in Bethlehem must immediately be scrapped due to the urgent necessity of immediate flight to Egypt. Egypt’s near border lay approximately 100 miles to the southwest of Bethlehem, beyond the reach of Herod, They could not travel rapidly, so all attention must have been given to immediate departure while it was yet night. They must escape detection at all costs, so that they could not later be followed by Herod’s men.

**An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream: **see on Matthew 1:20. Joseph is the legal father of Jesus, so the care of the Child is in his hands. The one word of hope in the angel’s message is the promise of a future appearance, This flight into Egypt though sudden is not unforeseen to the mind and will of God, because the magi had just delivered God’s provision for the little family’s sustenance in Egypt, i.e. the gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Escape to Egypt is quite reasonable, since it was the closest Roman province outside Herod’s jurisdiction and was large enough to hide a peasant carpenter, his wife and Baby. Thousands of Jews had settled there. In Alexandria, the chief city of Egypt, the Jews occupied a more influential position than anywhere else in the ancient world. (ISBE, 94a). It would not be at all difficult for Joseph to labor at his craft until the day of their return to Israel.

The full treachery of Herod is exposed: Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. Perhaps the wise-men had narrated to Joseph the drama of the star, their visit with Herod, and his directing them to Bethlehem. Herod knew about Bethlehem: Joseph must leave instantly.

Matthew 2:14 The dream having come to Joseph while he was sleeping, upon awaking, he arouses Mary into instant action, explaining to her the urgent reason for his unexpected actions. Prompt obedience to the divine message when it becomes clearly understood, as always, is the key to physical and spiritual safety! Much as we might desire to know of that flight - its means, its duration, its exact destination, its dangers - Matthew leaves us only those details necessary to the accomplishment of a greater design than the satisfaction of curiosity: the tracing in the life of Jesus the great outlines of the Messiah clearly promised in the OT.

Matthew 2:15 The death of Herod occurred in the spring of 4 B.C. at Jericho. From this date we have a clue to the approximate fixing of the true date of the birth of Christ. An eclipse of the moon, mentioned by Josephus (Antiquities, XVII, vi, 4), occurred on March 13 of that year just prior to Herod’s death. The events which preceded March, 4 B.C., then, are:

The enrolment under Quirinius (Luke 2:1-2)

The birth of Jesus (Matthew 1, 2; Luke 2)

The purification of Mary, before the presentation of Jesus in the temple at Jerusalem, required 40 days (Leviticus 12; Luke 2:22-39 a).

Return to Bethlehem and visit of the magi (Matthew 2:1-12)

Flight into Egypt (Matthew 2:13 ff)

Death of Herod (Matthew 2:15-19), after 40 days illness at Jericho.

Therefore, the birth of Jesus occurred sometime from 80 days to three months prior to March, 4 B.C., or perhaps even earlier. The common dating for the commencement of the Christian era is four years too late.

**That it might be fulfilled. **See the general study connected with this chapter. The words of Hos 11:1, when first spoken by the prophet, had only one son of God in view, Israel: When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. But God, looking upon the people of Israel and prophesying through the lips of Hosea, saw in Israel not merely a potentially great, sacerdotal people who could be His own possession. Rather, He could see in Israel, even as He led them by the hand out of the house of bondage, that yet-unformed Israelite Who would be the Messiah. God could see in Israel what even Hosea could not have seen nor could have intended in his prophetic utterance. It was not until the return of God’s true Son from Egypt that God’s foreknowledge and planning could be seen. Now the thrilling news could be heralded: God brought Israel out of Egypt under the leadership of Moses not for Israel’s sake, but for Jesus-’ sake! The obscure passage of Hosea shouts: God knew ahead of time and carried out His plan for Israel by means of Jesus! It is not merely coincidental that the angel sent Joseph to Egypt, and not to Babylon or elsewhere.

Matthew 2:16 Herod, mocked of the wise-men. Not a word of this slaughter is found in the available secular history. Some have seized upon this fact to discredit Matthew’s inclusion of such a story. No doubt, from the Christian point of view, the massacre of these little boys would be a particularly atrocious and newsworthy event. One would think that at least Josephus would have included the story in his life of Herod. But several factors combine to explain Josephus-’ silence:

The all-too-common exposure of infants, being an almost ordinary feature of the period, might render the murder of these infants worthy of no special horror. (Unger, Archaeology and the NT, 57)

Bethlehem’s position was that of an obscure little village of no particular interest to the leaders of the period and the number of male children in it under two years of age would not be many;

Herod’s closing years were painted in the blood of nobles and those of position. A few babies might not even merit attention outside the limits of Bethlehem!

Even if Josephus knew of the incident, he might have ignored it, since a full explanation of it would have necessitated mention of Jewish messianic hopes, which, in preparing his work for Roman readers, he might have chosen to omit,

There is no reason, therefore, to suppose that if the massacre of the Bethlehem babes had really occurred, Josephus would necessarily have included it in his history, Yet, though the tragedy is not attested by other history, it is in perfect harmony with what is known of Herod in his latter years, Matthew in no wise exaggerates the character of Herod by saying, When Herod found that he had been trifled with by the magi was in a furious rage. Although he had been an able monarch, yet in the last years of his reign his cruelty reached the verge of madness: his murdering his own children and the one wife he loved, and his plan to slaughter all the leading citizens of Jerusalem in the hippodrome, contain exactly that quality of wild and useless bloodshed which appears in Matthew’s record. (See Machen, Virgin Birth. 238, 239) When frustrated in his diabolical cunning by the divine warning to the wise-men, Herod’s uncontrollable rage, so characteristic of this outwitted man, now shows itself in murder. It is no less murder because done by the State in the name of the king, The fatal order concerned those baby boys whose parents lived in Bethlehem or worked the farms that spread out fan-like from and depended upon Bethlehem. Since it appeared that the wisemen had tricked him at least once, Herod took no further chances, giving the order to kill all who had not yet reached their third birthday. Two years probably refers to the time of the rising of the star as seen by the magi at its first appearance. Herod connects this with the birth date of the supposed Messiah and gives his order accordingly.

Matthew 2:17 See general study of prophetic fulfilment at the end of this section.

Matthew 2:18 Ramah was a city in the tribal territory of Benjamin, located about 6 miles north of Jerusalem. (1 Samuel 10:2; Genesis 35:16 ff; Genesis 48:7; Joshua 18:25) The prophecy of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15) focuses our attention upon this city as the separation point where the victorious armies of Babylon took Israelitish captives into Babylon (Jeremiah 40:1), leaving only the poor of the land who wept. In a poignant, poetic figure, Jeremiah pictures the ancient mother rising from her tomb to weep also at the deportation of her children, as if they were being wrested from her arms forever. Matthew appropriates this inimitably beautiful image, using it to portray the suffering of the mothers in Bethlehem. Thus, the fulfilment is not one based upon the facts predicted, but upon the words which so aptly describe this otherwise unrelated event. Matthew might have said, If these sadly beautiful words adequately described the sorrow of those who beheld the captives depart for Babylon, never to be seen again, how much more adequate are they to picture the first of a series of tragic martyrdoms for the sake of Him who would be Israel’s Redeemer? If Rachel wept when the great promises of God seemed to be annulled by the deportation of her children into captivity, how much more could she do SO due to this heart-rending disaster where the Messiah is taken to Egypt upon threat of His life and these innocents must suffer?

Matthew 2:19 Observe how simply Matthew tells his story: he mentions enough of the historic circumstance to leave his narration open to historical verification while omitting what would merely detract from the mainline emphasis of the life of Jesus. Josephus describes with considerable gruesome detail the facts surrounding the horrible death of Herod (Antiquities, XVII, vi, 5). With the death of the tyrant, the immediate danger to the Child ceased. Faster than a Roman courier, an angel of God relays the news of Herod’s death to the Jewish carpenter down in Egypt.

Matthew 2:20 The land of Israel is a phrase used to indicate all four of the small provinces which comprised it: Galilee, Samaria, Judea and Perea. The first area into which Joseph would enter, returning from Egypt, is Judea. They are dead obviously refers primarily to Herod the Great who sought Jesus-’ life, although there may have been others who concurred with him or were employed by him.

Matthew 2:22 The angel had only announced the death of Herod and commanded Joseph to take the family back to Palestine. He had not indicated a specific place to which Joseph was to bring them, nor had he stated who was to be Herod’s successor. Upon crossing the Egyptian frontier into Judea or perhaps in conversation with some traveler recently returned from the Jerusalem area, Joseph learned the bad news: Archelaus is reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod. Archelaus, according to Josephus, was barbarously cruel to those Jews and Samaritans who had opposed his accession to power and had taken their quarrel with him clear to Rome, complaining of his ruthlessness to the Augustus. The news would travel rapidly of Archelaus severe measures taken to repress a passover riot in which he killed 3000 shortly after his accession (Ant., XVII, 9, 3). Thus, Joseph was afraid to go there, for it seemed still unsafe to return to Judea with the savage and reckless Archelaus on the throne. There implies Joseph’s first intention to return to Judea probably to resettle in Bethlehem where they had lived since the birth of Jesus until the flight into Egypt. What could be more natural than that they should desire to bring up the Child in His ancestral home until the time of His appearing as King to Israel? It is an open question whether Joseph had heard of the slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem. Nazareth is forgotten for the moment, although they had lived there earlier. (Luke 2:4) Matthew’s first geographic notice is at Bethlehem, implying that Joseph’s residence there had been interrupted only by Herod’s plot, and now that that danger is past, Joseph seems determined to return there. Why?

Because Galilee was despised by the Judeans as the fringe area of piety due to its proximity to the great pagan commercial centers and heathen influences and environment in general.

It was inhabited by a mixed population whose dialect of Aramaic was marked by more frequent errors and malpronunciation that that of the Judean or Jerusalem dialects. Religiously, they tended to be less bound by traditions than Judeans. These differences fed the general rabbinic contempt for all that was Galilean. (cf. John 7:52)

Jerusalem, on the other hand, was the center of the Jewish world, while Galilee was, religiously speaking, about as far from that center as was Rome. In Jerusalem stood the Temple and here was the vital center of Judaism. (Cf. Edersheim, Life, I, 221ff)

Mary had kinfolk in the Judean area (Luke 1:39).

And yet, should they have returned to Bethlehem, the danger would arise that they would be recognized, remembered and exposed to the wrath of the parents who had been deprived of their baby boys or else to the cruelty of Archelaus. Common prudence dictated the withdrawal from the dominion of Archelaus, and yet the courageous Joseph might have been thinking that, despite these objections, the proper home for the young Messiah would be in the ancestral home of David rather than in the half-Gentile Galilee. Clearly, a message from God was needed to indicate the proper solution to his dilemma.

The verb translated warned (ASV) may simply mean to receive a divine communication or revelation of any kind. The content of that revelation is not given, leaving to conjecture how much of Joseph’s actions are in direct response to an express command. At least, he moved the little family to Nazareth of Galilee as a result of that word from God. This move demonstrates the foreknowledge and wisdom of God:

1. Because Galilee was then under the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, brother of Herod Archelaus, but who was also his competitor for the throne of Herod the Great, their father. It would not be as likely that Antipas would deliver the Child Jesus to Archelaus. (Cf. Antiquities, XVII, 11, 4 also 9, 4)

2. Because within just a few short years Judea was bathed in the blood and constant uncertainty of civil wars, whereas remoter Galilee was relatively spared (Ant., XVII, IO), until Jesus could come to the years of His majority.

Matthew 2:23 **that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets that he should be called a Nazarene. **There is no one OT prophet who specifically promises that the Messiah shall be called Nazarene. Matthew, using the plural prophets, draws attention either to several prophets in particular or to the prophetic books in general or perhaps to the message of the entire Old Testament.

If Matthew has in mind several particular prophetic writings, which? Some maintain that Nazareth comes from the Hebrew stem netzer, meaning root, sprout, shoot or branch, thus linking Jesus of Nazareth =Notsri with the famous Branch prophecies of Isa 11:1 and, by extension of the root idea to other Hebrew words and prophecies: Isaiah 11:10 (Shoresh); Isaiah 53:2 (Shoresh); Jeremiah 23:5 (Tsemach); Isaiah 33:15 (Tsemach); Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12 (Tsemach). According to this view, Jesus would bear in popular speech the exact equivalent of one of the best-known designations of the Messiah. The difficulty with this view lies in its entire dependence upon a play on words, perhaps obvious to the Hebrew mind but not at all obvious to a Greek reader of this Gospel. Further, the extension of the idea to synonymous Hebrew roots spoils the supposed homonymity upon which the interpretation depends.

If, on the other hand, Matthew refers to the prophetic message in general or to the burden of the entire OT regarding the person and position of the Messiah, then, a specific prophecy is not needed to satisfy Matthew’s description. Rather, the basic question would be: what does it mean to be called a Nazarene? A Nazarene is one who hails from Nazareth. but, as a slander, that libelous label contained, at least, the description of an insignificant town out of which nothing great or good was expected (cf. John 1:45-46), and, at most, when applied by the unbelieving Jews to Jesus and His followers, it spat out all the hate and odium possible (Acts 24:5). Jesus-’ being called a Nazarene, due to His having lived there, fulfilled the message of the prophets in this respect that He was to be despised and rejected. Nazarene was the label that marked the Jews-’ rejection of Him. This rejection was abundantly predicted (Psalms 22; Isaiah 49:7; Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12). Though Jesus was by birth and family stock a Bethlehemite (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:3-4), Matthew draws attention to that circumstance which occasioned Jesus-’ being considered a Nazarene, and to the fact that all was according to the foreknowledge of God,

FACT QUESTIONS

How did God make known His will to Joseph?

What were God-s instructions to Joseph for the Babe’s protection?

When did Joseph put into effect God’s plan for the escape?

How long did the family remain in the foreign country?

What was apparently God’s provision for the sojourn in that country?

Who said, Out of Egypt did I call My Son, and where is this quotation originally located? What is meant by the original quotation as viewed in light of the second?

What was the reaction of Herod when his plan was frustrated? Is this what might have been expected of the man from what is known of him from other historical notices?

Which prophet wrote the words: A voice was heard in Ramah. ? To what event did he refer? How is it possible for Matthew to cite these words with reference to the slaughter of the infants?

Where did Joseph apparently think of settling as he brought the family back into Palestine?

10. Who now ruled in the province of Judea? In the province of Galilee?

11. What is known of the city of Nazareth?

12. List all the facts since Jesus-’ birth that secured His safety during those critical months.

13. Why should Jesus be called a Nazarene, when He was born in Bethlehem?

14. In what sense can it be said that His being called a Nazarene was predicted by the prophets? What prophets predicted this?

15. Luke 2:39 says, And when they had accomplished all things that were according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. But, Matthew tells this long, involved story of the wise-men, the slaughter of infants, the flight into Egypt and return to Israel, all of which must be inserted between the presentation of the Baby Jesus in the temple and return to Nazareth. How is it possible that Luke should have ignored such a thrilling story if it is true? It is possible that Matthew could have invented that gruesome story? How could both writers be telling the truth?

16. List several reasons why Josephus, our most important, secular Jewish historian, would probably not have recorded the coming of the wise-men to Herod, the excitement of Jerusalem and the slaughter of the infants, even if he had known about these events.

17. List all the miracles or apparently miraculous details that are connected with the birth of Jesus.

18. List all the names and titles applied to Jesus in these early Chapter s: Matthew 1:3; Mark 1; Luke 1:3; John 1.

19. List the facts and problems connected with the date of Jesus- Birth. Prove as well as you can the date of His birth.

20. List all the prophecies fulfilled in the incidents connected with the early years of Jesus, as stated by Matthew.

21. Tell why the fulfilment of such prophecies is so significant to the Jews.

22. Explain how this historic fulfilment of prophecies lends support to a belief in the inspiration of the OT which contains them,

23. Discuss the childhood and youth of Jesus: tell all we know about it and what we may reasonably suppose.