Matthew 1:18-2:23 (2) Matthew 2: The Setting

Mt.2:1 sets the time, the place, and the players for the second part of Matthew’s birth story.

-time: “after Jesus was born”

-place: “Bethlehem of Judea”

-players: King Herod, the child Jesus, the magi

Contrary to every Christmas pageant you may have seen, the magi (“wise men”) do not show up at Jesus birth but some time after (often two years later is postulated but that is not important to Matthew’s story).

Herod was king of Judea at the time (till 4 b.c.; so we know Jesus was born before then and not in 1 a.d.) and has a nasty reputation which, though perhaps one-sided, it seems he earned. “While Herod was cruel and vindictive, perhaps even paranoid, in his dealings with his family, he played a crucial role in improving the lot of Jews during his long reign (40-4 b.c.e.).”[1]

The magi are probably astrologers since they are portrayed as followers of a star to the Christ-child. Among the intelligentsia of the pagan world, they seek out the child to worship him while the “learned” among Israel aid Herod in seeking out the child to dispose of him.

Herod and the magi’s dealings wind through this account and serve finally to keep the reader’s attention focused on Jesus. And Matthew designates which “side” each of these groups stands on by having the magi search for the “king of the Jews (v.2) while Herod, while recognizing they are searching for the “Messiah,” calls him the “child” (v.8). Matthew has already revealed that Jesus presents an identity crisis for Israel in is call for them to repent and become Abrahamic or remain simply a geo-political entity destined to fall foul of the mighty Romans within another generation. The first evangelist continues to bore down on this identity crisis in this section of his birth narrative.

“Out of Egypt I Have Called my Son” (1:15)

Matthew’s use of this statement (not prophecy) in one his fulfillment sayings as a fulfilled prophecy has occasioned much comment. Some around it’s not being a prophesy and why Matthew used it as one and some on the sense that it seems out of place where it should be if it means what it appears to mean.

To the first concern, Daniel Kirk has made a compelling case for what I would call a narrative typological reading of Matthew. Sometimes typology has been used to illustrate or even prove points of doctrine or theology. But he argues instead

“. . . that we come closer to conceptualising Matthew's understanding of fulfilment if we think of it in terms of the first definition of πληρόω: to make (something) full. The law and the prophets provide the true 'shape' of what it looks like to be Israel: they plot the past, present and future of the people of God. To shift metaphors from narrative to pottery: the life of Jesus, like water filling up a sculpted vase, takes the shape of true Israel while at the same time giving new substance to Israel's prophets, and even to Israel's laws. Old Testament words apply to Jesus in ways that differ from the meaning they held in their original contexts, while maintaining a degree of similarity between the events of Jesus' life and the original event spoken of or prophesied. The narrative perspective allows us to see that Jesus did not simply come to embody principles or even fulfil prophetic predictions, but to take the story of Israel to himself, over the course of his life and ministry on earth, until such a time as the story of Jesus overflows the story of Israel and goes to all the earth (28:16-20). To push the vase metaphor just one step further, it allows us to see how Matthew can make strong claims about the necessity of following Jesus for maintaining fidelity both to God and to the scriptures of Israel: Jesus is himself the necessary, life-giving substance that the OT does not hold without him . . . The proposal outlined here allows Matthew's readers to respect the dissonance between the meaning of words and phrases between Matthew and his sources while at the same time appreciating Matthew's transformation of them as he applies them to the life of Jesus.”[2]

Just so, I think. When we discussed the virgin birth above, instead of pressing it to document or prove Jesus’ virginal conception, whose possibility was never at issue for Jews or Jewish-Christians, a narrative typological reading akin to what Kirk suggests points us in a different direction for its significance. It does not deny or advocate for a biological reality. It assumes it but draws out its significance for the nation and its life with God. Even if a reader today wonders about or rejects the possibility or reality of a biological virginal conception it is possible for them to still follow Matthew’s trajectory of allowing the Old Testament significance of virginity as we did above without having to focus on their philosophical or scientific scruples about it.

Kirk’s emphasis on these prophetic fulfillment sayings “making something full” and thus filling up “the true 'shape' of what it looks like to be Israel” and that “Old Testament words apply to Jesus in ways that differ from the meaning they held in their original contexts, while maintaining a degree of similarity between the events of Jesus' life and the original event spoken of or prophesied” allow us to interpret his use of “Out of Egypt I have called my son” in a different way than other approaches do.

Lying at the center of this second part of Matthew’s birth narrative, this quotation from Hosea on the face of it should come later after the Jeremiah prophecy about Ramah in v.18. That is when Joseph gets the dream okaying the family’s return to Israel. It seems to make best sense there. Is it out of place? Or did Matthew intend it to anticipate the family’s return before it actually happened? Perhaps to separate it from the Ramah prophecy rather than placing them back to back? Some such explanation has to be put forward if we interpret the Hosea saying as a return from Egypt to Israel.

But remember the historical context for Jesus’ ministry. He came to confront Israel with a decision about whether it would truly be Israel or not. If not God would judge it by the Romans as an unbelieving pagan nation. And we can read Matthew’s placing of the Hosea fulfillment statement where it is his way of indicating that unbelieving Israel has become an Egypt with Herod its Pharaoh out of which God took his people until this “Pharaoh” was dead. Leithart concurs, “Matthew’s fulfillments turn on reversals and puns. Jesus fulfills Hosea 11:1, but Israel has become Egypt.”[3] By noting that Joseph’s family left for Egypt “by night” (v.14) Matthew strengthens his claim that Israel has become Egypt since the people also left Egypt by night in the exodus.

“A voice was heard in Ramah” (Jer.31:15)

Jilted by the dream-warned magi a furious Herod undertakes a Pharaoh-like pogrom against children two years-old and under around Bethlehem (v.16). Here we see another aspect of New Testament writers’ use of the Old Testament. Often, most of the time probably, when these writers cite the Old Testament they refer not just to the verse cited but to the entire context of the passage cited. They knew their Old Testament far better than we do! Here Matthew quotes from Jer.31 a verse apropos of Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents.” But, as Leithart notes,

“Matthew quotes the gloomiest verse in the entire chapter. It alludes to the story of Rachel’s death near Bethlehem, and it applies this to the exile. He imagines Rachel watching her children streaming away from the land into exile, lamenting and mourning for the children who are going to the Babylonian grave, who ’are no more.’ Though he quotes this gloomiest verse, he intends his readers to bring the entire chapter to mind. He wants to show that the end of exile only occurs through exile, the pleasant salvation that he prophesies about is only going to come through the shedding of blood . . . The sequence from slaughter to salvation is part of God’s purpose. Redemption comes through sorrow, and the Lord calls children who “are not” (Matthew 2:18) back to life.”[4]

“He will be called a Nazarene”

Here we see yet another feature of the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament. Joseph has brought his family back to the land in obedience to instruction from a dream. Herod is indeed gone but his son Archelaus now rules. He was as cruel and unstable as his father and his mother was a Samaritan to boot! Nothing to commend him to the Jews he ruled over there.

Another dream warns Joseph not to settle near his reach so he takes his family to live in Nazareth of Galilee, a small out of the way town far from Jerusalem. Matthew claims this is a fulfillment of scriptural prophecy: “He will be called a Nazarene.”

The only problem is that there is no Old Testament passage that says that. Did Matthew err? No, actually he didn’t. He says this citation is from the “prophets” in the plural not a particular prophet. Matthew is summarizing a more general scriptural teaching.

And what might that be? This teaching is about the Messiah and is based on a multiple pun.[5]

-Nazirites (Num.16) were “holy” warriors, so to the Messiah.

- The Hebrew word for “branch” is netzer, a name for the Davidic Messiah (Isa.4:2; Jer.23:5; Zec.3:6; 6:12).

- Jesus’ hometown reveals Him as the Davidic “branch,” which grows from the dead stump of Jesse. This Branch is a Spirit-bearer exhibiting central gifts of the Spirit (Isa.11:1).

-Finally, “’Branch’ and ‘holy one’ come together in Isaiah 4:3, in a context that describes Israel’s restoration after exile. The Branch from David is going to be the Holy Warrior of Yahweh, who is going to bring Israel from exile and into the redemption.”[6]

In effect, Matthew unveils his view of Christ (the “Messiah) in this summarizing citation from the “prophets.”

“The Star”

Another one of those features one can’t avoid commenting on is the “star” that guided the magi to Jesus’ home. Again, many have guessed about what astral phenomena this might be or denied the possibility of any such, casting doubt on the reliability of the account. Leithart, as we might suspect, has a typological understanding that focuses on the meaning such a description might evoke in Jewish ears rather than a literal description. He suggests,

“Stars cannot stand above houses. What they see in the sky and what leads them, is the glory-cloud. It is star-like, but not a literal star. The magi follow the star just as Israel had followed the pillar of cloud and fire from Egypt. They travel from the east and enter the land from the east, just as Israel did. They come into the land to worship the true king of the land, Jesus. In other words, the magi are not merely Gentile God-fearers, but the beginning of a new Israel, which is going to consist of Jews and Gentiles. They are the true Israel, the firstfruits of the Gentiles.”[7]

Makes pretty good sense to me. You?

---

[1] Peter Richardson, “Herod,” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible.

[2] J. R. Daniel Kirk. “Conceptualizing Fulfillment in Matthew,” Tyndale Bulletin 59 (2008), 97-98.

[3] Peter Leithart, “Notes on Matthew 2,” https://www.patheos.com/blogs/leithart/2007/06/notes-on-matthew/.

[4] Peter J. Leithart, The Gospel of Matthew Through New Eyes Volume One: Jesus as Israel (Athansius Press. Kindle Edition): 1041-1045.

[5] Leithart, The Gospel of Matthew: 1060.

[6] Leithart, The Gospel of Matthew: 1064.

[7] Leithart, The Gospel of Matthew, 948.