I. The Birth And Infancy Of Jesus, 1:1–2:23
I. THE BIRTH AND INFANCY OF JESUS, 1:1–2:23
The opening to this Gospel1 is quite different from that of any of the others. Its prologue is the shortest of the four, except for that of Mark. Indeed, it is best regarded as no more than a heading. Immediately and without further discussion the narrative launches into the genealogy of Jesus.
1The book of the story of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
1. Matthew has his own way of beginning a Gospel: none of the other Evangelists begins like this. His opening word is the normal word for “book,”2 though BAGD notes that in later writings it was especially used of a “sacred, venerable book,” which thus makes it very suitable for the kind of book that Matthew was writing. That lexicon does not note its use for anything other than a book of some sort, which makes it unlikely that we should take Matthew to be referring to a short section such as the nativity stories. The word I have translated story3 is difficult. The term is used of birth or origin or existence, but none of these meanings is easy to see in the present passage. There is evidence that the word was already used as the title of the first book of the Old Testament in LXX,4 and it may well be that Matthew used it as the title of the book in which he would write about the new genesis, the new creation in Jesus Christ. The two opening words are combined elsewhere in Scripture only twice. In Genesis 2:4 the combination seems clearly to be used as the heading for the history that follows, and that seems the best way to take it also in Genesis 5:1. These examples may well give us the clue to its meaning here. The expression is best seen as the heading for the whole Gospel. It has usually been regarded as simply introducing the genealogy, but it would be curious to have a heading for the first half chapter and not one for the book as a whole.5 Zahn was surely right when he saw the meaning as “Book of the History of Jesus Christ.”6 Beare thinks that the expression was intended to be “the title of the entire Gospel,” and he says that it conveys the thought “that this will be the story of the New Creation.”
Matthew is saying, then, that his book is the story of Jesus Christ. He does not use the full name Jesus Christ very often; indeed, this is the only place where it certainly occurs in this Gospel (it is read by many MSS in v. 18 and 16:21, but in each case omitted by others). Matthew probably saw it as appropriate in the heading of his book. His normal custom is to use the personal name Jesus,7 which he does 150 times (Mark has this name 81 times, Luke 89, and John 237). We should perhaps notice that he uses the term only in narrative; no one in this Gospel addresses Jesus by his name. Matthew uses Christ only 17 times (Mark 7, Luke 12, and John 19). The word is, of course, a title; it means “anointed” and is the Greek way of referring to “Messiah.” The title was used so often by Christians that in time it came to be a proper name, but Matthew’s sparing use of it probably reflects the fact that this was not the case in Jesus’ lifetime.8 It surely has messianic significance in the way this Evangelist uses it. Normally he has the definite article with the name Jesus, but its omission here in the heading to the book should not unduly surprise us (he omits the article with this name in all 19 times).
He goes on to speak of Jesus as the son of David;9 he was of royal descent. Matthew uses the name of the great king 17 times, which is more than in any other book of the New Testament (next is Luke with 13). The expression “son of David” is probably a messianic title.10 David was the greatest of the kings of Israel. Since he was a mighty warrior, the title would have pointed to a conquering Messiah, one who would destroy the enemies of Israel and establish God’s kingdom with its capital at Jerusalem. It may well be that its militaristic associations account for the sparing use of the title among the Christians. To have made it central would have been to invite misunderstanding among those who dwelt on David’s military feats. Matthew has son of David 9 times (one referring to Joseph, 1:20; Mark and Luke each have it 3 times, and no other New Testament writer uses it). Its use here shows that Matthew plans to bring out what is meant by the Davidic Messiah. Interestingly, he uses it most frequently when people are appealing to Jesus for help (9:27; 15:22; 20:30–31). But it also appears in the story of the triumphal entry (21:9, 15), indicating that Matthew is not unaware of the royal associations of the term. His book is to be about one who fulfilled all that is meant in being the descendant of Israel’s greatest king.11
Jesus was also the son of Abraham, “to whom the divine promises were first given and with whom ‘sacred history’ may be said to have begun” (Tasker). It was Abraham with whom God made the covenant that set Israel apart in a special sense as the people of God (Gen. 12:2–3; 15:17–21; 17:1–14). All Israelites took pride in being descendants of the great patriarch, and the Christians were especially fond of him as the classic example of one who believed (Paul brings this out particularly in Romans). His Hebrew name means “father of a multitude” (Gen. 17:5), and it had been prophesied that all nations would be blessed through him (Gen. 12:3).12 We find the idea of a universal blessing at the end of this Gospel as well as at the beginning (28:19). In combining David and Abraham Matthew is drawing attention to two strands in Jesus’ Hebrew ancestry and implying that he fulfilled all that would be expected in a Messiah with such connections.
A. The Genealogy of Jesus, 1:2–17
2Abraham fathered Isaac, and Isaac fathered Jacob, and Jacob fathered Judas and his brothers, 3and Judas fathered Phares and Zara from Thamar, and Phares fathered Esrom, and Esrom fathered Aram, 4and Aram fathered Aminadab, and Aminadab fathered Naasson, and Naasson fathered Salmon, 5and Salmon fathered Boes from Rachab, and Boes fathered Jobed from Ruth, and Jobed fathered Jessai, 6and Jessai fathered David the king.
And David fathered Solomon from the wife of Ourias, 7and Solomon fathered Roboam, and Roboam fathered Abia, and Abia fathered Asaph, 8and Asaph fathered Josaphat, and Josaphat fathered Joram, and Joram fathered Ozias, 9and Ozias fathered Joatham, and Joatham fathered Achaz, and Achaz fathered Ezekias, 10and Ezekias fathered Manasses, and Manasses fathered Amos, and Amos fathered Josias, 11and Josias fathered Jechonias and his brothers at the removal to Babylon.
12And after the removal to Babylon Jechonias fathered Salathiel, and Salathiel fathered Zorobabel, 13and Zorobabel fathered Abioud, and Abioud fathered Eliakim, and Eliakim fathered Azor, 14and Azor fathered Sadok, and Sadok fathered Achim, and Achim fathered Elioud, 15and Elioud fathered Eleazar, and Eleazar fathered Matthan, and Matthan fathered Jacob, 16and Jacob fathered Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was fathered Jesus who is called Christ.
17All the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the removal to Babylon were fourteen generations, and from the removal to Babylon to the Christ were fourteen generations.
Matthew begins with a genealogy. This seems to us a strange way to begin a book, but the Jews were very interested in records of descent. There are many examples of this in the Old Testament, the early chapters of 1 Chronicles forming a notable example (Matthew’s genealogy seems to depend on 1 Chronicles 1–3, with a little help from Ruth 4; from Zerubbabel on the source is unknown—perhaps it was a family record). Nearer to New Testament times Josephus begins his autobiography by tracing the names of his ancestors, whom, he says, “I cite as I find it recorded in the public registers” (Life 1); his reference to the “public registers” is significant and points to widespread interest. Jesus’ genealogy shows that he is of royal descent.
Matthew takes his genealogy back no farther than Abraham (Luke goes back to Adam). From Abraham to David the genealogy is much the same as in Luke, though, of course, the two arrange the names differently: Luke goes from son to father and Matthew from father to son. The striking differences in the genealogies from David on present a difficult problem. Some commentators suggest that Matthew gives us the genealogy of Joseph (the legal father) and Luke that of Mary (the actual line). This is unlikely, for genealogies were not reckoned through the mother (though, of course, we must reckon with the fact that we have no information about what would happen when there was no human father). In any case Luke speaks of “Joseph the son of Eli” (Luke 3:23), which certainly does not read as though he were giving Mary’s genealogy. Another supposition is that there had been a levirate marriage when Eli died childless; Jacob, with the same mother but a different father, married the widow, and Joseph was his son. This is ingenious, but it lacks evidence. The best suggestion is that Matthew’s list represents the legal descendants of David, those who would actually have reigned had the kingdom continued, while Luke gives the descendants of David in the line to which Joseph belonged.13 But we have no way of being certain.
A feature of Matthew’s genealogy is his arrangement, as he tells us, in three groups of fourteen (v. 17). The reason for this is not clear, but it must have been important because Matthew has to omit some names to get his numbers. His second group lacks Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah after Joatham (v. 9),14 and his third group has only thirteen (since it covers some 500 years, there have clearly been omissions).15 The omissions need not worry us since “father” might be used when speaking of any descendants and not only those in the immediate family (e.g., 3:9).16 As it stands the list certainly highlights Abraham the founder of the line, David the ideal king, and the exile to Babylon. The fourteens may come about through gematria, which takes the numbers signified by the letters as significant. Thus many interpreters point out that the numbers indicated by the letters of the Hebrew word for David add up to fourteen and detect an emphasis on the royal kingship which reaches its climax in Jesus. A less likely suggestion is that three times fourteen (= 6 x 7) means six weeks of people leading up to the age of the Messiah. Diétrich understands fourteen (2 x 7) as “the symbol of plenitude, of something complete.”
It is unusual, though not unexampled (see 1 Chron. 2:4; 3:5), to find names of women in a genealogy, but here we have four. In Jewish writings it is not uncommon to find four women singled out for special mention: Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah. But Matthew’s four—Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba—are probably all Gentiles; and since Ruth was a Moabitess, we should not overlook the fact that to the tenth generation a Moabite was not to be admitted to the congregation (Deut. 23:3). Three of the four are of morally dubious reputation. Matthew is surely saying that the gospel is for all people, not Jews only, and that the gospel is for sinners. It is a sinful world, and Matthew is writing about grace.17 Stendahl thinks the mention of these women is a preparation for the “holy irregularity” of the virgin birth.
The comparative disuse in modern times of the verb “beget” presents a problem in translation; Matthew’s verb denotes the action of the male parent, but the repetition of “begot” sounds strange today. NRSV and others render it “was the father of,” which refers to a state rather than an event. I have used the word “fathered,” which is not an ideal translation but gives us the general idea. Throughout the genealogy Matthew has the article with the names; this appears to have been a colloquial usage since it is neither the classical nor the normal New Testament custom (cf. BDF 260). He mostly uses the forms of names in LXX rather than those in the Hebrew and seems to depend largely on 1 Chronicles 2–3.
2–6. Matthew here employs the form Ἰαχώβ for Jacob, a form he uses for the father of Joseph in verses 15 and 16 and which elsewhere in the New Testament always denotes the patriarch.18 Judah’s brothers do not feature in the genealogy, but they are important in the Old Testament. And brotherhood is an important concept for Matthew (he has the word “brother” 39 times, the same number as in 1 Corinthians and the most in any book in the New Testament apart from Acts, which has it 57 times). Thamar is the first woman to be mentioned in the genealogy;19 this is curious not only because she was a woman but because the children were conceived out of wedlock. This is the first point at which the genealogy differs from that in Luke. There Esrom’s son is Arni, Arni’s son is Admin, and Admin’s son is Aminadab (Matthew omits Admin and agrees with Ruth 4:19–20). Only here do we find Rahab featured in David’s ancestry. This fact is not recorded elsewhere in Scripture, nor in other Jewish writings.20 And the information about Ruth is not found in Chronicles; it is recorded in Ruth 4:13–22. When he comes to David, Matthew adds the king; this is where kingship is attained in the line he is tracing. Now Matthew is very interested in kingship and uses the word “king” 22 times, more than any other book in the New Testament. He uses it in a variety of ways, referring to King Herod, the king in a parable, and the Son of man as King on Judgment Day. Here he is making it clear that there is royalty in Jesus’ line so that he is rightly called “King of the Jews” (2:2; 27:11, 29, 37, 42).
7–11. Problems arise in that the name of Jehoiakim is omitted and there is no mention of any brothers of Jeconiah (= Jehoiachin) in the Old Testament. But Matthew’s interest in brothers accounts for the inclusion of the reference even though we do not know where he got it (Ridderbos thinks that they were mentioned not because of their importance but because of their unimportance! It is that kind of genealogy). The second section of the genealogy concludes with the deportation to Babylon,21 a very significant happening in the history of the nation.
12–16. Had Jehoiakim been included, we would have had fourteen names in this third section, so the omission is curious.22 The genealogy concludes with Joseph, described as the husband of Mary but not as the father of Jesus. Matthew will tell us a little later that the child was conceived as a result of the activity of the Holy Spirit (v. 20).23 The passive form here is probably the “divine passive,” indicating an activity of God; it certainly points to something different from what precedes and it prepares us for the narrative of the virgin birth. That the virginal conception is in mind in the genealogy is probably another way of bringing out the truth that Jesus was the “son of David.”24 There is another passive in verse 20, and twice Matthew speaks of Jesus’ conception as due to the Holy Spirit (vv. 18, 20). He also cites prophecy to show the real significance of the child who was to be born (vv. 22–23); further, he tells us that Mary was a virgin (v. 23) and that Joseph had no sexual relations with her before the birth of Jesus (v. 25). All this combines to make it clear that Matthew is writing about the coming into the world not simply of another baby, but of the very Son of God.
17. Matthew explains what he is about by referring to his three groups of fourteen. Clearly the number is significant for him, but unfortunately he does not explain why. But the note of fulfilment is strong, and perhaps Marshall D. Johnson gives us the answer: “The function of the genealogy—the note of fulfillment—explains the lack of a precise and exact parallel with contemporary sources: the two genealogies of Jesus in the NT are the only extant Messianic genealogies which are written to prove that the Messiah has come.”25 We should perhaps bear in mind also the point made by L. Finkelstein that the number fourteen was regarded as significant in contemporary Judaism. He says, “The number, ‘fourteen’, is not accidental. It corresponds to the number of high priests from Aaron to the establishment of Solomon’s Temple; the number of high priests from the establishment of the Temple until Jaddua, the last high priest mentioned in Scripture. It is clear that a mystic significance attached to this number, in both the Sadducean and the Pharisaic traditions.”26 Matthew would have been aware of this and may be producing an argument that would impress Jews.
B. The Birth of Jesus, 1:18–25
18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was like this. Mary his mother was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together she was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. 19And Joseph her husband, being a just man and not wishing to expose her publicly, decided to divorce her secretly. 20But when he had made up his mind to do this, look, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, don’t be afraid to take Mary your wife, for what has been conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you will call his name Jesus; for he will save his people from their sins.” 22Now all this happened so that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23“Look, the virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call his name ‘Emmanuel,’ which means, ‘God with us.’ ” 24And Joseph, when he had awakened from his sleep, did as the Lord’s angel directed and took his wife; 25and he had no intercourse with her until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph rather than that of Mary, as Luke does. Luke accordingly has such stories as the appearance of the angel to Mary, but Matthew simply says that Mary became pregnant due to an activity of the Holy Spirit and goes on to tell his readers what Joseph did. It would have been expected that he would have divorced Mary, but an angelic visitor told him not to do so. Matthew tells us how Joseph obeyed the angel. Matthew’s account is clearly quite independent of that of Luke, but it emphasizes equally the virgin birth.27 We should notice (a) the emphasis on the place of Joseph, (b) the important place of divine guidance given in dreams, and (c) the repeated references to the fulfilment of prophecy.
18. Matthew has a kind of subheading to let the reader know that he will now tell us about the birth28 of Jesus Christ (see on v. 1; this seems to be the probable reading, though some MSS have “Jesus” or “Christ”). The formal name and title are suited to the opening of the narrative proper, and the unusual use of the article points back to the Jesus Christ already referred to.29 He does not tell the reader who Joseph and Mary were; evidently he can presume that they will know this. Similarly, he does not speak explicitly of the virginal conception; that, too, he evidently presumes is known. The word I have translated engaged30 indicates a firm commitment, normally undertaken a year before marriage. During that year the girl remained with her own family, but the tie established was a strong one and was really the first part of marriage. A betrothed woman could be punished as an adulteress (Deut. 22:23–24; the punishment of “a virgin who is not betrothed” was different, vv. 28–29). The second part took place when the man took the woman to his home (cf. v. 20; cf. also 25:1–13). That Mary became pregnant before they came together31 was thus very serious, as Joseph’s attitude makes clear. Some translations read “she found out” (GNB, REB), but the passive more likely refers to Joseph’s becoming aware of the situation. The whole story is written from his point of view. But before speaking of Joseph’s attitude Matthew explains that the pregnancy was due to an activity of the Holy Spirit. He speaks with reverent reserve and says no more.32 The Spirit is called “Holy,” an adjective not applied to him in Philo or Josephus (so BAGD, 5c). The idea that the Spirit is holy is distinctively Christian. Matthew often has the expression without the article (as here).33
19. Joseph, Mary’s husband,34 is called just, which probably means that he was careful in his observance of the law.35 The passage that covered the situation was that of the betrothed woman who has had sexual intercourse (Deut. 22:23–27). Where the woman is a consenting partner, both are to be put to death (vv. 23–24); where she has been violated, only the guilty man is to be executed (vv. 25–27). But the violation has taken place: the girl is no longer a virgin. Angelo Tosato cites evidence that she is no longer eligible to be married to her betrothed; she must be given a bill of divorce.36 Joseph, being just, saw that he was unable to consummate the marriage, but he did not want37 to be harsh. Perhaps we should say that for Joseph being just before God included an element of mercy (the “just man” is compassionate, Ps. 37:21). Probably also he preferred to act in a way that would avoid an open scandal. He could have made a public display of his indignation by taking Mary before the law court and making an example of her.38 But his concern for the law did not lead him to the conclusion that he must humiliate the young lady who, he thought, had offended. He preferred to divorce her secretly. Divorce was no great problem for an Israelite man: he simply had to give the lady “a bill of divorce” before two witnesses and send her away (the procedure is given in Deut. 24:1).39
20. But40 he did not go through with it. He gave the matter thought, and the aorist indicates that he apparently came to a conclusion: he had made up his mind41 (despite GNB, “While he was thinking about this”). Look is a favorite interjection of Matthew’s (62 times out of 200 in the NT); it enlivens a narrative and makes what follows more vivid. An angel appeared. The word means a messenger: occasionally in the New Testament it is used of a human messenger (Luke 7:24), but more often it refers to a messenger from God, as is made clear here by the addition of the Lord. Curiously, when it is used in the singular in the New Testament it almost always lacks the article, as here (though cf. v. 24), but the plural form “the angels of God” invariably has it except in one quotation from the Old Testament (in Heb. 1:6). Matthew specifies that this angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, an expression used 6 times by Matthew and by no one else in the New Testament.42 Nothing is said about the appearance of the angel or anything he did; attention is concentrated on his message. He addresses Joseph as son of David, an expression used of Jesus in verse 1 (where see note). The expression is one of dignity, and Matthew perhaps records it as emphasizing the royal line of Jesus. Don’t be afraid does not necessarily indicate fear; the word may be used in the sense “shrink from doing something,” and it is this sense that is required here (cf. BAGD, φοβέω, 1.c). We might have expected the present, giving the sense “Stop being afraid,” but the aorist may give the sense “Never fear.”43 Take is used of receiving one’s wife into one’s home a number of times (BAGD), and this is obviously the meaning. Notice that Mary is called Joseph’s wife. Davies and Allison observe that throughout chapters 1 and 2 “It is Joseph who does what needs to be done.” They think that this can be explained “by a christological interest: by his actions, Joseph, the Davidid, proves that he has made Jesus his own.” The angel gives a reason44 for Joseph’s reception of Mary: the Holy Spirit has brought about the conception. The verb is that normally used of the action of the male parent (= “that which was begotten”), but it is sometimes used of the female, so that there is nothing very unusual about the expression. For Holy Spirit see on verse 18.
21. Mary’s child45 will be a son, and Joseph is instructed to call his name Jesus. This is a Hebraic construction; it would have been possible to say simply, “call him —.” By giving the name Joseph officially accepted the child (cf. “I have called you by name, you are mine,” Isa. 43:1); this gave the child the status of a descendant of David.46 On this occasion the name is not to be left to the discretion of the parent, for this child is special and has a destiny that is to be expressed in the meaning of the name. So the angel goes on to say, he (the word is emphatic: “He and no other”) will save his people from their sins (cf. Ps. 130:8). The word save may mean deliver from troubles and afflictions of various kinds, but the addition here shows that what is in mind is the salvation that reckons with the plight in which people involve themselves by their evil deeds.47 People48 may be used of the populace generally, but it is often used more specifically of the people of God, and this in the sense of ancient Israel or of Christians. Matthew does not use the word “sin”49 very often (7 times), but the expression here shows that he regarded it as an important concept. Jesus came to deal with sins, and his name gives expression to a very significant truth. Barclay aptly says, “Jesus was not so much The Man born to be King, as He was The Man born to be Saviour.” We should not miss the point that the note of grace is struck so early in this Gospel. The impression is sometimes given that Matthew stresses upright living whereas Paul speaks of saving grace. It is true that these two writers have their own emphases, and we should not interpret either as though he were setting forth the other’s thoughts. But neither should we overlook the fact that all the New Testament writers refer to the same Savior. And all stress the importance of grace. Matthew will later return to the idea that Jesus brings forgiveness (e.g., 20:28; 26:28).
22. It is characteristic of Matthew to appeal to prophecy and to see in it a fulfilment of what God had said long ago. All50 this, he says, happened so that51 prophecy would be fulfilled. This formula, when appealing to the fulfilment of prophecy, is found again (sometimes with small variations) in 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:56; 27:9.
Matthew is very interested in the way the ancient prophecies found their fulfilment in Jesus. But though the formula is common in Matthew, the inclusion of all is not (again in 26:56); here Matthew emphasizes that all the items mentioned were fulfilled and not only some of them. Notice that he speaks of the words in question not as spoken by the prophet, but as spoken by the Lord through the prophet. Matthew takes inspired prophecy very seriously.52
23. The prophecy comes from Isaiah 7:14 and is exactly as in LXX, except that the verb call is plural in place of Isaiah’s singular. For Look see on verse 20. The definite article points to a particular virgin.53 The point of the plural is not obvious; it may be a way of linking both parents in the giving of the name, or perhaps of associating other people with this. Emmanuel is found here only and is the transliteration of the Hebrew word meaning God with us, as Matthew goes on to explain.54 As far as our information goes, nobody ever called Jesus “Emmanuel”; it was not the child’s name in the same sense as “Jesus” was. Matthew surely intends his readers to understand that “Emmanuel” was his name in the sense that all that was involved in that name found its fulfilment in him.55 The quotation and the translation of the Hebrew name underline the fact that in Jesus none less than God came right where we are. And at the end of this Gospel there is the promise that Jesus will be with his people to the end of the age (28:20)—God with us indeed.
24. In due course Joseph woke up and did what the angel told him to do. Angel has the definite article (unusually; see on v. 20), which signifies “the aforementioned angel.” Matthew picks out the central part of the angelic command: Joseph took his wife, that is, publicly accepted Mary as his wife.
25. But though he married Mary, they had no sexual relations56 before the birth of the son. Until is a Matthean word;57 the passage makes it clear that there was no sexual intercourse before the birth of the baby. It does not say whether or not this took place thereafter, but the natural way of taking the passage would indicate that it did (Allen holds that the imperfect tense here “is against the tradition of perpetual virginity”). It is also true that in both Old and New Testaments such intercourse is approved and viewed as an integral part of marriage (Gen. 1:28; 9:1; Prov. 5:18; 1 Cor. 7:3–5). The singular called almost certainly means “Joseph called” (though grammatically the subject of the verb might be “she”). The story is told throughout from his point of view; thus it is natural that it concludes with him naming the child Jesus. His naming of the child means that he adopted him legally.
Matthew 2
C. The Infant Jesus, 2:1–23
Matthew’s infancy stories are quite different from those of Luke and are peculiar to this Gospel. Matthew tells of the visit of Magi from the East, the flight of the holy family into Egypt, and Herod’s slaughter of the children of Bethlehem. He is clearly interested in the divine protection of the child Jesus, and his stories bring out the truth that God works his will despite the opposition of sinful people.
1. The Visit of the Magi, 2:1–12
1When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, see, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2saying, “Where is he who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw his star at its rising and we have come to worship him.” 3Now when King Herod heard this he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4And he gathered all the high priests and scribes of the people and inquired of them, “Where is the Messiah to be born?” 5And they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written through the prophet:
6‘And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah,
are by no means least among the leaders of Judah;
for out of you will go forth a leader
who will shepherd my people Israel.’ ”
7Then Herod secretly called the wise men and ascertained from them exactly the time when the star appeared. 8And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go, search diligently for the little child; and when you have found him tell me, so that I, too, may come and worship him. 9And when they had heard the king, they went on their way and, look, the star that they had seen at its rising went before them until it came and stood over the place where the little child was. 10And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy. 11And when they had come into the house, they saw the little child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him, and they opened their treasures and offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they went back to their own country by another way.
Many scholars have declined to see anything historical in this chapter. They point to the fact that all kinds of legends were in circulation about the infant Moses and that while the heyday of such legends came later, Josephus is evidence that wonderful stories about Moses were in circulation at this time (Ant. 2.205-7, 215–16). These scholars suggest that the author of this Gospel, moved by such stories, is manufacturing tales to bring out the greatness of Jesus.1 Matthew is simply concerned to improve on previous models (“anything they can do we can do better”!). Others hold that the Old Testament quotations in the chapter form the clue to what went on. They think that there was a collection of testimonia circulating in the early church, passages taken from the Old Testament to show that Jesus was the Messiah and that everything in his life was done in accordance with the plan of God. The author of this Gospel, they hold, started from such a collection and manufactured fulfilments of prophecy in the birth at Bethlehem, importantly in the place of Gentiles from the first, and in general improving on the Moses stories.
Clearly there is a large subjective element in such reconstructions. That there were stories about Moses does not require us to think that a writer about Jesus would manufacture similar stories (and anyway, apart from the protection of the child, the resemblances are minor). We may agree with some scholars that Matthew regards Moses as in some respects a “type” of Christ, but we can scarcely say more. The existence of testimonia, while held by many, is far from certain. And even if they did exist, we have no evidence that the writer of this Gospel used them as a basis for composing stories about Jesus. It is much more probable that he started from what he knew had happened (the account of the visit of the Magi “has on the face of it all the elements of historical probability,” AB)2 and brought forward passages from Scripture to show that all was in accordance with prophecy than that the prophecy led to the creation of beautiful stories that lacked factual foundation.3
Matthew may well have included this story to bring out the truth that Jesus is Lord of all peoples; since this is so, it was appropriate that at the time of his infancy people came from a distant Gentile country to pay their homage. In this narrative the Jews and their king are ranged against the infant Jesus, but Gentiles do him homage.4 There will also be the motif that the purposes of God cannot be overthrown. Earthly kings like Herod may try to circumvent the divine purpose, but in the end they are always defeated. And, of course, there is the strong motif of the fulfilment of Scripture; Matthew finds events in the life of Jesus from the earliest days foretold in the holy writings.
1. When Jesus was born indicates that this narrative took place after the birth of Jesus, but Matthew does not say how long after. When he was telling us about Jesus’ birth Matthew did not say where it took place, but he now informs his readers that it was at Bethlehem of Judea. This distinguishes it from another Bethlehem in Galilee (Josh. 19:15), and more importantly directs attention to the fact that it was the royal city, the place where the great David was born. This is part of the way Matthew indicates Jesus’ messiahship. The location was not important for what he had to say in chapter 1 (in the birth story he does not say where Jesus was born), but it matters a great deal for what comes before us now. The name Bethlehem means “House of Bread,” that is, a granary. Matthew speaks of Bethlehem 5 times, but Luke (twice) and John (once) are the only other New Testament writers to refer to it. It was evidently not considered an important place. It was located about 5 miles (or 8 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. Judea, here as in most places, indicates the southern part of Palestine (in contrast to Samaria, etc.); it can mean the region occupied by the Jewish nation (Luke 1:5), and it may be used in such a way as to include territory on the east of the Jordan (19:1).
In addition to the information about the place we have a general indication of time: in the days of Herod the king. This Herod is Herod the Great, and he is correctly called “the king” (the title was sometimes accorded the tetrarch, but he was not a king; this Herod was). He was not a Jew, his father being an Idumean and his mother an Arabian, but the Romans made him King of Judea in 40 B.C. He is generally thought to have died in 4 B.C. (there is some dispute about this).5 He was an unscrupulous tyrant, but his achievements were such that he merited the epithet “the Great.” He was a great builder and was responsible for the erection of the temple in Jerusalem, the rebuilding of Samaria (which he called Sebaste in honor of the emperor), and other significant works. And, in the words of Barclay, “He was the only ruler of Palestine who ever succeeded in keeping the peace and in bringing order into disorder.”
Wise men6 are not people endowed with wisdom in general, but students of the stars: “a (Persian … then also Babylonian) wise man and priest, who was expert in astrology, interpretation of dreams and various other secret arts” (BAGD). REB renders the term “astrologers.” From the East7 is very general; many interpreters hold that these wise men came from Babylon, and they may have done so, but we cannot be sure. Their study of the stars had led them to believe that a great leader had been born in Judea. That being so, they naturally directed their steps to Jerusalem,8 the capital city. These men would have been Gentiles, but Matthew gives this no emphasis. Tradition says that there were three of them, but Matthew gives no number and it appears to be a deduction from the number of the gifts. Tradition also makes them kings, but this is highly unlikely.
2. This sentence is the only utterance of the Magi that Matthew records. These wise men describe the leader they are looking for as King of the Jews (again in this Gospel at 27:11, 29, 37) and ask where he has been born. The words they use mean “born king,” not “born to be king,” as is often said;9 they are talking about what he is, not what he will be. They explain that they saw his star. Many attempts have been made to explain the phenomenon of the star, such as that there was a conjunction of planets or the explosion of a supernova or the appearance of a comet, but none carries conviction.10 What is clear is that the Magi reported some astronomical phenomenon that they had some way of linking with a particular king, the king of the Jews.11 But they do not say what the link was. It is not completely certain whether we should translate “at its rising” or “in the East,” but the expression here differs slightly from that in verse 112 and it appears that the wise men are telling of the astronomical feature that carried conviction to them rather than calling attention to the direction in which they saw it. They say that they have come to worship him, where the verb may indicate an act of reverence toward a great man or an act of worship of God.13 The Magi probably intended an act of homage, but Matthew may well be giving the expression its fullest meaning—the attitude of the Magi in the presence of the Baby was the attitude proper in the presence of God. The worship of the Christ was important to Matthew, and he refers to this worship 10 times (2:2, 8, 11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:9, 17).
3. “Having heard” is a participle indicating cause: “because he heard this, he was troubled.” Matthew does not say how Herod heard this, only that he did hear. But with such visitors no doubt reports were flying through Jerusalem, and it would be strange if some of Herod’s people did not pick up the news. There is an article with King Herod, perhaps to distance this king from “the King of the Jews.” Herod was troubled; he was an Edomite, not a Jew, and he had been made king by the Romans. The news that the Magi were bringing sounded suspiciously like the emergence of a genuine descendant of the royal line of David as a claimant to the throne (Glover points out that Herod was more interested in saving his throne than in saving his soul!). And if Herod was troubled, the whole14 city was troubled with him. When Herod the Great trembled the whole city shook.
4. The king proceeded to gather his experts. Matthew has more references to high priests (25) and to scribes (22) than has anyone else in the New Testament. There is a problem about the exact force of the term “high priest” because in a number of places, as here, we have the plural, whereas there was only one high priest, for the office was held for life. But the rulers sometimes deposed the legitimate high priest, and the title was then applied both to the man who had formerly exercised the office (and who in the opinion of many was the real high priest) and the one who currently filled the post. J. Jeremias has shown that the term was used also to cover a number of officials such as the captain of the temple, the leader of the weekly course of priests, those who had charge of financial affairs, and so on.15 It thus covered a group of important people. Our problem is that the extension of the term from the incumbent high priest, while clear, is never defined. “Scribe” might refer to a secretary or “clerk” but could also denote a scholar who had made a study of the law, and thus the meaning might be much like our “lawyer.” In Matthew the term “scribes” is linked with “high priests” on 5 occasions (again in 16:21; 20:18; 21:15; 27:41), and it is linked with “Pharisees” 6 times (5:20; 12:38; 15:1; 23:2, 13, 15; 7 times if 23:14 be accepted). Many of the scribes were Pharisees, which is natural enough, for both groups were zealous for the law, but not all Pharisees were scribes. The passages that link scribes with the high-priestly party warn us that we should not see too strong a link with the Pharisees. The Sadducean high-priestly party needed legal experts, and it is these who are in mind in this passage. Here the one article links them closely. All shows that Herod was being thorough; he did not content himself with asking one or two outstanding men. Of the people may indicate that the scribes had a closer connection with people at large than the high priests did. The verb for inquired is in the imperfect tense, which Turner thinks “means that he scarce expected his demand to be implemented. Tentative requests are often described in that tense.”16 The inquiry concerned the place where the Messiah (or the Christ) would be born. The article shows that the expression is used of an official title, while the present tense in the verb referring to something future puts some emphasis on the certainty that it will happen.
5. Herod’s experts came up with a speedy reply. This is interesting, for we read in John’s Gospel of an opinion that nobody knows where the Christ will come from (John 7:27).17 But such views were not found among Herod’s men; for them it was quite clear that Bethlehem was the place, and they were able to quote Scripture to make their point.18 They thus showed, as Ridderbos points out, that their failure to believe was not due to ignorance: “Israel knew precisely where the King of the Jews would be born, but it was the Gentiles who worshiped him first” (on v. 4). When they say that it was written through the prophet they are reasoning that God is the author of Scripture; the prophet was no more than his instrument. The reference is to Micah 5:2 (with the last line from 2 Sam. 5:2; 1 Chron. 11:2). It is interesting that, although they could say immediately where the Messiah would be born, they apparently did nothing about the report that the Magi brought. “They fail by being passive” (Filson).19
6. The Jewish leaders may have quoted these words from the prophet or, as Tasker thinks, they may be “an annotation by the evangelist himself” (the Jews would have kept closer to the Hebrew text). The quotation is not particularly close to either LXX or the Hebrew. For example, “land of Judah” replaces LXX “house of Ephratha,” while the Hebrew has “Bethlehem Ephratah.” But it preserves the sense.20 The last section, about shepherding the people, may come from 2 Samuel 5:2 or Micah 5:4. The city of Bethlehem is addressed and is then equated with land of Judah. Matthew uses land (γῆ) more often than anyone else in the New Testament except the author of Revelation, a total of 43 times. The word means “earth” and may be used of soil, ground, land, earth in contrast to heaven, or the inhabited globe. Here it is “land” in the sense of “territory.” By no means is not in the text of Micah that we know; therefore some interpreters suggest that Matthew has contradicted the prophet by inserting it. But if he did insert it, there is no real contradiction. The passage is saying that Bethlehem’s greatness consists only in that it is the birthplace of the great leader, and this is as plain in Micah as in Matthew. On the next section the translation is rather free, or else it presupposes a different Hebrew text. Our text refers to the leaders of Judah and goes on to a leader.21 The leader is not said to be the Messiah, but the one who22 was to shepherd the people certainly qualifies for the title. The verb may be used of the activities of a shepherd with a flock of animals (1 Cor. 9:7), but here the symbolic meaning emphasizes the care the leader would show as he looked after those he led.
7. Armed with this information,23 Herod summoned the Eastern sages. He wanted no undue publicity, so he called them secretly and found out from them exactly (“the exact date,” JB) when the star made its appearance. He does not say why he wanted this information, but to know the time when the star appeared would obviously give an indication of the age of this new King of the Jews.
8. Herod apparently shared with the Magi the information he had acquired about the birthplace of the Messiah, then despatched them to Bethlehem. He instructed them to search diligently24 for the baby, and when they had found him to let him know where the child was so that he could go along too and worship him. It must have rung true for the Magi; they had come so far to find the new king, and the old king gave evidence of sharing their enthusiasm and their pious purpose. There is some emphasis in his I: “I, as well as you.”25 He says that he intends26 to worship as they planned to do. The word for little child27 may be used of children of various ages, but mostly of the young (though in familiar address it can be used even of grown men, John 21:5). Here it clearly refers to a very small child. It is perhaps surprising that he did not send someone with the Magi. But soldiers would have been inappropriate, and he may have felt that anyone linked to him would raise problems for the search. He had no reason for thinking that the Magi would not report back.
9. When they28 heard this they set out. Matthew’s favorite look (see on 1:20) introduces a touch of vividness; he sees it as he writes. As they went on their way they saw the star again. It may be that they had given up looking for the star when they got to Jerusalem, feeling that their journey was over. But now they realized that they had still some distance to go, and once again they saw the star. We could understand the Greek to mean that the star was the one that they had seen “in the East,” but as in verse 2 it is more likely that Matthew is referring to the way the star appeared (at its rising) than to the place where they first saw it. It is not easy to understand how the star went before them nor how it stood over any one place here on earth. But Matthew is apparently saying that in some way the star kept going ahead of them until29 it came to the place where30 the baby was and that it then stood (still).
10. When the Magi “caught sight of the star,”31 they were more than a little joyful. It had been the star that had brought them to the land of Judea, and now that they were not sure of their destination within that land they were reassured by the evidence that the star was still leading them. Matthew’s expression indicates that when they saw their star again they were more than mildly pleased.32 “Deliriously happy” may be an overstatement, but it was something like that.
11. Matthew does not say that they journeyed on or that they followed the star. It was enough to say that the star appeared and went before them; it could be assumed that they followed it. Matthew resumes his story with their entry into the house.33 There they saw the little child and his mother (in each place in this passage where the two are mentioned the child comes first, vv. 13, 14, 20, 21; Matthew’s main interest is in Jesus). Interestingly Joseph is not mentioned, though in these opening chapters he takes a more prominent place than anywhere else in the New Testament. But it would be natural to mention the mother with the baby and perhaps not as natural to include the father. The Magi prostrated themselves before the baby in lowly worship. They proceeded to open their treasure chests34 and offer gifts (the verb is used of offering in general, but is especially frequent for sacrifices). Matthew specifies three gifts (from which some deduce that there were three Magi; legend has made them three kings (an idea which Bruce calls “beautiful but baseless”), and even given them names. The gifts were gold (which Matthew has in more than half its New Testament occurrences, 5 out of 9), frankincense (“a white resinous gum, obtained fr. several kinds of a certain tree in Arabia, used both medicinally and for cult purposes,” BAGD), and myrrh (“the resinous gum of the bush ‘balsamodendron myrrha,’ ” BAGD). Clearly all three were valuable, and together they formed a munificent gift, suitable for offering to a king. Christians have often seen symbolical meanings in them, gold for royalty, frankincense for deity, and myrrh pointing to suffering and death, but Matthew says nothing about this.
12. Warned is a verb used often to indicate a divine utterance, a revelation;35 here this divine command is given in a dream, as on a number of occasions in Matthew (see on 1:20). This time there is no mention of an angel. They were instructed not to go back to Herod. No reason for this is given, but the informed reader will know that Herod was a bloodthirsty and unreliable man, and more may well have been said to the Magi than Matthew records. At any rate we are informed that they were obedient and went back home by another way.
2. The Flight into Egypt, 2:13–15
13Now when they had gone away, look, an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Get up and take the little child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be there till I tell you; for Herod is going to look for the little child to destroy him.” 14So he got up, took the little child and his mother by night, and went away into Egypt. 15And he was there until Herod’s death, in order that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: “Out of Egypt I have called my son.”
Since there is no information about the flight into Egypt other than what we read here, some reject it. But there is nothing improbable about it. Throughout history many Jews had taken refuge in Egypt; it was almost a traditional country to which to flee when there was trouble in Palestine. There was a considerable Jewish minority in that land and, for example, there were as many as a million Jews in Alexandria and the country beyond.36
13. The Magi departed. With some vivid touches (Matthew’s characteristic look and the present tense in the verb) once again we have an angel appearing to Joseph; as before, he does so in a dream. Luke has angels appearing to Zechariah, to Mary, and to the shepherds, but there are no references to dreams. Matthew has an angel appearing in a dream several times (1:20; 2:13, 19), and when there is no angel he still speaks of divine communications taking place in dreams (1:12, 22; 27:19). Get up can refer to waking from sleep (cf. 1:24), but here it rather means getting up after one has awakened. Joseph is told to take the child and his mother (specified separately and, as elsewhere, the child mentioned first) and to seek safety in flight to Egypt. They are to stay there until37 they receive further orders from on high;38 a divine commandment would come to them in Egypt. For introduces the reason for the foregoing. Herod is going39 to make a search for the baby in order40 to kill him. Flight was imperative.
14. And flight was taken. Joseph’s actions in getting up and taking the child are described in the exact terms of the command given him (v. 13). Matthew adds that this happened by night. This probably means that Joseph acted immediately following the dream (the little family was evidently poor, there would not be a great deal involved in their preparations, and the dream would have conveyed a sense of urgency). Or it may possibly mean that he chose a time for their departure when they could leave unobserved. He went away41 to Egypt.
15. Joseph was there, which means that he remained in Egypt; he resided there for a time, until the death of Herod.42 Matthew puts some emphasis on the fulfilment of the divine purpose in his use of both the conjunction for “in order that” and his characteristic formula for introducing quotations from Scripture (for both see on 1:22). Matthew quotes from Hosea 11:1 with some variants from LXX. He uses the uncompounded form of the verb called,43 and he has my son (as the Hebrew does) where LXX has “his children” (which means that Matthew may be making his own translation from the Hebrew). But where Hosea is referring to the Exodus, Matthew is thinking of Jesus’ flight into Egypt.44 Consistently he sees Scripture as fulfilled in Jesus; thus the outworking of the divine purpose is accomplished in him. Carson points out that “The NT writers insist that the OT can be rightly interpreted only if the entire revelation is kept in perspective as it is historically unfolded.” He argues that there is a pattern in revelation and that “Jesus himself is the locus of true Israel.” In a kind of Israel-Jesus typology, what could be said of the old Israel could on occasion have its application to Jesus.45 In other words, the divine purpose runs through the whole of Scripture, and it all points in some way to the climax, the coming of Christ. This is the first time that Matthew speaks of Jesus as “Son” with reference to God. That Jesus is the Son of God is a very important concept for Matthew,46 and it is interesting that it makes its appearance so early.
3. The Killing of the Children of Bethlehem, 2:16–18
16Then Herod, when he had seen that he had been tricked by the wise men, was furiously angry, and he sent and killed all the boys in Bethlehem and in all the neighborhood two years of age and under in accordance with the time that he had carefully ascertained from the wise men. 17Then was fulfilled what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying:
18“A voice was heard in Ramah,
Weeping and great lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children,
And she would not be comforted,
Because they are no more.”
Some commentators have discounted the story of the slaughter of the children, partly because it is not attested elsewhere and partly because of the character of the narrative. It is felt that such a horrifying happening as this slaughter of little boys would be referred to elsewhere if it really happened. It may fairly be countered that Herod’s declining years were so full of bloodshed that an incident of this kind might well have gone unreported in our sources. Bethlehem was a small place and may well have had no more than twenty or so boys below the age of two years. With Herod’s ferocious killings this one may well not have attracted much notice. And we cannot reject a narrative simply because only one of the Evangelists records it.
16. For Matthew’s characteristic then see on verse 7; here it means “at that time.” Since Bethlehem is only about six miles from Jerusalem, Herod would have expected the Magi to be back with him within a day or two of his sending them on their way. Seen, of course, is used in the sense “perceived,” “came to know,” rather than of direct sight. It is not easy to find an adequate equivalent for the word I have rendered tricked; most of its New Testament occurrences are used for the mockery of Jesus after his arrest, and this is the only place in the New Testament where the sense is something like “deceive.” The verb for “make angry” is used here only in the New Testament, and it is strengthened with an adverb meaning “very much, exceedingly.”47 The combination signifies furious anger.
When the verb “send” is used with other verbs “it often means simply that the action in question has been performed by someone else, like … he had (them) killed.”48 The act of killing49 was performed by someone else; the responsibility belonged to Herod. He saw to it that all the boys up to two years of age were killed. This extreme reaction accords with what we know of Herod: “the cruelty of Herod had become proverbial even in Rome” (Stendahl). He had three of his own sons killed, and when he was himself near death he left orders that one member of each family should be executed on his death so that the whole nation would really be in mourning50 (the orders were not carried out). The word “boy” is used here with reference to age and signifies the very young; it can also refer to descent (son), to social position (servant), to religious standing (servant of God), and in other ways. Herod’s orders covered Bethlehem itself and all the neighborhood;51 he was taking no chances. The specification of two years of age and under corresponds to the time he had ascertained from the Magi, the time of the appearance of the star. Matthew repeats the verb he used in verse 7 for accurate inquiry. Clearly he wants his readers to be in no doubt that Herod had accurate knowledge of the time the star appeared.52 He was determined that no child within the area and the time frame indicated by the Magi would remain alive. We wonder that God would allow such cruelty and in the end cannot fully understand it. But we must remember, as Diétrich reminds us, “that the history of the People of God is all strewn with blood and tears. … The rage of man is unfurled upon the Elect of God. … Our own time has seen massacres equally shameless. The testimony of the evangelist is that God nonetheless pursues the purpose of salvation.”
17. Most of this verse repeats what was said in 1:22 (where see notes). The one new thing in the formula of quotation is the attribution of this prophecy to Jeremiah (in 1:22 the prophet is not named). Matthew will later tell us that some of the Jews thought that Jesus was Jeremiah come back again (16:14), but here the name simply indicates the source of the quotation. The repetition of the reference to fulfilled prophecy brings out once more a thought that means a lot to Matthew, namely that God acts in accordance with the revelation he has made in Scripture. In what happened to Jesus even in his infancy we may see the outworking of what God knew would happen.
18. The words are from Jeremiah 31:15 (LXX 38:15), with significant differences from LXX.53 A voice may denote an utterance expressing any one of a variety of moods, but here clearly mourning is in mind. Ramah seems to have been in the area allotted to the tribe of Benjamin and about six miles north of Jerusalem. This, of course, raises the question of why a prophecy about a voice in Ramah should be related to a happening in Bethlehem. There seems to have been a tradition that Rachel was buried near Bethlehem (though another view was that it was at Ramah, and there is a further view that the site was Zelzah, 1 Sam. 10:2). But certainly Jeremiah speaks of Rachel as weeping for her children as the Israelites went off into exile (Rachel is taken symbolically as the mother of the nation, though, of course, Leah gave birth to more of the tribes than did Rachel),54 and relates this to the fact that the infant Jesus went off into exile in Egypt. Matthew relates Rachel’s grief to the situation in Bethlehem after Herod’s men were through. Neither the prophet nor Matthew says whose voice was heard: the emphasis is on the mourning, not the mourners, and the language stresses the depths of the grief.55 It is this sort of bitter grief that Matthew sees in Bethlehem. Her children in a passage like this means “descendants,” and Rachel’s grief is such that she will56 not be comforted. The reason? Because they are no more. Nothing can alter the fact of the exile and nothing can alter the fact of the killings at Bethlehem. Thus the grief remains.57 Yet we should add that Jeremiah’s prophecy goes on to the note of hope (Jer. 31:17) and to the making of a new covenant (Jer. 31:31–34); further, the Israelites did in time return from their exile. All this points to the fact that the child Jesus would in due course come back from his exile in Egypt.
4. The Return from Egypt, 2:19–23
19But when Herod had died, look, an angel of the Lord appears in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20and said, “Get up, take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel; for those who sought the young child’s life are dead.” 21And he rose, took the young child and his mother, and went into the land of Israel.
22Now when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in the place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And having been warned in a dream, he went off into the region of Galilee. 23And he came and settled in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, that he will be called a Nazarene.
Matthew goes on to tell his readers of the holy family’s return to Palestine and how they came to settle in Nazareth.
19. It was not until Herod had died that there was any change in the situation. As long as the tyrant lived, there was danger in Palestine, but his death removed the threat. Matthew records a divine message conveyed in a dream and uses almost the same words as in 1:20 (where see notes). The exception is that he uses the present tense for appears (as in v. 13), which makes it all a little more vivid. The Evangelist is making clear that God’s power and God’s oversight extended to Egypt. His angel appeared there and gave Joseph directions.
20. The words of the angel are almost the same as those in verse 13, the only difference being that “flee into Egypt” is replaced by go58 into the land of Israel. The return, like the flight, was undertaken at divine direction. An explanation is added, characteristically introduced by for; Matthew loves to give reasons. He does not name Herod, but refers (in Old Testament language; cf. Exod. 4:19) to the death of those who sought59 the young child’s life.60 It is only Herod who has been named as dying, but the plural here draws attention to the passing from power of those associated with the tyrant.61 The angel is saying that there is nothing to fear, no barrier to their going back to their own country.
21. For the fourth time we have a reference to Joseph rising and taking the young child and his mother (vv. 13, 14, and 20). Joseph was obedient. He had received the divine instruction, so he entered the land of Israel.
22. The return to Israel was due to the divine direction, but the precise location arose from Joseph’s fear, together with another dream. Matthew says nothing about where Joseph and Mary’s home was previously, but Luke tells us that they had lived in Nazareth before going to Bethlehem (Luke 1:26; 2:4). Perhaps they would have liked to make their home in the city of David, especially in view of the circumstances attending Jesus’ birth. But there was a difficulty arising from the fact that that area was now ruled62 by Archelaus. This son of Herod was made ethnarch of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria when Herod died, but it did not take long for his incompetence to become apparent, and the Romans deposed him in A.D. 6. He was noted for his cruelty even in an age when cruel men were not scarce, so it is not surprising that Joseph feared to settle in this man’s dominions. His fear was reinforced by further divine direction in a dream, though on this occasion we are not told what precise instructions he was given. But the upshot of it all was that he went to the region63 of Galilee64 to live. When Herod died, this area was in the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas.
23. Matthew often says “he came and did—”; here Joseph came and settled,65 his new home being in Nazareth.66 Luke locates both Joseph and Mary in this town (Luke 1:26–27; 2:4), but Matthew has not said anything so far about where either lived; he has said only that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. We should not read too much into city; the Greek language does not have a word equivalent to our “town,” and it makes do with “city” or “village.” We should understand that Nazareth was more than a hamlet, but not that it was a bustling metropolis. It was apparently not an important place; it is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, the Midrashim, or Josephus (so BAGD). Matthew finds another fulfilment of prophecy in this choice of domicile. They lived there so that67 prophecy might be fulfilled. On this occasion there are some small differences from the way Matthew usually cites prophecy; thus he uses the plural prophets, he omits “saying,” and he inserts the word I have translated that (and which is taken by many interpreters as the equivalent of quotation marks, by others as meaning “because”). All this may be connected with the fact that it is not easy to find the words he will be called a Nazarene68 in any of the prophetical books, or for that matter, anywhere in the Old Testament.69 No passage even resembles this. It appears that Matthew is drawing attention to the thrust of Old Testament prophecy about the Christ rather than to any one passage. Jesus went to Galilee so that what was written about him in the prophets would be fulfilled, and we see this in his being called a Nazarene, a citizen of an obscure and unimportant town.70 Had he been known as “Jesus of Bethlehem” he would have had the aura of one who came from the royal city; there would have been overtones of messianic majesty. But “Jesus the Nazarene” carried with it overtones of contempt.71 We are to understand the prophets as pointing to one who would be despised and rejected, and Jesus as fulfilling this by his connection with obscure Nazareth.
Matthew 3