Matt: 2
Scholars refer to the rest of the introduction (1:18-2:23) as Matthew’s “birth and infancy narratives.” In this section Matthew introduces most of the major themes/motifs of his story.
The significance of Jesus’ name is recounted the passage describing Jesus’ virgin birth. Matthew writes that “Jesus” will “save his people from their sins” (1:21). The Hebrew word for “Jesus” means “save.” The exact way in which Jesus “saves his people from their sins” will be revealed by the rest of Matthew’s Gospel. He applies Isa 7:14 to Jesus, saying that in Jesus “God [is] with us” (1:23). This statement contrasts squarely with one of the planks of Roman Imperial Theology (see Blog on NT Background), which held that the presence of the gods is manifest in the Emperor of Rome.
The familiar Christmas story of the 3 wise men comes from Matthew’s description of the “magi.” Magi were basically eastern (i.e., Gentile) astrologers. Matthew, however, gives them a priestly tinge with the gifts they offer Jesus (Matt 2:11). In this way Matthew elevates Jesus: these priests come all the way from the east to worship the baby Jesus. Moreover, the significance of the magi being Gentiles should not be overlooked. Jesus has come to save Israel from their sins (1:21; 2:6b), yet these magi are the first people to call Jesus the “King of the Jews” (2:2a), and they are the first to worship him. This notion of Gentile worship of Jesus climaxes in the so-called “Great Commission,” where Jesus commands his followers to “make disciples of all nations”/Gentiles (28:19).
While the editors of bible translations assert that Matthew is quoting Mic 5:2 (actually Mic 5:1 in the Hebrew text) in Matthew 2:6, this is incorrect—he’s actually “splicing” two texts together (he does this quite a few times throughout his Gospel), viz., Mic 5:2 and 1 Sam 5:2. By doing this he accomplishes a couple of things. First, he emphasizes (as he did in the genealogy) Jesus’ Davidic lineage: Davidic ancestry is part of the Mic 5:2 prophecy, while 1 Sam 5:2 is God’s own words to David. Second, using 1 Sam 5:2 enables Matthew to introduce the idea/belief that Jesus is Israel’s “Shepherd”: he has come to shepherd “[God’s] people Israel” (2:6d). Again, how exactly Jesus does this will be evident as the Gospel story goes along.
Scholars have long noted how Matthew’s birth and infancy narratives closely resemble the birth and infancy narratives of Moses. Let’s take a look . . .
When King Herod learns that a child has been born king of the Jews he secretly plots the child’s destruction (2:13c). But Jesus’ father flees with the baby to Egypt (2:13b). When Herod discovers he’s been duped by the magi, he gives orders to kill all the male children under the age of 2 (2:16). For devout Jewish and/or Christian readers, Matthew’s plot would sound all too familiar: when Pharaoh, king of Egypt, suspects that the Jews may align with his enemies he gives orders for all newborn males be killed (Exod 1:10, 16). The baby Moses, however, is spared this fate b/c of the actions of his parents (Exod 2:1-10). That Matthew specifically has this story in mind as he’s writing his Gospel becomes crystal clear when he writes in 2:20b that “those seeking his life are dead.” The Greek of Matt 2:20b is virtually identical to Exod 4:19 in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible [see an earlier blog])—which basically became the “OT” for the early Christians—“all those seeking his life are dead.”
I think Matthew uses this Mosaic imagery for 2 reasons. First, Moses is indivisibly tied to the Exodus: Moses was Israel’s great deliverer, who led God’s people out of Egypt—i.e., the Exodus. Thus for Matthew, Jesus is like Moses in that Jesus will also deliver (“save”) God’s people from their afflictions. Second, Matthew shows that he does not believe that Jesus stands opposed to Moses—contrary to the view of Jesus’ opponents. The religious authorities attacked Jesus, believing he undermined the authority of Moses and the Mosaic Law. But this was not the case. Matthew brings Jesus and Moses together, so to speak, and holds them together—albeit in tension with each other. For Matthew, Moses’ authority for Israel only pointed to the ultimate authority of Jesus. In other words, Jesus should not be perceived as being opposed to Moses’ but to be obeyed more b/c his authority is superior to Moses’; rather, their respective authority is aligned with the other—but Jesus’ authority fills out Moses’ authority in a way that Moses never could have. Moses’ authority only looked forward to or anticipated, in a prophetic way, someone with ultimate authority from God: Jesus. So, to obey Jesus is to obey the Law of Moses (for they are in agreement—at least for Matthew).
Closely related to Matthew’s Moses/Exodus imagery in these narratives is the Exile imagery, which climaxes in Matthew’s quote of Jer 31:15 in Matt 2:18. For Matthew, the slaughter of the Jews during the Babylonian Exile (depicted in Jeremiah) finds its ultimate fulfilment or prophetic significance in the slaughter of babies under King Herod. Jesus, however, providentially escapes this fate and eventually lands in Nazareth, where he grows up.
Thus, at the end of chapter 2, Matthew leaves the reader anticipating the coming of another deliverer—like Moses—to save God’s people out of their afflictions, and to lead them out of their spiritual exile. This exit from exile motif begins chapter 3 . . .