THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 6, Chapters 2 and 3
As we drink in and deeply reflect on the beauty, salt, and light that the Book of
Matthew provides us, let us also be reminded of something about the author
himself. Our Jewish Matthew was not an eyewitness to anything he was reporting
nor does he claim that he was. The disciple Matthew was a tax collector, while
writers of Gospels were usually literary experts, often making a living from it as a
profession, even if that wasn't their only occupation. So all indications are that
this is not the same Matthew that was an original disciple of Christ. Therefore,
Matthew the Gospel writer had to do extensive research of documents for
information about Yeshua's life and ministry, and also would have conducted
interviews with some folks who may have been eyewitnesses to it. He would
have had to familiarize himself with some matters of which he didn't personally
have any expertise, so he would have sought out those who were knowledgeable
in the field. And before I say another word I would be remiss if I didn't credit the
Holy Spirit and divine inspiration for leading and directing Matthew's writing (who
was probably mostly if not completely unaware of God's hand upon him) to
provide us with the truthful and invaluable information that we have before us
today.
Because he was a Jewish Believer who probably lived in the Holy Land near to
the Temple and also to synagogue leadership; a man who we will soon see had
considerable depth of Torah knowledge as well as a solid grasp of Jewish
Tradition, he would have had little to do with pagan astrology because such a
thing was shunned within the more strict segments of Jewish society. Thus in his
birth story of Jesus, wherein he placed considerable relevance on the visitation of
the magi (the other Gospel writers never even mention it), he would have had to
seek out those who practiced astrology for their knowledge on the subject.
1 / 10

I point this out because I was (and perhaps you were, too) quite struck with
Matthew's use of technical astrological terms and phrases that only a few experts
would have known; terms and phrases to help describe the magis' discovery of
the heavenly portent of a new king of the Jews being born in Judea; a portent
known in Christianity as the Star of Bethlehem. I suspect that Matthew might not
have been all that surprised that pagan star gazers from a distant land had
received knowledge of Christ's birth. While it is true that the magi didn't in any
way think of this child as divine or as a Messiah, but rather as an earthly king,
nonetheless it was not a mere coincidence that in using the celestial Zodiac and
astrological reckoning they were, by Matthew's account, the first to know of
Chris's advent even before the Jews did! While that might seem odd to us the
biblical pattern may just reveal that for His own good reasons, this is how God
had always intended it.
When I look at a listing of Old Testament prophecies put together by the classic
Christian scholars that predict the coming of a Messiah, I have yet to run across
one that includes the story of Balaam and Balak in the Book of Numbers. And
yet Jewish sages and scholars have for millennia emphasized this story, and
especially Balaam's speech in Numbers 24, as a clear and powerful prophecy
about a Messiah for Israel that will come from the tribe of Judah that seems to
even include a celestial portent.
CJB
Numbers 24:15-17
15
So he (Balaam) made his pronouncement: "This is
the speech of Bil'am, son of B'or; the speech of the man whose eyes have
been opened;
16
the speech of him who hears God's words; who knows
what 'Elyon knows, who sees what Shaddai sees, who has fallen, yet has
open eyes:
17
"I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not soon- a star will
step forth from Ya'akov, a scepter will arise from Isra'el, to crush the
corners of Mo'av and destroy all descendants of Shet.
Balaam was a pagan magi, just as were the magi who visited the Christ child. In
Numbers we have Balaam making this incredible prognostication that one would
think would only come from the lips of a great Sage of Israel or perhaps a
venerable Hebrew prophet. But no; this comes from the mouth of a pagan magi.
So why does Matthew give so much attention to the magi when none of the other
Gospel writers even mention them? And why doesn't Matthew wonder out loud
about the seemingly ironic reality that pagan astrologers were the first to learn of
Messiah's coming and this due to some confluence of stars and planets in the
sky? I can only speculate that because of the Jews' belief that the Balaam
2 / 10

speech was prophetic of a Messiah, which even included the mention of a star.....
a Torah account that the learned Jew Matthew was no doubt quite familiar with....
that it was Matthew who put 2 and 2 together and saw the relationship between
the magis visiting the Christ child in Bethlehem and the Balaam story.
Later in Matthew chapter 2, Matthew again exposes his Jewish mindset and Bible
knowledge by connecting a prophecy found in Hosea 11:1 with Yeshua. There
we read:

CJB
Hosea 11:1 "When Isra'el was a child, I loved him; and out of Egypt I
called my son.
But one must ask: how does Matthew legitimately transfer the meaning of
Hosea's words, which clearly has Israel in mind, to Yeshua? We discussed last
week that the Jews used (and continue to use) 4 different methods for
interpreting Holy Scripture, and one of those standard methods is called remez,
meaning hint. Only an educated Jew like Matthew would be aware of these kinds
of interpretation techniques and be able to deftly apply them to the situation of
Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to avoid being murdered by King
Herod. So here is early evidence in the Book of Matthew that Matthew was
determined in his Gospel to show his readers something of supreme importance.
Something that has been all but lost within Christianity: it is the proper
relationship between Christ and the Torah and the Prophets. And at the same
time (as we'll see later) questioning (if not rejecting) many of the views and
teachings of the synagogue authorities of that era: the Scribes and the
Pharisees. Why? Because so many of those views were based on manmade
traditions and customs that were not founded on actual biblical truth. So taking
Matthew's lead, we'll continue today to do our best to put on a Jewish mindset in
order to understand what the Jewish Matthew is telling us, but also to take the
Bible for what it says and avoid filtering those words through long held Christian
traditions.
We ended our study last time with the death of King Herod in 4 B.C., about 2
years after Yeshua's birth, and with Herod's unconscionable slaying of the
children in Bethlehem and nearby areas because of his paranoia that the magi
were right: a new king of the Jews had been born and so that meant Herod's hold
on power might be challenged.
Open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 2.
3 / 10

RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 2:16 - end
Before we move on, it is important that we notice something else about
Matthew's Gospel that supplies an important backdrop for his presentation. It is
that there is a strong connection present in Matthew between Moses' life and
Yeshua's. I don't think it is too strong to say that Matthew makes Jesus a kind of
second Moses. And while that thought might at first unsettle us, when we look at
the matter from the 30.000 foot view it makes sense. To begin with, in the Torah
we hear these words from Moses:
CJB
Deuteronomy 18:14-19
14
For these nations, which you are about to
dispossess, listen to soothsayers and diviners; but you, ADONAI your God
does not allow you to do this.
15
"ADONAI will raise up for you a prophet
like me from among yourselves, from your own kinsmen. You are to pay
attention to him,
16
just as when you were assembled at Horev and
requested ADONAI your God, 'Don't let me hear the voice of ADONAI my
God any more, or let me see this great fire ever again; if I do, I will
die!'
17
On that occasion ADONAI said to me, 'They are right in what they are
saying.
18
I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their
kinsmen. I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I
order him.
19
Whoever doesn't listen to my words, which he will speak in my
name, will have to account for himself to me.
The biggest error that the Hebrews of old, and Believers today, make regarding
understanding prophecy is that they (and we) don't take it literally enough. When
we look back at the prophecies that have already been fulfilled, invariably they
have hit the nail on the head including details that may have seemed improbable
or not comprehensible until these fulfillments finally occurred. The near universal
tendency in Christian academic circles of teaching prophecy allegorically
(because the scholar can't see how the event can happen literally as the Bible
predicts) takes Believers on wild goose chases or builds false expectations that
are completely unnecessary. Some of this is due to our impatience to know the
outcome of a prophecy in advance and rather than waiting for it to actually
happen. The result is that speculation is substituted for fact and then it is adopted
by the eager student or congregation member as a settled matter.
When Moses said that God would raise up "a prophet like me" from among
Israel, it happened exactly as said. So it should be no surprise to anyone that the
Messiah would be that prophet, and that the similarities between he and Moses
4 / 10

would be extensive. One of the reasons I address this with you is because many
modern Bible scholars and the commentaries they write (commentators who are
usually skeptical of the ancient biblical records) take the many similarities
between Jesus and Moses as an indication that the entire story of Christ is
suspect and contrived because it bears such resemblance to Moses and his
experiences..... completely ignoring that such resemblance is exactly what was
prophesied by Moses in the Torah!
I have explained in previous lessons that perhaps Christ's overriding and
underlying theological purpose is to inaugurate a re-Creation. Genesis opens
with the first heavens and earth, and the Book of Revelation ends with the re-
Creation of a new heavens and new earth, and Yeshua is at the center of it all.
Therefore it should not be surprising that while Moses was God's first Mediator,
and brought God's Word in stone to God's people, Yeshua was God's second
and better Mediator and was Himself God's Word in the flesh brought to God's
people. Moses was the Father's agent of redemption for God's people in one
capacity, and Jesus was the also the Father's agent of redemption for God's
people but in another and greater capacity. I could go on with the many
similarities but time doesn't permit. So just be acutely aware of the
Yeshua/Moses connection that Matthew has in mind as we study his Gospel.
Verse 17 explains that the mass homicide King Herod perpetrated upon helpless
children simply because any Jewish boy under 2 might have been the new king
the magi came to find, was itself a fulfillment of prophecy according to Matthew.
He quotes from Jeremiah 31:14 (or 15 depending on your Bible version).
CJB
Jeremiah. 31:14
14
This is what ADONAI says: "A voice is heard in
Ramah, lamenting and bitter weeping. It is Rachel weeping for her children,
refusing to be comforted for her children, because they are no longer
alive."
Matthew connects Rachel weeping and refusing to be comforted because her
children are no longer alive with the mass slaughter of Jewish children by Herod
that would have devastated the entire Jewish community. However context is
everything and so as good students of God's Word we need to continue reading
in Jeremiah.
CJB
Jeremiah 31:14-16
14
This is what ADONAI says: "A voice is heard in
Ramah, lamenting and bitter weeping. It is Rachel weeping for her children,
5 / 10

refusing to be comforted for her children, because they are no longer
alive."
15
This is what ADONAI says: "Stop your weeping, and dry your
eyes, for your work will be rewarded," says ADONAI. "They will return from
the enemy's land;
16
so there is hope for your future," says ADONAI. "Your
children will return to their own territory.
When we add in more context we see that although Rachel is weeping
uncontrollably at the moment, God tells her to stop weeping because there is
hope. Be aware that when Jeremiah mentions Rachel (who was one of Jacob's
wives), it is using her name as representative of some or all of Israel. Many
Christian scholars scratch their heads over Matthew 2:18 because the connection
between Rachel weeping and the murder of small children in Bethlehem shortly
after Jesus' birth is weak if not irrelevant. So what's Matthew's intent? It seems to
me that once again we see Matthew's Jewish mindset at work because he
employs one of the 4 Jewish methods of Bible interpretation
(perhaps remez although in this case it could be the drash method) in order to
connect the Jeremiah prophecy to the horrific murdering of Jewish children by
Herod. In other words, Matthew sees a firm relationship between the two events
that occurred far apart in history.
On the surface Jeremiah's prophecy is not a Messianic prophecy but rather it's
about return from exile for Israel. Jeremiah lived at the time of the Babylonian
conquest of Judea that included the destruction of Solomon's Temple and the
exile of most of Judea's population. Genesis 35:19 explains that Rachel died on
the way to Ephrath; interestingly Ephrath was an early name for Bethlehem. Yet,
Jeremiah's prophecy can't be primarily about the Babylonian exile because
Rachel's children are Joseph and Benjamin (plus Dan and Naphtali through her
handmaiden, Bilah). While in Egypt, Rachel's son Joseph fathered 2 sons of his
own: Ephraim and Manasseh. Ephraim and Manasseh together represent the
bulk of the 10 northern tribes of Israel that were conquered by Assyria around
720 B.C. and scattered all over their empire. The territory of Benjamin was like a
buffer state between the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of
Judah, so there were mixed loyalties among the Benjamites. The part of
Benjamin that was loyal to northern kingdom went into exile with them, and the
part that was loyal to the southern kingdom remained in the land but would
themselves be exiled upon the Babylonian conquest about 130 years later. So
God seems to be telling Rachel to stop weeping because all the exiles of Israel
(both the northern and southern kingdoms), and perhaps even the dead ones,
will eventually return to the Holy Land.
6 / 10

Notice the common elements of Matthew's narrative that include Egypt,
Bethlehem, and the murder of Israelite children. All of these apply both to
Rachel's children and to Christ's birth story. In the end, despite the gut wrenching
disasters associated with the two exiles and the murder of the innocents, God
says there is hope; so hope is the theme. The underlying connection seems to be
that there is hope for Israel's return from exile and there is also hope that it is the
Messiah that will manifest that return. The Good News is that Messiah has been
born. A Jewish reader in the 1st century might catch on to this; but a gentile
reader would have found it most difficult to understand what Matthew is getting
at. But now you know.
Starting in verse 19 we're told that once Herod died an angel came in a dream to
Joseph as he and his family were still in Egypt, and the all-clear was given to him
to return home. However when Joseph heard that it was Herod's son Archelaus
that replaced his father, Joseph decided to go the Galilee instead of returning to
Judea. It seems that Archelaus assumed control over Judea, Samaria and
Idumea. Joseph 's decision to avoid Judea was a wise one because Archelaus
turned out to be at least as brutal as his father. In fact his cruelty so alarmed
Rome that they finally stepped in and replaced him with a Roman governor in 6
A.D. and from then forward only Roman governors ruled Judea and the region.
Galilee, where Joseph took his family, and neighboring Perea were put under the
control of another of Herod's sons, Antipas. He was a somewhat more
reasonable ruler and so the area was generally peaceful and secure.
Now for verse 23. Frankly this verse is problematic and there is little way around
it. The first half of the verse is simple enough in that it identifies Nazareth as the
town that Joseph and his family settled in. Nazareth, like almost all of Galilee,
was agricultural. It was a small and insignificant place; perhaps Joseph chose it
just for that reason so that they could be inconspicuous as a protection for his
son Yeshua. The problem part of the verse is the second half. Matthew claims
the fulfillment of a yet another prophecy and supposedly quotes Scripture from
some unnamed prophet that says that the Messiah will be called a Nazorean or
in Hebrew, a Natzrati. No known Scripture or combination of Scriptures does
that. Several possibilities to solve this dilemma have been suggested that I'll
briefly go over. First, is that the intention was to say that Christ became a
Nazarite. Nothing in the New Testament or in His actions imply that He took the
vows of a Nazarite. Second is that the meaning is that a Nazorean is what a
resident of Nazareth is called. And third is that the word comes from the Hebrew
7 / 10

term nezer, which means "branch" and thus it connects Yeshua to Isaiah 11:1.

CJB
Isaiah 11:1 But a branch will emerge from the trunk of Yishai, a shoot
will grow from his roots.
I sort of favor the simplest solution. In John's Gospel 1:44 - 46 we read:
44
Philip was from Beit-Tzaidah, the town where Andrew and Kefa
lived.
45
Philip found Natan'el and told him, "We've found the one that
Moshe wrote about in the Torah, also the Prophets- it's Yeshua Ben-Yosef
from Natzeret!"
46
Natan'el answered him, "Natzeret? Can anything good
come from there?" "Come and see," Philip said to him.
The point is that Nazareth was apparently a town that was often the brunt of
jokes for some reason. So people who lived there were considered to be living in
a worthless place, therefore any resident of Nazareth took on the same worthless
character as the town. Therefore to be called a Nazorean (or a Natzrati) identified
a person who lived in a place unworthy of mention. To me that fits well with the
characterization of Yeshua as a humble man from a humble place; a Messiah
and king who was anything but prominent, aristocratic, or charismatic in
appearance...... all things that humans tend to value but God doesn't.
Let's move on to chapter 3.
READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 3 all
In this chapter Matthew quickly turns from the birth of Messiah and all the
circumstances that surrounded it, to John the Baptist. In fact, Matthew suddenly
jumps over about 30 years; that is, Christ's entire childhood is not discussed. The
Gospel of Mark does the same. Only Luke's Gospel spends any time with
Yeshua's youth and if you'd like to know more about it read Luke 2:21 - 52. Most
scholars attribute this curiosity to Matthew essentially copying Mark's interests
and style. We've already discussed that the historical record provided by the
earliest Church Fathers is that whatever copying was done was done by Mark,
since Matthew's was the first Gospel account written according to those same
Church Fathers. But I think that what we need to be focusing on is that Matthew
was certainly a Jew, and nearly as certainly so was Mark. Luke, on the other
hand, was just as certainly a gentile (he was Dr. Luke who accompanied Paul on
some of his journeys). So for the Jews Matthew and Mark, Yeshua's youth was
8 / 10

relatively unimportant; it's His adult life that mattered. But for the gentle Luke,
who thought and wrote as a gentile and for gentiles (remember how he
constructed Christ's genealogy not as Hebrews did but rather as gentile Romans
did in his era), Yeshua's youth was an important part of his story and his mostly
gentile readers (and probably his patron) would have wanted to know about it.
Verse 1 begins "In those days" or "During those days". This is an indefinite term
that simply means some amount of time has passed and entirely new
circumstances are about to be discussed. In this case the time that has passed
from the end of chapter 2 is 3 decades, plus or minus a couple a years. The new
circumstance involves a very strange, yet passionate, man called John the
Baptist. "John" of course was not his birth name; rather it is an English-ized
version of Yochanan. In Hebrew Yochanan means "Yehoveh shows favor"
(NOT God shows favor).
Matthew characterizes John as a preacher, and his starting point of preaching is
said to be the wilderness of Judea. For anyone who has been to Israel,
Jerusalem, and the south, it quickly becomes apparent that wilderness does not
mean densely forested hills and valleys but rather stark and mysterious desert.
Matthew also always refers to John as "John the Baptist"; not just "John" as Mark
tends to do. An interesting feature in this chapter is that just as Matthew jumped
completely over Yeshua's youth, he does the same with John the Baptist. It is
often stated in Christian commentaries that this omission assumes that John (and
Yeshua) were already well known in the Jewish community, as were their birth
circumstances, so there was no need to mention it. Perhaps. However my view is
that in Jewish thought and writing, unless the point of a biblical narrative is about
a person's time as a youth (such as when David as a teenager faced down the
menacing Goliath, partly as a humiliation of the adult Israelites who were too
scared to do it) then the Hebrew cultural value system of placing more value on
mature adults than on infants and children was what was at play. Further, since
all the Gospels are about a religious matter, and since in Jewish society a man
had to be 30 years old to be considered eligible to be a religious authority, then
for Matthew what those 2 men did as youth wasn't particularly relevant. When we
consider that Yeshua grew up in distant and tiny Nazareth, and John was a
strange man who lived the later part of his youth in a desolate desert, then
whatever encounters the Jewish public may have had with these two as youth,
must have been few and far between. So it is difficult to imagine the local Jewish
society being familiar with Yeshua's and Yochanan's infancy and youth.
9 / 10

It is significant for us to gain what the term "baptize" meant to Jews in the 1st
century A.D. because whatever we find in the New Testament about baptize and
baptizing is meant to be taken in that context. We'll discuss this at length to begin
our next lesson. What I can tell you for the moment is that Christian Tradition has
altered the meaning of the term and the means of performing it.
John the Baptist brings two critical messages to the Jewish public: repent for your
sins, and the Kingdom of God is near. They are at once two different things, and
yet intimately related. As David Sterns aptly says in his New Testament
Commentary, the idea of repenting because the Kingdom of God is at hand
mostly conjures up a picture of some weirdly dressed guy, standing on a
makeshift box, at a busy street corner, shouting to no one in particular, and
people avoiding looking at him. So even in the Church, the idea of repenting
because the Kingdom of God is near can bring a communal wince upon the
congregation members. So much so that the most popular of TV evangelists try
to avoid using those terms.
John doesn't say to repent; he says to turn from your sins. However the English
term repent is an excellent word to abbreviate John's words. The Hebrew
word teshuvah embodies this concept. Literally it means to turn or to return. In
its Jewish religious sense it means to turn from one's sins AND to return to God.
So it doesn't only mean to quit your bad behavior; it also includes sincerely and
personally recommitting one's life to the Lord and to His ways. An atheist can
notice his or her bad behaviors and stop them; but that is not biblical repentance.
Reforming one's relationship with the God of the Bible is the other necessary
ingredient. Further, Jews rightly acknowledge that even this act of the human will
is set into motion by God. We can only truly repent by God's grace. All else is but
a short-lived emotional response to our conscience.
The second part of John the Baptist's message is that the Kingdom of God is
near. What, exactly, is the Kingdom of God and what does he mean that it is
near? And further what relationship does that have to repentance? We'll discuss
that and more next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
10 / 10