Verse 16: Herod died in 4 B.C., so we can assume that it was in the year 4 B.C. that the angel returned to Joseph and told him his family could safely return to the Holy Land. They probably were in Egypt for about a year.
Before Herod passed away, he went into a rage when he realized the magi had tricked him. They had gone to Bethlehem as instructed, but then went home without returning back to Herod and giving Herod the information he had wanted. Herod ordered all the children age 2 years old and younger who lived in Bethlehem to be slaughtered.
It seems when the magi visited Herod, they had told him when it was that they first saw the . However, their seeing the star does not necessarily mean that is represented the specific date the child was born. It could have appeared before or after Jesus’ birth. Since the exact date Jesus was born was not known, Herod issued a decree to kill children in a wide range (age 2 and younger).
Verse 17: This verse explains that the mass homicide King Herod perpetuated upon helpless children simple beach any Jewish boy under 2 years of age 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.
This is what the LORD says, “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamenting and bitter weeping. It is Rachel weeping fro her children, refusing to be comforted for her children, because they are no longer alive. (Jeremiah 31:14)
Matthew connects Rachel’s weeping and refusing to be comforted regarding her children with the mass slaughter of the Jewish children by Herod. Just reading Jeremiah 31:14, it might not be clear what Matthew is trying to convey to the audience. We need to read a few additional verses to understand the context.
This is what the LORD says, “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamenting and bitter weeping. It is Rachel weeping fro her children, refusing to be comforted for her children, because they are no longer alive.” This is what the LORD says, “Stop your weeping, and dry your eyes, for your work will be rewarded,” says the LORD. “They will return from the enemy’s land; so there is hope for your future,” says the LORD. “Your children will return to their own territory. (Jeremiah 31:14-16)
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. When Jeremiah mentions Rachel, it is using her name as representative of Israel.
On the surface, Jeremiah’s prophecy is not a Messianic prophecy, but rather it is about return from exile for Israel. Jeremiah lived at the time of the Babylonian conquest of Judea. This included the destruction of the temple and the exile of most of Judea’s population. In Genesis 35:19, it explains that Rachel died on the way to Ephrath. Ephrath is an early name for Bethlehem.
Jeremiah’s prophecy is not primarily about the Babylonian exile because Rachel’s children are Jospeh and Benjamin. While in Egypt, Rachel’s son Joseph fathered two sons: Ephraim and Manasseh. Ephraim and Manasseh together represent the bulk of the ten northern tribes of Israel which were conquered by Assyria around 720 B.C. They were scattered all over the empire.
The territory of Benjamin was like a buffer state between the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. There was a mix of loyalties among the people from Benjamin. It seems God is telling Rachel to stop weeping because all the exiles of Israel (both the northern and southern kingdoms) will eventually return to the Holy Land.
There are same shared common elements between Jeremiah and Matthew’s narrative. Both include Egypt, Bethlehem and the murder of Israelite children. In the end, despite the gut wrenching disasters associated with the two exiles and the murder of the innocent, 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 who will manifest the return. A Jewish reader in the 1st century would probably caught on to this message. But a gentile reader would have found it very difficult to understand.
Verse 19: Starting in verse 19, we are told that once Herod died, an angel came in a dream to Jospeh. he and his family were still in Egypt. Now, the all-clear was given for him to return home.
However, when Joseph heard that is was Herod’s son Archelaus who replaced his father, Joseph decide to go to the Galilee instead of returning to Judea. Archelaus had taken 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 alarmed Rome. They finally stepped in and replaced him with a Roman governor in 6 A.D. From then on, only Roman governors ruled over Judea.
Galilee, where Joseph took his family, was put under the control of another one of Herod’s sons, Antipas. He was a somewhat more reasonable ruler. So the area was generally more peaceful and secure.
Verse 23: The first half of the verse identifies Nazareth as the town where Joseph and his family settled. Like most of Galilee, it was agricultural. It was an insignificant place. Perhaps Joseph chose it to provide protection to Jesus and Mary.
In the second part of verse 23, Matthew claims the fulfillment of another prophecy. He supposedly quotes Scripture from some unnamed prophet in which is states the Messiah would be called a Nazarine. No known Scripture or combination of Scripture states this.
Several possibilities to solve this dilemma have been suggested.
First, it is suggested the intention was to say that Jesus became a Nazarite. Nothing in the New testament or in His action imply that he took the Nazarite vow.
The second suggestion is that the mean of Nazarine is what a resident of Nazareth was called.
And third is that the word comes from the Hebrew word “netzer” which means “branch”. Thus it connects Jesus to Isaiah 11:1
But a branch will emerge from the trunk of Jesse, a shoot will grow from his roots. (Isaiah 11:1)
If we look at John’s Gospel, we are given a little bit of insight into what perception people had of Nazareth:
Philip was from Beth-saida, the town where Andrew and Peter lived. Philip found Nathaniel and told him, “We have found the one that Moses wrote about in the Torah, also the Prophets. It is Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth!” Nathaniel answered him, “Nazareth? Can anything good come from there?” “Come and see,” Philip said to him. (John 1:44-46)
The point is that Nazareth was apparently a town that was often the brunt of jokes. 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. To be called a Nazarene identified a person who lived in the place as unworthy to mention. To me, this fits well with the characterization of Jesus. He was a humble man from a humble place. The Messiah and king was anything but prominent, aristocratic and charismatic in appearance…all thing which mankind tends to value, but God does not.
No comments:
Post a Comment