Commentary on Matthew 2:1-12

~ jayman777

Notes (NET Translation)

1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, in the time of King Herod, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem

The birth of Jesus is not narrated. He was already born when the wise men arrived in Jerusalem.

Bethlehem was a small city about five to six miles south-southwest of Jerusalem. It was the city where King David was brought up and anointed king of Israel (1 Sam 16:1-13; 17:12, 15; 20:6, 8). The qualification “in Judea” may have been mentioned in order to make it clear Bethlehem in Zebulun (Josh 19:15) was not the place of Jesus’ birth. The use of the word “Judea” also “stresses that the birth of ‘the king of the Jews’ (τῶν Ἰουδαίων) took place in a city of Judea (τῆς Ἰουδαίας), the land of the tribe of Judah (Ἰούδα; cf. 1:2–3).”1 After the family’s return from Egypt they intended to return to Judea but decided to go to Galilee because Herod Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod the Great (2:21-22). This suggests the family’s home was in Bethlehem.

“King Herod” is Herod the Great, who reigned from 37-4 BC. He probably died shortly before Passover in 4 BC (this would be during the spring) (Jos. Ant. 17.6.4 §167; 17.9.3 §213). A comparison of verses 7 and 16 suggests Jesus was born about two years before the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem. Jesus’ birth is typically dated to between 7 and 4 BC (cf. Lk 2:1). An error by the sixth-century scholar Dionysius Exiguus (Denis the Short), who was responsible for moving the Western world to dating events from the birth of Christ instead of from the foundation of Rome, is the reason Jesus was born “before Christ.”

Originally, wise men, or magi, were a priestly caste of the Medes and Persians (Zoroastrians) who specialized in interpreting dreams (Herodotus 1.120; Strabo 15.3.15; Plutarch, Quasest. conv. 4.5.2; Dio Chrysostom 49.7). Later the term came to be used of those who possessed superior knowledge and ability, such as astrologers, sages, and soothsayers (Aristotle, frag. 27; Josephus, Ant. 10.195, 216). The term could also be applied to sorcerers/magicians (Dan 1:20; 2:2, 10, 27; 4:4; 5:7; T. Reub. 4:9; Philo, Spec. leg. 3.93) and to deceivers/seducers (Sophocles, OT 387; Plato, Rep. 572e; Acts 8:9-24; 13:6-11). Matthew’s wise men appear to be astrologers.

In most accounts Magi hail from Persia or Babylon (e.g., Cic. De Leg. 2.10.26; Philo Spec. 3.100; Prob. 74; Dio Chrys. Or. 36; Lucian Runaways 8; Diog. Laert. 8.1.3; Char. Chaer. 5.9.4; Philost. VA. 1.24).

The Chaldeans or Persians were known for divination (Apul. Metam. 2.12; Arrian Alex. 7.18.2, 4) and astrology (Diod. Sic. 1.81.6; 2.31.8; Juv. Sat. 6.553-64; Aul. Gel. 1.9.6; 14.1; Philo Dreams 1.53; Sib. Or. 3.227; Pesiq. R. 14:8) and the Greeks and Romans regularly associated Chaldean Magi with magical powers (Char. Chaer. 5.9.4), prediction of the future (Marc. Aur. Med. 3.3.1; Arrian Alex. 7.16.5), dream interpretation (Herod. Hist. 1.107, 127; 7.12-19; cf. Jos. Ant. 10.195-203; Cic. Divin. 1.46), or specially regarded wisdom (Diog. Laert. 8.1.3; 9.11.61; Dio Chrys. Or. 36.38-48; Lucian Runaways 8; cf. Cic. De Leg. 2.10.26; Philo Prob. 74; Spec. 3.100; Philost. V.A. 1.24). Roman officials are known to have received Magi with honor, and Herod was typically generous to pagan cities. A star allegedly guided Aeneas to the place where he was to found Rome (Virg. Aen. 2.694), and a goddess caused a trail of heavenly light or fire to guide the Argonauts as long as they needed it (Ap. Rhod. 294-97, 301-2).2

The evangelist merely says the wise men came from the east. Possible origins for the wise men include: (1) Arabia (so Justin Dial. 78.1, Tertullian Marc. 3.13, Epiphanius, the Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus), (2) Babylon (so Celsus, Jerome, Augustine), or (3) Parthia or Persia (so Clement of Alexandria Strom. 1.15; 6.5; Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cosmas Indicopleustes, the Arabic Infancy Gospel 7:1). If the wise men were unfamiliar with Mic 5:2 and Jewish messianic expectations it was natural for them to assume the “king of the Jews” would be born in the capital city of Jerusalem. “Leaders in some realms often dispatched official representatives to congratulate new leaders in other realms (e.g., Jos. War 2.309; 4.498-501; Acts 25:13).”3

Didache 2:2 commands Christians not to act the part of a magos.

Not every mention of magi necessarily refers to what we would now call “magic,” but it was a grey area from which Jews and Christians preferred to keep their distance. It is therefore remarkable to find Matthew introducing magi into his story without any sign of disapproval. However widely respected the magi may have been in Mesopotamia and more widely in the Greek and Roman world, their title was not one which a careful Christian would willingly introduce without warrant into his account of the origins of his faith. The most satisfactory explanation for their presence in Matthew’s narrative is that this was an element which he had received in his tradition and (probably because the role of the star required them to be identified as such) did not feel at liberty to disguise.4

The Magi’s identity may support the narrative’s essential reliability: given the rampant attraction to astrology in their culture and official Jewish polemic against it, Matthew and his Jewish church would probably not have made up the story about Magi believing in Jesus, though they might put a preexisting story to good use.5

2 saying, “Where is the one who is born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

The wise men seek one born king of the Jews, whereas Herod the Great achieved his rule by warfare and politics. The phrase “king of the Jews” was also applied to Alexander Jannaeus (Jos. Ant. 14.3.1 §36) and Herod the Great (Jos. Ant. 15.373; 16.10.2 §311). Herod clearly understands the term in a messianic sense (v. 4) and wants the title to only apply to himself. Later in the gospel, the phrase is used to mock Jesus (27:11, 29, 37).

[T]here is no indication that the magi followed the star to Jerusalem. Rather, having seen the rise of the star which they associate with the King of the Jews, they have come to the capital city of the Jews for more information. Only in vs. 9 is it clear that the star served as a guide — from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.6

The star calls to mind Num 24:17: “A star will march forth out of Jacob, and a scepter will rise out of Israel” (cf. Justin, Dial. 106; Iren., Her. 3.9.3; Origen, C. Cels. 1.60; Euseb., Dem. ev. 9.1). The community at Qumran understood Num 24:17 to be speaking of the priestly Messiah (CD 7:18-26). Targumim on Num 24:17 insert “king” or “anointed one” into the text. The LXX replaces “scepter” with “man.” The second-century messianic figure Bar Kosiva changed his name to Bar Kokhba (“son of the star”) in order to allude to Num 24:17.

Prostration (proskyneō, “worship”) before kings and high officials was customary in the ancient Near East as a recognition of social superiority. While the wise men intended to pay homage to Jesus, the reader/listener knows that Jesus deserves worship. But Keener notes that “Persians would have a greater tendency to see obeisance as more than mortal respect more fully than Palestinian Jews would (cf. Arrian Alex. 4.11.8; Corn. Nep. 9 [Conon], 3.3; Esth 3:2).”7

The commentators I’m following provide a lot of useful background information. Although the quotations below repeat some of the same points I’ve erred on the side of being too verbose rather than too succinct. We begin with Davies and Allison:

Magi and astrologers were widely regarded in the Graeco-Roman world as able to recognize the signs of the times, to foretell events of world importance, including the rise of kings. The dreams of King Astyages of Media (6th century B.C.) were, according to Herodotus, taken by magi to mean that his grandson (Cyrus) would usurp the throne (Herodotus 1:107–30). And Persian magi allegedly prophesied on the night of Alexander’s birth that one newly born would threaten all of Asia (Cicero, De div. 1:23:47). The astrologer Publius Figulus purportedly cried out, when he learned the hour of the birth of Augustus, ‘The ruler of the world is now born’ (Suetonius, Aug. 94). Later, when Augustus was a young man, his destiny was said to have been presaged by yet another astrologer, Theogenes of Apollonia, who flung himself at the feet of the Caesar-to-be (Suetonius, ibid.). Suetonius tells us that, when Tiberius Caesar was still an infant, Scribonius the astrologer prophesied for him an illustrious career and kingship (Suetonius, Tib. 14:2). Tiberius’ accession to the throne was also reportedly foretold by another, the Chaldean astrologer Thrasyllus (Tacitus, Ann. 6:21). An unnamed Chaldean is said to have predicted future greatness for the emperor Pertinax, when Pertinax was yet a babe (Scrip. hist. Aug. Pert. 1:3). Also of great interest is the story of the Persian king and magos Tiridates who, arriving in Rome, addressed Nero as ‘my God Mithras’, offered homage, foretold great things of the Roman king, and then ‘returned to . . . [his] own country by another way’ (Dio Cassius 63:1–7; Pliny, H.N. 30:16–17; Suetonius, Nero 13; cf. Mt 2:12 and the story told about Plato in Seneca, Ep. 58). It is readily apparent that the magi in the First Gospel play a favourite, well-attested role, one they played often in the Graeco-Roman world. They are the mysterious wise foreigners who, having mastered secret lore, are able to recognize who it is that will be king—and in Mt 2 they testify to Jesus.

The story of the star and of magi from the east seeking a king would not have been foreign to the ancients. In the first place, according to both Suetonius and Tacitus, at the turn of the era there was abroad the expectation of a world-ruler to come from Judea (Suetonius, Vesp. 4; Tacitus, Ann. 5:13). Whether or not these two historians had read Josephus (Bell. 3:399–408; 6:310–15) or one of his sources is uncertain. Nevertheless the account of Tiridates (see above) offers a good parallel to Matthew’s tale of men from the east looking for the world’s saviour in what was to them the west. And the hopes so elegantly expressed in Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue probably reflect a general longing for a change in the times and the advent of a divine saviour. In the second place, the association of astronomical phenomena—and other prodigies for that matter (cf. Suetonius, Aug. 94)—with the appearance of a new king was not uncommon. Not only did ancient astrologers claim that the conjunction of certain constellations hailed the birth of a king (cf. Ps.-Callisthenes 1:12; Firmicus Maternus, Math. 6:1; 8:31), but, in Tacitus’ words, ‘the general belief is that a comet means a change of emperor’; so ‘when a brilliant comet now appeared . . . people speculated on Nero’s successor as though Nero were already dethroned’ (Ann. 14:22). According to Pliny the Elder (H.N. 2:28), popular belief held that stars rose with people, bright for the rich, small for the poor, dim for those worn out. At the birth of Alexander Severus (reigned A.D. 222–235) a new star of great magnitude reportedly appeared in the heavens (Scrip. hist. Aug. Alex. Sev. 13:5). A comet and star were said to have appeared in the years of the conception and accession of Mithridates IV Eupator of Pontus (ca. 120–63 B.C.: Justin, Ep. 37:2). When the emperor Commodus (reigned A.D. 180–193) was born, the astrologers prognosticated for him and his brother equal horoscopes, and certain celestial signs were associated with his reign (Scrip. hist. Aug. Comm. 1:3; 15:1). When we turn to Jewish sources, we read in the late Sefer ha-Yashar (chapter 8) of the appearance of a new star in the night sky after Abraham’s birth, a star which was taken by astrologers to announce the birth of a great man. And from the Christian Eusebius these words may be cited: ‘In the case of . . . remarkable and famous men we know that strange stars have appeared, what some call comets, or meteors, or tails of fire, or similar phenomena that are seen in connexion with great or unusual events. But what event could be greater or more important for the whole universe than the spiritual light coming to all men through the saviour’s advent, bringing to human souls the gift of holiness and the true knowledge of God? Wherefore the herald star gave the great sign . . .’ (Dem. Ev. 9:1). Compare Midr. Ps. on 148:3: every righteous man has his star and it shines according to the brightness of his deeds.8

Craig Keener:

A cosmic signal of another ruler would thus necessarily indicate his own demise. Comets (like Halley’s, ca. 12 B.C.) and analogous celestial signs usually signaled the death of one ruler and the consequent rise of another (e.g., Suet. Vesp. 23; Lucan C.W. 1.529; cf. Pliny N.H. 2.23.92 in Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 32; Artem. Oneir. 2.36). Thus tradition declared that a constellation informed Magi of Alexander the Great’s birth as future ruler of Asia, and other sources contend that the heavens offered similar predictions for Mithridates and Abraham. Contemporary writers often noted heavenly signs portending major events (e.g., Tac. Ann. 14.22; Hist. 5.13; Suet. Vesp. 23; Sib. Or. 3.334-37; 5.155-56); Matthew himself may draw a parallel here with the sign of Jesus’ coming kingdom (24:29-30). Magi reportedly predicted the rise of other rulers (Pliny N.H. 1.47; 30.6). Nor need this have been Herod’s first encounter with supernatural signals of competition; other peoples in the East anticipated a coming king who would begin an age of universal peace.9

Donald Hagner:

Hellenistic parallels to various aspects of our pericope exist. It was commonly held that the birth (and death) of great men was heralded by the appearance of a star or a similar heavenly phenomenon. (Recorded examples are Alexander the Great, Mithridates, and Alexander Severus. For rabbinic examples referring to Abraham, Isaac, and Moses, see Str-B 1:77–78.) Virgil relates how Aeneas was guided by a star to the place where Rome was to be founded (Aeneid 2.694). The giving of homage to a king by those from a distant country is, of course, a common motif in the ancient world. A striking parallel to our story is the coming of Tiridates, the king of Armenia, with representatives of other eastern kingdoms (described as magi by Pliny, Nat. Hist. 30.1.16–17; cf. Dio Cassius 63.1–7; Suetonius, Nero 13) to pay homage (προσκυνεῖν, as in our passage) to Nero in A.D. 66, and their return by another route. Parallels such as these show that Matthew’s narrative was not as alien to his age as it is to ours. We may allow for some indirect influence of these parallels upon Matthew’s formulation of his narrative without concluding that it therefore contains nothing historical. Parallels in Prot. Jas. 21.1–4 and Justin Martyr, Dialogue 77.4–78.2, are dependent on Matthew (so too Ign. Eph. 19:1–3).10

Raymond Brown:

Josephus (War VI v 3;#289) speaks of a star that stood over Jerusalem and of a comet that continued for a year at the time of the fall of the city. He says (v 4;##310, 312): “God has a care for men and by all kinds of premonitory signs shows His people the way of salvation,” and relates this to the Jewish belief that “someone from their country would become ruler of the world” (see also Tacitus Histories V 13). It is true that Pliny (Natural History II vi 28) combats the popular opinion that each person has a star which begins to give light when he is born and fades out when he dies; yet the thesis that at least the births and deaths of great men were marked by heavenly signs was widely accepted. Cicero (De divinatione I xxiii 47) reports that on the night that the great temple of Diana at Ephesus burned, when the light began to dawn, the magi who were wise and learned among the Persians clamored that this presaged the birth of one who would be a great peril for Asia, one who turned out to be Alexander of Macedon. Suetonius (Augustus 94) records a tradition stemming from Julius Marathus that a public portent alerted the Roman people some months before the birth of Augustus that Nature was making ready to provide them with a king, and this so frightened the Senate that it issued a decree forbidding the rearing of any male child for a year. The births of Mithridates and Alexander Severus were among the many births thought to have been accompanied by the appearance of a new star in the heavens. Suetonius (Nero 36) tells us how alarmed that emperor was when a comet appeared several nights in succession, for a comet was popularly supposed to herald the death of a person of great importance. Superstitiously prudent, Nero fulfilled the portent by having some of the notables of his realm put to death.11

The picture of magi coming from the East to pay homage to a king and bring him royal gifts (vs. 11) would not have struck Matthew’s readers as naively romantic. When King Herod completed the building of Caesarea Maritima in 10-9 B.C., envoys from many nations came to Palestine with gifts (Josephus Ant. XVI v 1;##136-141). In A.D. 44 Queen Helen of Adiabene, a kingdom that paid tribute to the Parthians, converted to Judaism and came to Jerusalem with bounteous gifts for those affected by the famine which was devastating the land. In A.D. 66 there took place an event that captured the imagination of Rome (Dio Cassius Roman History lxiii 1-7; Suetonius Nero 13). Tiridates, king of Armenia (a kingdom that was neighbor to Commagene), came to Italy with the sons of three neighboring Parthian rulers in his entourage. Their journey from the East (the Euphrates) was like a triumphal procession. The entire city of Rome was decorated with lights and garlands, and the rooftops filled with onlookers, as Tiridates came forward and paid homage to Nero. Tiridates identified himself as a descendant of Arsaces, founder of the Parthian Empire, and said, “I have come to you, my god, to pay homage, as I do to Mithras.” After Nero had confirmed him as king of Armenia, “the king did not return by the route he had followed in coming,” but sailed back a different way. It is significant that Pliny (Natural History XXX vi 16-17) refers to Tiridates and his companions as magi.12

R. T. France:

A parallel is sometimes found in the famous visit by eastern magi to Rome to pay homage to Nero in A.D. 66, but the parallels are not very close (Rome is not Jerusalem, and the political advantages of such a visit to the reigning emperor are hardly comparable to the motivation of Matthew’s magi), and the visit took place after what I regard as the most likely date of Matthew’s gospel. At the most it demonstrates that high-ranking eastern magi were willing and able to travel west for diplomatic reasons. There is evidence that astrologers in Babylonia were interested in events in “the Westland” (Palestine).13

Ulrich Luz:

There have been, especially in the older literature, frequent references to the episode of the Armenian king, Tiridates, who, himself a magician, traveled to Rome attended by magicians and with great pomp in order to pay homage to Nero. One can hardly prove that this cunning political maneuver, which Tiridates and Nero staged in 66 C.E. as a public relations event for their mutual benefit, lay behind the creation of our pericope. It is possible that this journey was also motivated by an unusual heavenly phenomenon. The journey of the magi to Bethlehem to pay homage—not to a sitting ruler but to a child—would be a subversive counterstory to Tiridates’ journey. It is probable, however, that many of the first readers remembered this episode. Indeed, that was the purpose of the land journey from Armenia to Naples made by Tiridates and his retinue of several thousand persons—a journey for which Nero paid.14

3 When King Herod heard this he was alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him.

The Greek word tarassō (“alarmed”) has the sense of “disturbed” or “unsettled.”

That Herod is dismayed by the Magi’s announcement is not surprising (2:3); astrology was widespread, especially in Greco-Roman paganism. The Roman world respected astrological confirmations of its rulers, and emperors feared astrological predictions of their demise (Tac. Ann. 14.22; Suet. Nero 36). Although the Hebrew Bible forbade divination (Deut 18:9-13), including astrology (Is 47:13; cf. Deut 4:19), it had infiltrated much of Jewish thought and practice by this period. Although all observant Jews affirmed that God was sovereign over the stars (Jos. Ant. 1.156; Philo Op. Mund. 46; Spec. Leg. 1.13), some accepted the stars’ relative authority over the nations (later, e.g., Test. Sol. 8:2-4). Many more, whether or not they regarded astrology as sinful, accepted astrology’s accuracy in prediction, at least for the nations (e.g., Jos. Ant. 1.69; 18.216-17; Philo Creation 58-59; t. Qidd. 5.17). Thus, despite opposition to astrology, most Jewish people seem to have acquiesced to its pervasive influence in late antiquity. Herod thus had every reason to believe the astrologers’ report (2:3).15

Herod’s alarm at the mention of a new “king of the Jews” is hardly surprising, and reflects the extraordinary paranoia of his defense of his throne in his latter years (see below on v. 16). He was particularly vulnerable to one “born as king,” i.e. of the traditional royal house, whereas Herod himself, son of an Idumean adventurer, had no such ancestral right to the throne.16

“All Jerusalem” probably refers primarily to religious leaders who dominated the city and may have been personally installed by Herod (2:4). One wonders whether they feared the toppling of Herod or the violent reprisals such a threat might evoke. The latter proposal seems more likely since the people would have been favorably disposed to a coming Messiah. The rejection of Jesus by Jerusalem at his birth foreshadows his similar fate at the end of his public ministry (21:10; 27:24-25).

4 After assembling all the chief priests and experts in the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born.

It is unlikely that the neutral word for “gathering,” συναγαγών, connotes in any sense the synagogue, as some have argued. To capitalize in this way on the identical root is to over-interpret.17

The introductory “all” makes this sound like a formal consultation, but relations between Herod and the Sanhedrin were not cordial, and it may be that Matthew has exaggerated the formal nature of an ad hoc consultation with selected experts who were prepared to advise on a matter of Jewish tradition on which Herod, a politician with only limited Jewish background, may have felt ill-informed. Matthew’s interest is specifically in the birthplace of the Messiah, which was also the subject of the magi’s question, but we may reasonably assume that Herod would wish to be forearmed with a full account of current messianic expectation.18

The “chief priests” “included the current high priest and his predecessors, the captain of the temple, the heads of the weekly courses, the directors of the daily courses, the temple overseers, and the temple treasurers.”19 The “experts in the law” were scribes who copied Scripture but were also well trained in interpreting and applying the Law. The two groups (chief priests and experts in the law) represent the religious authorities in Jerusalem.

5 “In Bethlehem of Judea,” they said, “for it is written this way by the prophet:

6 ‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are in no way least among the rulers of Judah, for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.'”

The quote comes primarily from Mic 5:2, perhaps representing the evangelist’s independent translation or interpretation. He replaces “Bethlehem Ephrathah” with “Bethlehem in the land of Judah,” perhaps to remind the reader/listener of the Messiah’s Davidic descent. Whereas Mic 5:2 says Bethlehem is “seemingly insignificant among the clans/thousands of Judah,” Matthew writes “in no way least among the rulers of Judah.” The coming of the Messiah in Bethlehem has made the once insignificant city significant. He omits the end v. 2 (“one whose origins are in the distant past”) and does not quote v. 3 at all (“So the Lord will hand the people of Israel over to their enemies until the time when the woman in labor gives birth. Then the rest of the king’s countrymen will return to be reunited with the people of Israel”) despite the words serving his purpose. Perhaps he expects his readers/listeners to fill in the rest.

Mic 5:2 was taken as messianic by pre-Christian Jews (Jn 7:41-42; Justin 1 Apol. 34; targum on Micah; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 35:21). Later Jews who argued against the Christian appeal to Mic 5:2 did so on other grounds (Gen. Rab. 82:10).

The last phrase of the quote comes from 2 Sam 5:2 = 1 Chr 11:2, where godly shepherding forms part of the role assigned to King David.

There is probably also an echo of Ezek 34:11–16, where God himself will become the shepherd of his people because the false shepherds, the leaders of the nation, have scattered his flock. So the Messiah has come to “shepherd” the nation back to God.20

To a first-century Jew, reference to a ruler come forth to ‘shepherd my people Israel’ would have conjured up the eschatological expectation of the ingathering of the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. Ezek 34:4–16; Mic 5:1–9; Ps. Sol. 17; 4 Ezra 13:34–50; 2 Bar. 77–86; m. Sanh. 10:3), an expectation apparently shared by Matthew (19:28). Israel’s blindness would then be only for a season (see on 23:37–9). The alternative is to suppose that for Matthew the church of both Jew and Gentile had already come to supplant once and for all the place of Israel in salvation-history. Yet surely the OT promises of restoration—such as are found in Ezek 37 and Hos 2—would have prohibited this thought. If Paul could write that ‘God’s wrath has come upon them [the Jews] at last’ (1 Th 2:16) and still hold out hope for their final redemption (Rom 11), and if the Qumran sect could think of most Jews as outside the covenant and yet expect to see ‘all the congregation of Israel . . . join the Community and walk according to the laws of the sons of Zadok the Priests, and of the men of their covenant’ (1QS 1:1–2), the same could have been true for Matthew: the Jewish destiny could still be open. As the prophet foresaw, the Lord will ‘say to Not my people, “You are my people”‘ (Hos 2:23).21

7 Then Herod privately summoned the wise men and determined from them when the star had appeared.

Herod may have acted privately in order to keep others from warning the wise men of his treachery. The Greek could refer to when the star first appeared or to the length of time it was seen by the wise men. Herod assumes that the star appeared when the child was conceived or born. He wants to determine the age of the children to be slaughtered (2:16). Herod puts together information from both the Jewish religious leaders (place) and the wise men (time).

8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and look carefully for the child. When you find him, inform me so that I can go and worship him as well.”

Herod intended to kill the child (2:16). Verse 8 is a lie he told the wise men.

It is often suggested that the real Herod would not have been so incompetent as to rely on the good faith of the magi rather than sending an escort with them to ensure a correct report back or even to carry out the intended assassination there and then. But Herod had a liking for the use of under-cover agents [cf. Josephus, Ant. 15.366–367; 16.236], and he had no reason to doubt their compliance, while an armed escort might well have jeopardized a successful search for the family concerned. Moreover, the impression one gets at least from Josephus’ account of Herod’s latter years is hardly that of a rational planner. We may well suppose that the magi, even before their dream in v. 12, would have had their suspicions aroused by the desire of the reigning king to pay homage to a supposed “heir to the throne” whose whereabouts he did not know and of whose very existence he had hitherto been ignorant.22

9 After listening to the king they left, and once again the star they saw when it rose led them until it stopped above the place where the child was.

This is the first time the star is said to move. If the star had not moved previously, we may speculate that the wise men saw the star rise over Israel and assumed the ruler would be born in Jerusalem, the capital. This explains why they initially traveled to Jerusalem instead of Bethlehem. They learned from Herod that the child would be born in Bethlehem. The star did not so much lead them to Bethlehem, a mere five or six miles from Jerusalem, but to the specific house where the child was. The movement of the star suggests a supernatural event is taking place and calls to mind the pillar of fire and the cloud that led Israel in the wilderness (Ex 13:21; 40:38). Attempts to link the star of Bethlehem to known astronomical phenomena (e.g., a comet, a conjunction of planets, a nova) may not be relevant. But, if natural astronomical phenomena is in view, the wise men somehow interpreted it as leading them to a specific house.

According to Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 22:3, a cloud was said to have appeared and marked out the place where Abraham should sacrifice Isaac. Clement of Alexandria writes that when Thrasybulus was bringing back exiles from Phyla and wished to elude observation, a pillar became his guide as he marched over a tractless region to Munychia (Strom. 1:24:163). In the Aeneid (2:692–704), the way of escape for Aeneas is shown by ‘a star that drew a fiery train behind’. According to Diodorus Siculus (16:66–3), a comet went before Timoleon of Corinth as he travelled to Sicily.

Some later Christians came to identify the star of Bethlehem with an angel (Arabic Gospel of the Infancy 7), and long before Matthew angels and stars were already intimately associated with each other (Job 38:7; 1 En 86:1, 3; Rev 9:1; 12:4; T. Sol. 20:14–17; see further on 26:53). So the evangelist could have thought of the guiding star as angelic. But on this the text is silent.23

In Prot. Jas. 21:3 the star goes before the magi until it stands over Jesus’ head. Compare the remarks of Chromatius of Aquileia 6:3: the star ‘did not, remaining on high, point out the place; it not being possible for them [the magi] so to ascertain it, but it came down and performed this office. For you know that a spot of so small dimensions, being only as much as a shed would occupy, or rather as much as the body of a little infant would take up, could not possibly be marked out by a star. For by reasons of its immense height, it could not sufficiently distinguish so confined a spot, and discover it to them that were desiring to see it’.24

10 When they saw the star they shouted joyfully.

The recognition that they are being divinely guided is what fills the wise men with very great joy (the Greek emphasizes the depth of joy). The reaction of the magi contrasts with the reaction of Herod and Jerusalem in v. 3.

11 As they came into the house and saw the child with Mary his mother, they bowed down and worshiped him. They opened their treasure boxes and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

The mention of a “house” is often supposed either to contradict Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth in a stable or to indicate a sufficient time-lapse to allow the family to relocate to better quarters in Bethlehem. It is, however, becoming increasingly recognized that the “stable” owes more to Western misunderstanding than to Luke, who speaks only of a “manger.” In a normal Palestinian home of the period the mangers would be found not in a separate building but on the edge of the raised family living area where the animals, who were brought into the lower section of the one-room house at night, could conveniently reach them. The point of Luke’s mention of the manger is not therefore that Jesus’ birth took place outside a normal house, but that in that particular house the “guest-room” was already occupied (by other census visitors?) so that the baby was placed in the most comfortable remaining area, a manger on the living-room floor. There is therefore no reason why they should not be in the same “house” when Matthew’s magi arrive.25

As early as the second century Bethelehmites knew the exact cave where Jesus had reportdely been born in Luke’s manger (cf. Jerome Letter 58 to Paulinus 3; Paulinus of Nola Epistle 31.3). “The basilica at Bethlehem built by Constantine (A.D. 325) and rebuilt by Justinian (ca. 550) stands over a series of caves.”26

Joseph is notably absent from this passage. The child is always mentioned before the mother (2:11, 13, 14, 20, 21).

The wise men prostrate themselves before Jesus. The text does not state there were three wise men nor does it call them kings. It is likely the wise men were part of a caravan since they attracted the city’s attention (2:3) and caravans provided protection from robbers. The three gifts were typically associated with royalty and were symbols of loyalty and submission. Gold was a precious metal prized for its beauty and value. Frankincense and myrrh were expensive fragrant spices used in religious ceremonies, in wedding ceremonies, for cosmetic purposes, as seasoning, and as medication. The gifts of the wise men are probably to be seen as the firstfruits of the eschatological pilgrimage of the nations and their submission to God (Isa 60:1-6; Ps 72:10-11, 15; Ps. Sol. 17:31; 1 En. 53:1; Gen. Rab. on 49:10). Since the time of Irenaeus (Her. 3.9.2), the gold has been understood to symbolize royalty, the frankincense to symbolize divinity, and the myrrh to symbolize death and burial.

Beyond the eschatological theme, a Jesus/Solomon typology may also perhaps be discerned in Mt 2:11. (1) Gold and myrrh were among the gifts brought to king Solomon by foreigners, and gold and frankincense were firmly associated with the temple he built (1 Kgs 10:2, 25; 1 Chr 9:29; 2 Chr 9:24; Neh 13:5, 9; Ecclus 47:18). (2) Ps 72, alluded to in 2:11, is attributed in the OT to Solomon. Moreover, if we are to trust Justin (Dial. 34), some Jews at least applied the psalm’s words to king Solomon. (3) Leaving aside Ecclus 24:15, frankincense and myrrh appear together only three times in the OT, each time in connexion with Solomon: Ct 3:6; 4:6, 14. (4) The eschatological events (including the eschatological pilgrimage of the nations, foreshadowed or begun in Mt 2) were sometimes conceived as a return to—or a surpassing of—the days of Solomon, the days of the first temple (e.g., Hag 2:7–9 and T. Benj. 9:2). (5) Just as the magi give both gifts and homage to king Jesus, so foreign royalty once rendered both gifts and honour to King Solomon (1 Kgs 10:1–10, 15, 23–5; 2 Chr 9:14; T. Sol.)—and in late Jewish tradition the queen of Sheba saw a star as she made her way to David’s son. Further, if Matthew thought the magi’s home to be Arabia—an option reinforced by Herodotus 3:107: ‘Arabia is the only place that produces frankincense and myrrh’—it may be recalled that the most famous visitors Solomon received were also from Arabia (1 Kgs 10:1–5; Mt 12:42; T. Sol. 19:1–3; 21–2). In view of these several points, it is rather tempting to see the Jesus of Mt 2 as one like Solomon, the son of David.27

12 After being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they went back by another route to their own country.

The passive “warned” indicates the dream is given by God. For the wise men, a dream was an expected form of divine revelation. The warning implies the wise men were unaware of Herod’s murderous plot.

One wonders how the Magi could have been so gullible as to believe what seems a palpable attempt to deceive (Herod’s character was well enough known in the court that Augustus is reported to have made a wordplay, saying, “I would rather be Herod’s pig [ὗς] than his son [υἱός]”). Perhaps being from the east rather than Rome, they had not heard the reports.28

Comment

Moses/Jesus Typology

The Moses/Jesus typology continues in this passage:

  • Verse 2 (“king of the Jews”): Moses was made a king in Jewish tradition (Philo, Mos. 1.334; Mek. on Ex 18:14; Sipre on Num 10:29; ARN 1 (B); b. Zeb. 102a; Exod. Rab. on 34:27; Midr. Ps. on 5:11).
  • Verse 3 (“When King Herod heard this he was alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him”): Josephus (Ant. 2.2.2-3 §§206, 215) says Pharaoh and the Egyptians were alarmed at hearing of the coming birth of a Hebrew deliverer and decided on the policy of infanticide.
  • Verse 6 (“a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel”): Moses was remembered as a shepherd (Isa 63:11; LAB 19:3, 9; Mek. on Ex 14:31; Exod. Rab. on 2:2).
  • Verse 7 (“Herod privately summoned the wise men and determined from them when the star had appeared”): Josephus (Ant. 2.9.2 §§205, 234) says that Pharaoh learned of the future deliverer of the Hebrews from sacred scribes. Tg. Ps.-J on Ex 1:15 says the chief magicians interpreted a dream Pharaoh had about a lamb and an ewe as predicting the birth of a deliverer and the ruin of Egypt. Other ancient Jewish tradition says astrologists predicted the birth of Moses to Pharaoh (Tg. Yer. on Ex 1:15; m. Sotah 12; Exod. Rab. 1.18 on Ex 1:22).

Bibliography

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. The New American Commentary 22. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.

Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Updated Edition. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew: Volume I: Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII. Vol. 1. 3 vols. International Critical Commentary. New York: T&T Clark, 1988.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary 33A. Dallas: Word Books, 1993.

Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.

Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1-7. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

Metzger, Bruce M., ed. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Hendrickson Pub, 2005.

Osborne, Grant R. Matthew. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Zondervan, 2010.

  1. Davies & Allison 1988, 226 ↩
  2. Keener 1999, 3308-3319 ↩
  3. Keener 1999, Kindle Locations 3300-3302 ↩
  4. France 2007, 67 ↩
  5. Keener 1999, Kindle Locations 3294-3296 ↩
  6. Brown 1993, 174 ↩
  7. Keener 1999, Kindle Locations 3411-3413 ↩
  8. Davies & Allison 1988, 233–234 ↩
  9. Keener 1999, Kindle Locations 3349-3359 ↩
  10. Hagner 1993, 25–26 ↩
  11. Brown 1993, 170-171 ↩
  12. Brown 1993, 174 ↩
  13. France 2007, 64 ↩
  14. Luz 2007, 105 ↩
  15. Keener 1999, Kindle Locations 3338-3347 ↩
  16. France 2007, 69–70 ↩
  17. Hagner 1993, 28 ↩
  18. France 2007, 71 ↩
  19. Davies & Allison 1988, 239-240 ↩
  20. Osborne 2010, Kindle Locations 2313-2315 ↩
  21. Davies & Allison 1988, 243–244 ↩
  22. France 2007, 74 ↩
  23. Davies & Allison 1988, 246 ↩
  24. Davies & Allison 1988, 247 ↩
  25. France 2007, 74–75 ↩
  26. Brown 1993, 166 ↩
  27. Davies & Allison 1988, 250–251 ↩
  28. Osborne 2010, Kindle Locations 2331-2333 ↩

One thought on “Commentary on Matthew 2:1-12”

  1. Pingback: Gospel of Matthew: Introduction and Commentary – Biblical Scholarship

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.