Matthew 2 - Introduction

EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER TWO

TREASURING THE TRUTH

No sooner was Jesus born into this world than men began grouping themselves into three groups, into which men are always divided by the Lord. In the historic facts of this chapter we have the types of these classes which have ever demonstrated their true nature by their reaction to God's truth:

I.

HATRED AND HOSTILITY: those who are fearfully alarmed at the truth. Like Herod, they may seek it and yet violently hate the truth when it interferes with their plans. Others, like Herod, may know the prophecies of Christ's coming but hope they would not be fulfilled in their lives and time, preferring their Herods with peace to the Messiah with revolution which would disturb their lives and plans. But look at the absurdity of all their crafty counsels to overthrow the truth: if the truth be not at all true, they need not worry, since nothing will come of it, But if the truth be the very word of God, their efforts to thwart it and Him must ever be fruitless and useless! If the Child be not the Messiah, Herod need not have been alarmed; but if He be the Christ, all of Herod's best plots could never succeed.

II. COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE: those who rest in the letter of the truth but do nothing about it. The scribes and Pharisees, who were called into council by Herod to answer his demand for truth. knew the right answers. But when faced by Him who arose from Bethlehem to proclaim Himself to be the Truth. they rejected the truth. It is shocking that those who had the most knowledge regarding the coming of the truth into the world were not the ones most interested in searching for it. If they had any wish to go to Bethlehem to investigate or any inclination to surrender their worldly lust for reputation and position, it was insufficient to make them brave Herod's wrath or the scorn of their fellows.
III. ADORING WORSHIP: those who earnestly seek and affectionately guard and willingly obey the truth:

A. The Magi, at great pains and expense, had willingly followed every bit and piece of divine revelation entrusted to them.
B. Joseph and Mary were, from the very first, ever ready to lay their lives and reputations on the line, to act at a moment's notice to obey God's will by protecting and rearing Him who would be God's clearest demonstration of His truth.

CONCLUSION: Why do we seek God's truth?

1.

To hate and attempt to thwart its effect in our lives when we see that it contradicts our will, our desires and our plans? Do we seek it to attempt to mold it around our ambitions? The man whose one desire is to do what he likes never has any use for Jesus Christ. The Christian is he who has ceased to do what he likes, surrendering his life to do what Jesus wills.

2.

Or, do we seek God's truth in order to rest in our rigid orthodoxy and knowledge, however accurate, of the letter of the Scripture, never condescending to expend time and energy to investigate the message nor make careful application to our own lives? Are we so interested in our own affairs that Jesus Christ, frankly, does not interest us?

3.

Or, are we earnestly seeking the truth as heaven's highest prize and earth's most precious reward? Do we know the meaning of instant obedience to the voice of God? Do we desire to lay our lives at the feet of Jesus, the noblest gifts we may bring?

SPECIAL STUDY:
HOW DOES MATTHEW USE THE PROPHECIES?

Under this innocent title lies a very vital question which touches not only the veracity of an apostle, but also the question of his inspiration, and, consequently, the question of inspiration in general, and the acceptability of the NT books as an authoritative, normative collection of historic documents as a basis of Christian faith. These statements are characteristic of the problems touched by this question:

1.

What becomes of Matthew's supposed reliability as an eyewitness of the events he records, if he unblushingly uses as a prophecy about Jesus just any OT text which can be made verbally to fit, even though the ancient text originally had nothing to do with Matthew's material, and was never meant to have anything to do with it? If he unconscionably misappropriates texts in the revered prophets to bolster his case, perhaps he invents facts to support it as well. If an apostle be shown to be intellectually dishonest at this point, who could trust him to tell the truth about the resurrection of Jesus?

2.

Perhaps the so-called fulfilments of prophecy are merely convenient interpretations of then present circumstances in order to support the pretences to Messiahship made by Jesus of Nazareth. who in reality had no right to that grand title and deserved to be crucified for his blasphemous assertions of Messiahship. (Cf. Luke 4:16-29)

3.

Are there more ways than one in which the word fulfil may be understood, so that both the veracity and inspiration of Matthew may stand, thus indicating something of the authority of an apostle's declaration that this was done with the result that it fulfilled the word of the Lord spoken by the prophet?

A proper understanding of this third problem will help solve the other two. For, if it be possible to ascertain the intended meaning of Matthew behind the word fulfilled in each case of its use, it will lead to a clearer answer to the question of Matthew's use or supposed misuse of a given prophecy. In attacks upon Matthew's integrity, the assumption is generally made that he used the word fulfilled in an exact, fixed sense in every instance, somewhat along the lines of this definition: The fulfilment of any prophecy must conform in every respect to the details of the supposed prediction. But does our author so intend his word in every case?

Two particular observations should be made at the outset regarding Matthew's use of the word fulfil:

A. Matthew never precisely defines fulfil in such a way as to require a precise, literal fulfilment of a prophet's words in every case. Rather, he uses the word in its popular sense in a manner suited to each specific prophecy in question, leaving to his reader to decide in each case what is meant by the term. Had Matthew limited himself by so precise a definition as would require a point-by-point fulfilment, the reader would not have this liberty of interpretation according to the requirements of each case, and Matthew would then be chargeable with flagrant manipulation of OT texts.

B. It must be noted that the word fulfil is used in popular speech, both among the Jews and their writings as well as in modern English, to mean not only point-by-point identification but also the more general realization or more complete manifestation of a design, plan or intention. To force one specific meaning arbitrarily upon Matthew's word would violate the most basic rule of interpretation of human writings: the only correct interpretation of an author is that which he intended to say by the words he used. If the author does not declare his intended meaning for specific words he uses, the only recourse is to the general use of the word among his contemporaries. The word fulfil is used in the Scriptures and in other writings in the following senses:

1.

A fulfilment is said to occur when a thing predicted clearly comes to pass as predicted. Or, it may be that there was a partial, literal fulfilment in the days of the prophet which leaves the remainder of the prophet's words for later fulfilment. This is the way Matthew (Matthew 1:22-23) makes use of Isaiah 7:14, since the promise of a virgin-born Son who would be called Immanuel is not at all fulfilled in Isaiah's day, although other parts of the prophecy were certainly fulfilled, as a sign to king Ahaz. Here, then, Matthew uses fulfil in its strictest sense. In Matthew 2:4-6, where the prophecy of Micah 5:2 is quoted by the Jewish authorities as the literally-predicted birthplace of the Christ, Matthew tacitly accepts the traditional reading of this passage with almost verbal insistence upon its strict, literal fulfilment. (cf. Matthew 2:1)

2.

It is well-known that a writer sometimes speaks more than he or his age can comprehend. Should it be thought strange that God should make his prophet the partially unconscious agent for the expression of a great truth the implications of which might be hidden to the prophet himself or to his age? Depths of meaning, hidden both from the original writer or from his earlier interpreters, may be disclosed only by later historical developments. Such is the case with Matthew's treatment of the prophecy of Hosea (Hosea 11:1). Hosea's words, taken at face value, amount up to the nation of Israel only. However, God's intention, voiced through Hosea-s words and seen through the perspective of the history of Israel which focuses itself upon Jesus, was to bring His Son out of Egypt. From the naturalistic viewpoint, we would say that Matthew read history more accurately than all his contemporaries, since he had already seen in Jesus the fulfilment of all of Israel's prophecies. Accordingly, the personal exodus of Jesus from Egypt merely facilitated the true deduction that God, speaking through Hosea, really intended Jesus. On the other hand, speaking from the point of view that for good and sufficient reasons accepts the supernatural inspiration of Matthew, one could say that God inspired Matthew to reveal his correct interpretation of Israel's history, and thus also of Hosea's words regarding that history. Thus, Matthew is revealing the real meaning that God intended behind Hosea's words. Edersheim (Life, I, 215) comments:

In point of fact the ancient Synagogue did actually apply to the Messiah Exodus 4:22, on which the words of Hosea are based. See the Midrash on Psalms 2:7. The quotation is given in full in our remarks on Psalms 2:7 in Appendix IX.

3. In describing the broken-hearted mothers of Bethlehem, Matthew (Matthew 2:17-18) chose rather to use the touchingly beautiful symbol used by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15) of the weeping Rachel. Here Matthew uses the word fulfilled in a clearly figurative sense, since the fulfilment was not of a prediction of the prophet, but of certain of his words due to their aptness to describe a different situation. There is no predictive element in Jeremiah's words except the promise of Israel's return from captivity, which is not used by Matthew.

Once again the voice of weeping motherhood is heard in Israel. The tender and beautiful imagery is applicable in this sense and is used with true might, but with no intention of trying to justify a claim of prediction and fulfilment in the literal sense.

4.

Frequently, the apostles speak of Jesus as not only fulfilling specific predictions but also fulfilling the very trend or message of the prophets (See John 1:45; John 6:45; Acts 3:18; Acts 3:24; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:40; Romans 1:2) It is in this general sense that Matthew describes Jesus in Matthew 2:23 as fulfilling the prophets by His being called a Nazarene. Thus, Matthew uses fulfil literally, although the prediction to which he refers is found in no one prophet, but in the general trend of the prophets who describe the Messiah as God's Suffering Servant. (Cf. Luke 24:44 ff)

5.

There is a fifth use of prophecy and fulfilment that indicates how fulfilment may be intended: language is said to be fulfilled when, though it was used to express one event, it may be used to express another. Sayings, fables, parables and other such figures, drawn from a particular event, may have fulfilment in another event similar to the case from which they were originally taken. For example, Jesus asserts (Matthew 13:14) that in the unbelief of the people of His day the prophecy of Isaiah 6:9-10 is fulfilled. While the words of Isaiah were not predictive, they are susceptible of repeated application or realization, because of the general principle they contain. They applied to the prophet's own day. They also apply, and in that sense are fulfilled, to Jesus-' own day. By a legitimate extension of meaning, they apply to the stubborn unbelief of any age.

Therefore, we should stand as warned against a too-rigid and literal interpretation of any formula implying fulfilment. While it may certainly be intended to imply literal prediction and an equally literal fulfilment, it may also be intended to suggest nothing more than a harmony of principle. Since our author does not define which of these intentions he is using in each case, we are not at liberty to assert dogmatically a meaning that manifestly does not permit to Matthew the same liberty accorded to other writers in their use of words.

A major difficulty is seen in Matthew's use of a formula which implies fulfilment: thus it was done to fulfil the word of the Lord spoken by the prophet, This formula is his consistent expression both for a literally predicted fulfilment and a figurative, general fulfilment of some figure of speech or of a principle. However, Matthew's Gospel, directed as it was to one segment of a popular, oriental mind of his period, must not be charged with inaccuracy or misappropriation of prophetic texts by those of a critical, western mentality fond of mechanical precisions. If it be objected that Matthew's formula is a loose use of language, let it be answered that Matthew is in good company and that such an objection ignores the cultural background within which the Evangelist wrote. (Cf. Mark 14:49; John 12:38; John 13:18; John 15:25; John 17:12; John 18:32; John 19:24; John 19:28; John 19:36)

Are the fulfillments of prophecy merely convenient interpretations of co-incidental circumstances made to support Jesus-' pretensions?

In the one point where the identification of Jesus with the Messiah by His followers can be tested most severely, they are most completely triumphant. It would be comparatively easy to invent incidents suggested by OT prophecies, and to take dignities and titles wholesale from the same source - but given all these, to find one capable of realizing and fulfilling the expectations so aroused is the chief problem. Here fabrication is impossible. And here too the NT meets and answers the challenge of truth. (ISBE, 2518b)

The anti-supernaturalist might ask, But can it be said that the apostles, who were for the most part no scholars, could more correctly interpret the OT, better even than their own religious leaders? It is not likely that fishermen understood the prophets better than the Sanhedrin and the rabbis who gave their time to nothing but the study of the Law and the prophets. To this it may be replied, yes, but such simple men had not all the prejudices of rabbinical learning to forget as they studied under Jesus, although they admittedly had their own rabbinically-oriented prejudices. (Cf. Matthew 15:12 ff; Matthew 16:5-12; Matthew 16:21-23) According to Jesus, almost all of the Jews had either ignored the spirit of the Law or misinterpreted the prophets (Matthew 5:17-48; Matthew 9:10-13; Matthew 11:12; Matthew 15:1-20; Matthew 22:15 to Matthew 23:39; John 5:38-40; John 5:46-47; John 7:19-24; John 12:34), and consequently were not expecting the kind of Messiah that God actually had sent in the person of Jesus. Those fishermen and tax-collectors, who accepted Jesus-' authority on the basis of His proof of identity as the Revealer of God, were indeed better interpreters of the OT than the rabbis, because they had sat under Him who was the Author of that testament! (1 Peter 1:10-12) They had heard His expositions of those prophetic passages (Luke 24:25-27; Luke 24:44-48), and, were they to be considered from a mere naturalistic viewpoint, they would still be better qualified to interpret the Scriptures than any rabbi! But their source of authority is always Jesus. Back of the question of the authority and supernatural inspiration of the apostles always stands the more basic demand: What do you think of Jesus? If He be the Revealer of God, then, the interpretations of the OT He teaches the apostles to declare to the world are the only correct, possible interpretations. If Jesus fulfilled His promise to empower them to reveal truth as yet unknown to them, then, the apostles may be trusted when they declare with all the authority of God: This was done with the result that it fulfilled the ward of the Lord spoken by the prophet.

The same Spirit which foretold through the lips of the prophet now interprets the fulfilment, using the pen of the Apostle. Are we at liberty to differ with the conclusions of an Apostle?