Matthew-Christmas

I. The Birth & Infancy of Jesus

Problems to be dealt with

-----Only the Gospels of Matthew and Luke tell of the birth of Jesus; the Gospels of Mark and John do not. Why?

-----Matthew and Luke agree that Mary and Joseph had a son, Jesus, born in Bethlehem. But they differ on almost every other point: (Why?)

----- Matthew and Luke differ on the visitors to the "manger scene" -- in Matthew it is wise men; in Luke it is shepherds.

They not only differ but contradict each other on other details:

----- The genealogies of Joseph given in Matthew and in Luke are almost totally different. Why?

----- Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem and moving later to Nazareth; Luke has them living in Nazareth and going to Bethlehem only for the census (which raises problems of its own). (See the Table at the very end of this web-page.)

----- Matthew has them fleeing from Bethlehem to Egypt for an extended sojourn; Luke has them returning almost immediately from Bethlehem to Nazareth.

Overall questions and concerns

1) Why do Mark and John have no birth and infancy stories?

2) Which is more important, (a) the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth as portrayed in Matthew and Luke (regardless of the details), or (b) his teachings? (If you choose (a), then this study guide may not be for you.)

3) Why do Matthew and Luke differ so drastically in the details of their presentation?

4) How sure can we be of the historical truth of any of these accounts?

5) Recognizing that the account in Matthew (like that in Luke) is not intended as an historical document, what can we determine about Matthew's purpose through an examination of the genealogy and other details of the story?

6) If we decide that both nativity accounts are less than reliable as history, what might we figure out anyhow about the facts of Jesus' birth and childhood?

7) And why does any of this matter? Or does it?

1: 1-17 The ancestry of Jesus

Matthew's intent -- starting from even the first verse of his gospel -- is to "legitimize" Jesus: to tie him to Jewish history and prophecy, and to present him as the fulfillment of the history and prophecy. Buried away in this seemingly sterile list of names is an incredible amount of symbolism and significance. Most of it can be sorted out into three main categories. Let us examine each of these in turn. :

(a) House and Lineage of David (on a separate web-page) deals with the question of why it was important to Matthew (and early Christians) that Jesus be a descendant to King David.

(b) The issue of Symbolism in the genealogy, seldom discussed because most people have no idea that it is there, is dealt with immediately below., and

SYMBOLISM (NUMEROLOGY) OF THE GENEALOGY

Exercises:

Compare this genealogy with the one in Luke starting at 3:23. (The comparison is more difficult because Matthew starts with Abraham and counts down to Jesus, while Luke starts with Jesus and counts back, through Abraham, all the way back to Adam and then God.) Have one person start reading Luke forward (from 3:23) while another person checks off the names starting at the end of Matthew's genealogy (1:16). How do they differ?

Discussion:

Luke has, instead of the forty-two generations of Matthew, fifty-six generations to get back to Abraham. Matthew and Luke agree from Abraham down to David, but from David down to Jesus they disagree completely: They have a different number of names, and all the names are different. Each selected names for symbolic reasons

Confronted with this double genealogy, some believers in Biblical inerrancy have argued that one of these genealogies is Mary's, not Joseph's. But this is not what the gospels say.

So what can we say about the two genealogies of Joseph? The possibilities are:

a) neither is true.

b) one is true -- but we have no way of knowing which, or

c) it didn't matter originally, but later both authors constructed genealogies (by analogy with Hebrew Bible antecedents) because there was pressure later to specify Jesus' family connections, as well as to prove his connection to Jewish history.

But do we, in the twentieth century, care? It's hard to see why we would or should -- these are only lists of names, of men about whom we know nothing -- absolutely nothing (at least for the more recent generations) -- about personality or dates or occupation or beliefs or even place of residence.

Having challenged the historical validity of this genealogy, let us now look deeper to discern Matthew's purpose and intention:

1) The first thirty names are sequentially from I Chronicles, this part of which is essentially a genealogy of the forefathers of the nation of Israel. Yet between #21 and #22, Matthew has inexplicably omitted three names. And the last nine -- from #31 through #39 -- which bridge the gap between the end of the tabulations in Chronicles and the time of Jesus, are more or less a list of illustrious-sounding names and variations thereon, some derived from I Chronicles, some from other parts of the Hebrew Bible, and some looking like variations on better known names.

Matthew is clearly concerned about the numerical symmetry of his genealogy:

----- fourteen generations from Abraham to King David;

----- fourteen more from David (double-counting David) to the deportation to Babylon1 (to Jeconiah); then

----- fourteen more from Jeconiah (double-counting Jeconiah) to Jesus.

Matthew is playing a "numbers game" here. He is, as he points out at the end of the section (verse 17), creating a three-part pattern of fourteen names each, hence the need to eliminate several names in the middle third, and to invent the requisite number of names in the last third. In addition, it is necessary to double-count the "bridge" names between sections to make the count come out right. But why this pattern?

Within this pattern there is symbolism in every detail. Several explanations have been proposed, all of which might apply. First, almost any biblical series of seven suggests a week (and any series of six suggests the need for a seventh to complete it, just as a seventh day is necessary to complete a week); and twenty-eight would suggest a month.

If generations represent days of the month,

-----then the generation of Abraham is the new moon, the start of a new month, the start of Israel's ascendancy,

-----reaching a peak with the full-moon, fourteen days/generations later, in the glory days of King David.

-----Then the nation reaches a low point another fourteen generations/days later with the Babylonian captivity -- another new moon.

-----And now the generation of Jesus, the fulfillment of Jewish history, is another full moon.

----- And after this series of six "weeks" of generations must come a final (and shortened -- see Matthew 24:22) "week" to complete a "week of weeks" of generations.

As I looked over this pattern of generations, I began to wonder where the period of servitude in Egypt, followed by the Exodus, fell in the sequence. Since the time in Egypt was supposed to be some four hundred years, and the generations would come somewhere between Abraham and David, it appears to me that there are not nearly enough generations listed to span that time. (I'd appreciate other thoughts on the subject.)

1:18 - 20 Joseph decides not to divorce Mary

Exercise:

1) V. 18: "She was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit." Speculate if you will as to how she was "found to be ..." A local fact-finding commission?

2) Read Genesis 37, looking for parallels between the two Josephs.

Discussion:

1) Though illegitimacy still bears a considerable stigma in many parts of our society, this is as nothing compared to the stigma in more traditional, patriarchal societies. Notice how Matthew glosses over the issue: "She was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit." She may have been "found to be pregnant," but who would have established that it was "through the Holy Spirit" -- and how? When you try to picture how this determination would have been made, you will realize that Matthew is spinning a yarn.

2) i) Both Josephs had a father named Jacob.

ii) Both received messages in dreams. (Gen. 37:5)

iii) A star was involved. (Gen. 37:10)

iv) Both went down to Egypt. (Gen. 37:28)

As Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown reads this section, it takes for granted that there was a widespread rumor that Mary's pregnancy was adulterous. Since Matthew cannot deny that Jesus will be born "indecently early," the virgin birth and the angelic announcement are the only possible ways of putting a good face on this distressing rumor.

These verses in Matthew raise several other points about attitudes and beliefs of the time:

----- Controls Upon Women: In the earlier goddess-cultures of Palestine -- from pre-Hebrew Canaan on into Biblical times -- lineage was traced through the mother, rather than through the father. Because of so-called "temple prostitution" in many pre-Jewish cultures, in which a young woman might have intercourse with a number of men, fatherhood was often impossible to determine. (Probably as a carryover from those pre-patriarchal times, to this day one's identity as a Jew depends on one's mother being Jewish.)

In reaction to these Canaanite religions which it was trying to supplant, early Judaism, like every other patriarchal society, imposed strict controls upon the freedom and activities of women in order that paternity would never be in doubt. Because of this strictness, any kind of sexual irregularity -- meaning any kind of sexual activity outside of marriage, particularly by women -- was drastically punished. Under Jewish law, Mary, pregnant before marriage, could have been stoned (see Deuteronomy 22:13-21), so Joseph here looks fairly compassionate in deciding merely to "divorce her informally."

----- Importance of Dreams in Early Times: Note that Joseph is informed of the true state of affairs in a dream, a frequent and accepted means of revelation in both Old and New Testament days -- but one which rapidly fell into disfavor in the early days of Christianity. Why? A dream containing a direct revelation from God could challenge the authority of church leaders. Or it could be inspired by Satan rather than by God. In the early church, the acceptability of guidance through dreams was first restricted to saintly, virtuous Christians: If you were not considered to be one of these, then your dream was suspect. Eventually it was decided that only church leaders -- bishops and above -- could legitimately receive divine guidance through dreams.

1:21 "...And You Must Name Him Jesus"; or, What's in a Name?

This verse (at left) is a continuation of the angel's announcement to Joseph.

Discussion:

Given the ubiquitous use of the name Jesus in our society -- even on bumper-stickers -- yet at the same time a use restricted (except in Hispanic culture) to the one unique Jesus our culture recognizes, it may be worthwhile to pause a moment to explore the historic origins and significance of this name.

Imagine for a moment that you have been transported back to the Galilee of two thousand years ago, and you see a familiar figure strolling ahead of you on a main street in Nazareth or Capernaum. (We won't go into how you could possibly recognize him, since all our images of Jesus date from centuries later, and he most certainly didn't look like any of them.) You cry out, "Jesus!"

What happens? Probably nothing, except for a few locals glancing in your direction to see why this foreigner is shouting out something incomprehensible. Why? Because -- even if you had recognized the right man -- his name wasn't Jesus.

As Meier (I.205-208) points out, the original full Hebrew form of Jesus' name is Jehoshua, of which the more ordinary form in pre-exile times was Joshua. In Hebrew, this name means "Yahweh saves." After the Babylonian exile (in the 500s BCE), the more common form was Yeshua, often shortened (particularly in Galilee) to Yeshu. These old patriarchal names had fallen out of favor, but the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE), in trying to Hellenize Palestine, triggered a backlash -- Jews who resented Antiochus' effort to replace their culture with a Greek culture reacted, among other things, by reviving Hebrew Bible names for their children. (Interestingly, Matthew gives a reason for this choice of name but only indirectly translates it -- perhaps assuming that his Jewish readers (and hearers) would know enough Hebrew to be aware of this.)

So by Jesus' time, there were numerous men named Joshua or Jeshu. (Both of these names are taken over into Greek as Iesous, with the "s" at the end to fit Greek grammatical rules.) The Jewish/Roman historian Josephus (in Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 §63-64) mentions about twenty different men with this name from around the time of Jesus -- so being named Jesus in those times was a little like being named Bill or Bob today.

And concerning Jesus of Nazareth, Jewish Antiquities says:

This is the form in which this text has come down to us. But unfortunately for those who would be gratified to learn of a contemporary non-Christian affirming the divinity of Jesus, there is more to the story: Scholars are pretty much agreed that the lines in underlined italicsare clumsy insertions by a later scribe; there is no indication anywhere else that Josephus believed in Christianity. (Meier I.60-61)

The name of Jesus' mother: While discussing the significance of the name of Jesus, it is appropriate to mention in passing another name. Mary's name in Aramaic would have been Mariam, and the Hebrew name from which it derived is Miriam -- the sister of Moses. It may just be a happy coincidence that this name provides Matthew with another link between Jesus and Moses.

1: 1-17 The ancestry of Jesus

1:1The family tree of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:

2Abraham was the father of Isaac;

and Isaac was the father of Jacob;

and Jacob was the father of Judah and his brothers;

3And Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah

whose mother was Tamar;

and Perez was the father of Hezron;

and Hezron was the father of Ram;

4And Ram was the father of Amminadab;

and Amminadab was the father of Nahshon;

and Nahshon was the father of Salmon;

5And Salmon was the father of Boaz whose mother was Rahab;

and Boaz was the father of Obed whose mother was Ruth;

and Obed was the father of Jesse;

6And Jesse was the father of David the king;

SOURCES

Genesis 12 ff.

Genesis 38

Joshua 2

1 Chronicles 3

Ruth

2 Samuel 11-12

PARALLEL

Luke 3:23-38

Left Column:

The Text of the Gospel According to Matthew

SOURCES

Readings listed below are likely sources used by Matthew for the section being discussed.

PARALLELS

Readings listed here are probably not materials which Matthew used as a source but rather they may have used Matthew (or his source(s)) as a source, or they may simply deal with a similar theme or subject.

15. Solomon: I Chronicles 3:5.

16, Rehoboam: I Chronicles 3:10.

17. Abijah: I Chronicles 3:10

18. Asaph: or "Asa": I Chron. 3:10

19. Jehosaphat: I Chronicles 3:10

20. Joram: I Chronicles 3:11

21. Uzziah:or "Ahaziah":Chron. 3:11

Omitted: Joash: I Chronicles 3:11

Amaziah: I Chronicles 3:12

Azariah: I Chronicles 3:12

22. Jotham: I Chronicles 3:12

23. Ahaz: I Chronicles 3:13

24. Hezekiah: I Chronicles 3:13

25. Manasseh: I Chronicles 3:13

26. Amos: or "Amon": I Chron. 3:14

27. Josiah: I Chronicles 3:14-15

28. Jechoniah: I Chron. 3:16-17

And David the king was the father of Solomon

whose mother had been the wife of Uriah;

7And Solomon was the father of Rehoboam;

and Rehoboam was the father of Abijah;

and Abijah was the father of Asaph;

8And Asaph was the father of Jehosaphat;

and Jehosaphat was the father of Joram;

and Joram was the father of Uzziah;

9And Uzziah was the father of Jotham;

and Jotham was the father of Ahaz;

and Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah;

10And Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh;

and Manasseh was the father of Amos;

and Amos was the father of Josiah;

11And Josiah was the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, about the time of the Babylonian deportation.

Table: Sources of Matthew's Genealogy (Compare with text in left column)

1. Abraham: I Chronicles 1:34

2. Isaac: I Chronicles 1:34

3. Israel: I Chron 1:34 (was Jacob--

see Gen.35:10)

4. Judah: I Chronicles 2:1

5. Perez: I Chronicles 2:4

6. Hezron: I Chronicles 2:5

7. Ram: I Chronicles 2:9

8. Amminadab: I Chronicles 2:10

9. Nahshon: I Chronicles 2:10

10. Salmon: r "Salma" I Chron.2:10

11. Boaz: I Chronicles 2:11, 12

12. Obed I Chronicles 2:12

13. Jesse: I Chronicles 2:11,12

14. David the king: I Chron.2:13-1

12And after they were deported to Babylon, Jechoniah was the father of Salathiel;

and Salathiel was the father of Zerubbabel;

13And Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud;

and Abiud was the father of Eliakim;

and Eliakim was the father of Azor;

14And Azor was the father of Zadok;

and Zadok was the father of Achim;

and Achim was the father of Eliud;

15And Eliud was the father of Eleazar;

and Eleazar was the father of Matthan;

and Matthan was the father of Jacob;

16And Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary,

to whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17So there are fourteen generations from Abraham to David; and there are fourteen generations from David until the Babylonian deportation; and from the Babylonian deportation to Christ there are fourteen generations.

29. Salathiel; I Chronicles 3:17.

30. Zerubbabel: I Chron.3:19

31. Abiud: "Abiud" is from the Greek transliteration of "Ab-Jud," meaning "[my] father [is] Jud[ah]." I Chronicles 3:19 names several sons of Zerubbabel, of whom Abiud is not one.

32. Eliakim: the name "Eliakim" appears in Isaiah 22:20. Verse 22 says of him, "I [Yahweh] shall place the key of David's palace on his shoulder."

33. Azor: Possibly a shortened form of Azariah, I Chronicles 6:36(21).

34. Zadok: Zadok is the highest of priestly names. Found in I Chronicles 6:38(50).

35. Achim: Possibly shortened form of Ahimaaz, I Chronicles 6:38(50).

36. Eliud: Greek transliteration of "El-Jud," "God of Judah."

37. Eleazar: Another high priestly name. I Chronicles 6:38(50)

38. Matthan: Possibly shortened form of Mattathias, Maccabean founder of priesthood

39. Jacob: early patriarch appearing in Genesis 25-35; father of an earlier Joseph.

40. Joseph the husband of Mary,

41. Jesus, who is called Christ

Center Column:

Discussion of the text

Right Column:

Sources, Parallels, and Other Material

1:18 - 20 Joseph decides not to divorce Mary

18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: When his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, before they lived together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Then her husband Joseph, being a just man, and not willing to cause her public disgrace, decided to divorce her privately.

20 But while he thought about these things, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, don't be afraid to take Mary home as your wife: for what is conceived in her comes from the Holy Spirit."

SOURCE

Genesis 37

PARALLEL

Luke 1:28-56; 2:1-20

Was Jesus born on Christmas?

For several centuries, the birth of Jesus was not celebrated at all. Then as the early church became concerned about the excesses of the Roman Saturnalia celebrations (perhaps like the worst of New Year's Eve and Mardi Gras and a few other things rolled into one), marking the winter solstice, a decision was made to co-opt Saturnalia by having a special mass -- a Christ-Mass -- at the same time, to turn a wildly secular observance into a properly devout religious time. But there were no illusions that this season was the actual time of Jesus' birth.

The only Biblical clue to the season of Jesus' birth is Luke's mention of "shepherds watching over their flocks by night" (2:8). The only time shepherds watch their flocks at night is during lambing season -- in April or so. But I am suspicious of this as an actual remembrance, since this section of Luke's Gospel would have been read on the eighth Sabbath of the Jewish year, or perhaps in May, so Luke may have inserted this reference as an acknowledgment of the season of the reading, rather than out of any knowledge of the exact date (or even season) of Jesus' birth.

1:22 - 25 "A Virgin Shall Conceive and Bear a Son"

Exercise and Questions:

1) Is Isaiah making a prophecy about the birth of Jesus? Read all of Isaiah 7, concentrating especially on verses 10-17, those immediately around the "prophecy." What are they about?

2) Why wasn't Jesus named Emmanuel?

Discussion:

1) If you have ever heard a Christmas church service or a Christmas cantata, you have certainly heard the prophecy, "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son" (Isaiah 7:14). Is this a prophecy? Yes, indeed. Is it a prophecy of the birth of Jesus? No, indeed.

Keep in mind that Isaiah is presenting a conversation between Yahweh and King Ahaz of Judah (southern Palestine) in the 730s BCE. Ahaz is being threatened by several neighboring kings. Yahweh says they will not conquer Ahaz, and offers to give him a sign. When Ahaz refuses to "put Yahweh to the test," Yahweh -- through Isaiah -- goes on to reassure him that soon his enemies will cease troubling him.

How soon? The answer is in terms of the development of an unborn child, perhaps Ahaz's son: "The young woman" -- who might in fact be Ahaz's wife -- "is with child and will give birth to a son..." And before that child is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong, Ahaz's enemies will be gone.

Both the Greek word parthenos, the word Matthew found in the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible with which he was familiar, and the word alma, used in the original Hebrew Bible, are of somewhat uncertain meaning, but seem to mean "young woman," and perhaps a young married woman who has not yet had her first child. The contexts in which they are used do not ever seem to require the meaning of "virgin," though of course the young woman could be a virgin, and if she is not married she would have to be. Furthermore, there is a separate Hebrew word -- betulah -- which specifically means "virgin," and the original verse in Isaiah would most certainly have used that word if in fact virgin were meant.

This "prophecy" thus is a strong indication that early Christians in effect ransacked the Old Testament seeking verses which could serve as prophecies of Jesus. In this case it is glaringly obvious that the verse in question has been yanked out of context in order to serve a purpose.

2) And clearly if this were a prophecy of the birth of Jesus -- or if his parents had seen him as the fulfillment of an old prophecy -- then Jesus would have been named Emmanuel, and Christianity would be about Emmanuel Christ. Unfortunately, Matthew had to create his "prophecy" out of existing facts -- a quotation from Isaiah and the historical existence of a man who happened to be named Jeshu (or "Jesus" in Greek) rather than Emmanuel.

2:1-12 The Magi visit

Exercise:

1) V. 1: Who was Herod? Was he Roman or Jewish or what?

2) V. 1: What are "Magi"? How many were there? Contrast the presentation of the Magi in Matthew (the only place they are mentioned) with the traditional depiction of them (for instance, the Christmas carol, "We Three Kings"). Have some things been added to the story over the years?

3) Why would Magi -- priests of a religion hundreds of miles to the east -- care about the birth of the "King of the Jews," and why would they want to worship him?

4) V. 3: "All of Jerusalem ... was disturbed." Speculate a moment on how "all of Jerusalem" knew of this event, and why they would be "disturbed."

5) If the Magi knew of the birth of Jesus, and the "chief priests and scribes" knew where the King of the Jews was to be born, why didn't they also go to Bethlehem to worship?

6) What can we deduce about the date of Jesus' birth?

7) V. 6: Read Micah 4:14/5:1 - 5:3/4 (numbering varies in different Bible editions). The Christmas story as told by Matthew differs from that in Luke in almost every respect. Virtually the only common element is Bethlehem. Why do Matthew and Luke agree on Bethlehem as the place of Jesus' birth?

8) V. 11: Was Jesus born in a stable? a cave?

9) V.12: What is the significance of these gifts of the Magi?

10) Read Luke 2, at least the first 20 verses and perhaps through verse 35. What are the differences between Matthew's account and Luke's?

11) Jump over to the Gospel of John and read 1:45-46. Where did the author of the Gospel of John think Jesus was born? Read also John 7:40-52, especially verse 42. Does this seem to confirm that Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem?

Discussion:

1) Herod the Great was part of a dynasty of rulers over Judea. This Herod's grandfather, founder of the line, was from Idumea, to the south of Judea. The Herods were nominally Jewish -- but not very. Herod the Great rebuilt the Temple in Jerusalem.

2) "Magi" is a Greek word of Persian origin, meaning priests of Zoroaster, from Persia or from elsewhere to the East, or, in a more general sense (and not capitalized), sorcerers, wise men, or magicians. The tradition of the Magi, as presented every Christmas, contains far more detail than Matthew's account warrants. Matthew speaks of "some wise men," and their "gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh." Nothing else. But the mention of three gifts led to a tradition of three wise men, and at some point in the Middle Ages -- perhaps in the context of the Mystery Plays -- they were given names, which have stuck.

3) Zoroastrian priests coming to worship the "King of the Jews"? We have here some yarn-spinning by Matthew, and some ethnocentrism as well. A part of the ancient Jewish world-view placed Jerusalem at the center of the world. When God stepped in to end all earthly realms -- and not just the Jewish kingdom -- His new capital would be Jerusalem, and all nations would bow toward Jerusalem. In acknowledgment of this "fact," it was only reasonable that the Magi would come to worship the one who would be king over them as well as over the Jews.

4) "All of Jerusalem ... disturbed"? There are several problems here. There is the assumption that what was told to Herod and his advisors, presumably in confidence, was immediately published to the entire city. In the absence of any form of mass communication, this assumes a very active gossip network, which in turn assumes that here was information that everyone was interested in and actually took seriously. But "disturbed"? The arrival of a divinely ordained King of the Jews would have to be in the context of the establishment of God's Kingdom, and this should have been a positive expectation of the end of the oppressive Roman and Herodian rule. There should have been an uprising and a vast wave of Jews going to Bethlehem.

5) Though it might seem that the religious establishment, like the populace, would welcome the fulfillment of religious prophecy, it is more likely that the priests and scribes -- like most religious leaders of our own time -- were comfortable with the status quo and would fear and resent anything that might introduce radical change. (It has often been said -- not quite humorously -- that Jesus would not be welcome in most churches today.) They would not believe that their spiritual king had in fact arrived.

6) The mention of Herod in the infancy accounts of both Matthew and Luke is one of the bases for dating the birth of Jesus. From Latin and Greek writings of the first centuries CE, we know that Herod the Great ruled from 37 BCE to 4 BCE. Though there is reason to question Matthew's account of the flight of Joseph and Mary and Jesus to Egypt until Herod's death, it seems nonetheless safe -- if still not certain -- to assume that Jesus was born near the end of Herod's reign: perhaps between 6 BCE and 4 BCE. At least, no one has come up with a better choice of birth-date or a reason for supporting it. (In my book, Matthew: Christian Rabbi, see Table 13: Family Tree of the Herods, accompanying Matthew 14:3-12.) Perhaps you have noted a paradox here: We supposedly count our years from the birth of Jesus -- so we should be able to say that Jesus was born in the year 1. And indeed that is how the calendar was set up by a scholar in the fourth century. Problem was, he counted wrong, so we are left with the peculiar situation of Jesus being born in the year 4 "Before Christ."

7) Why do Matthew and Luke agree on Bethlehem as Jesus' birthplace? The answer is found in Matthew's quotation, in verse 6, of Micah 5:1: "And you, Bethlehem ... from you will come a leader ..." If Jesus was indeed this leader, then he must have been born in Bethlehem. (Notice in passing that Matthew has altered the text to say that Bethlehem was "not the least," while in Micah Bethlehem was "the least.")

8) Early depictions of the "manger scene" showed that scene as being in a cave under a mountain. More recently, we have grown accustomed to the depiction of a stable. But what do the Gospels say? Matthew speaks of the Magi "going into the house." Luke, who has the couple returning from Nazareth to Joseph's ancestral home in Bethlehem, speaks of Mary laying the baby in a manger (a cow's feeding trough) because there was no room in the "living space" (not "inn"). It is reasonable to speculate that when they arrived at the small home of relatives of Joseph, the "living space" was so crowded that, as Luke visualized the story, they were forced to put up in perhaps a lean-to stable attached to the side of the house.

9) The three gifts of the Magi are symbolic: Gold is a gift suitable for a king. Frankincense is burned in the worship of a divinity. And myrrh is used in preparing a body for burial. These three gifts summarize a lot of Matthew's theology: Jesus is a king, he is divine, and he will be killed.

10) Notice that though both Matthew and Luke accept the birth in Bethlehem, they tell different stories to get Mary and Joseph there. Though Matthew doesn't specifically say so, he implies that they were already living in Bethlehem. The next problem for Matthew concerns how, then, Jesus got to Nazareth. Matthew solves this by means of the flight (from Herod) to Egypt and the eventual decision to relocate to Nazareth in Galilee -- away from the control of Herod's son Archelaus (but nonetheless under the control of another of Herod's sons!).

11) In both these passages in the Gospel of John, you can perhaps detect a wink from John. John (1:46) quotes Nathanael asking, "Can anything good come from [Nazareth]?" (If Nathanael only knew!) This line can, of course, be read both ways: a) that John -- and his readers -- knew that Jesus was born in Nazareth (so something good could indeed come from Nazareth), or b) that John -- and his readers -- knew that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem, so Nathanael's rhetorical question was really meaningless. (Take your pick.)

And in John 7:41-42, the crowd are arguing about whether Jesus could be the Christ. Some say, in effect, "How could he be the Christ? Isn't the Christ supposed to come from Bethlehem?" Some critics have similarly chosen to read this as John's little irony, as if John were confiding to us, "Wouldn't that take the wind out of their sails if they realized that Jesus was born in Bethlehem?" But Meier (I.214-215) thinks it is a different kind of irony, particularly since John earlier (1:45-46) seems emphatic that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Meier considers this another of John's examples of the public being perfectly right on a literal level -- but totally failing "to grasp the heavenly origin and reality of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh."

Many of the accounts in Genesis have as one purpose the explaining of the origins of the various tribes in and around Israel. British theologian Michael Goulder suggests that since Esau, who figures in the lectionary readings for this week and next, is considered the progenitor of the neighboring tribe of Edom, and since King Herod the Great was Edomite, this point in the narration was a particularly appropriate place for an account of the atrocities of Herod.

2:13-15 Joseph and his family flee to Egypt

Exercise:

1) In this and following sections, do you see parallels with the story of Moses? Read Exodus 1:21-2:22. Compare Jesus' going up on the mountain in Matthew 5 (and talking about aspects of the Law) with Moses going to Mount Sinai in Exodus 19; and Jesus' ten miracles in Matthew 8-9 with the ten plagues Moses inflicts on the Egyptians in Exodus 7-10. Do you "buy" the idea that Matthew is trying to create a parallel between Moses and Jesus?

2) In verse 15, Matthew quotes the prophet Hosea (11:1), who says, "When Israel was a child I loved him, and I called my son out of Egypt." Read several verses preceding and following this one in order to determine the context and significance. Is it a prophecy about Jesus?

Discussion:

1) A favorite theme of Renaissance painters was the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt. You have certainly seen paintings of the three resting on their fearful journey, the young Mary and the aged Joseph looking exhausted, the baby Jesus with a halo around his head, their faithful donkey waiting patiently for them to gather their strength and plod on a few more miles. But there is no indication anywhere else in the Bible -- or anywhere else -- that Mary and Joseph and Jesus fled to Egypt.

And Luke explicitly says that eight days after the birth of Jesus, the family made an offering at the Temple in Jerusalem and then made an uneventful return to Nazareth. The story seems to be there, first, to provide a fulfillment for the (non-)prophecy from Hosea (see below), and, second, to create a parallel with the story of Moses. Matthew seems at pains to create events in Jesus' life which will present him as a second Moses. There are enough of these to give support to the theory that this is what Matthew is trying to do -- but the parallels are inexact enough that you can, if you prefer, reject the theory.

2) This quote from Hosea is part of an extended narration by Jahweh of the relationship between the loving Jahweh and His errant people Israel. "My son" in this verse is clearly the Hebrew people, and the verse is clearly about history, not about prophecy. Hosea is saying that while the Hebrews were in Egypt, God chose them and therefore led them ("called him") out of Egypt This appears to be yet another example of "mining" the Hebrew Bible for verses which can be taken out of context and used as prophecies.

2:16-18 Herod massacres children around Bethlehem

Exercise:

Skim through Jeremiah 30-31, and note 31:15.

Discussion:

Herod was indeed a cruel ruler, but there is no evidence -- from fairly extensive and detailed Roman records -- that the massacre of the innocents ever took place. Matthew seems to have created this story

a) to explain the flight to Egypt, which explains leaving Bethlehem, which explains the resettlement to Nazareth, and

b) to create another parallel with the story of Moses.

Meier (I.376) points out that since Matthew does not say the Magi came to see a newborn child, it is totally unclear how old the infant was when they arrived. And the story of Herod massacring all boys under two years of age suggests that Jesus might have been as much as a year old -- old enough that the only way of being sure of catching him in this "dragnet" would be to allow a full year's margin of error. Obviously, if Jesus was supposed to have been born only days before the Wise Men arrived, then Herod could have chosen to kill all baby boys under six months, or too young to walk. So the story seems to imply that the visit of the Wise Men could have been almost a year after Jesus' birth.

The verse from Jeremiah, about "Rachel weeping for her children," refers to an earlier defeat in which people of the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin were either massacred or deported by the Assyrians. It may have seemed especially relevant to Matthew because of a tradition which placed Rachel's tomb in the village of Rama and in the district of Ephrath. Matthew may have been familiar with Genesis 35:19, which, almost in an aside, mentions "Ephrath, now Bethlehem." Matthew thus constructed a parallel between a long-ago slaughter at "Ephrath, now Bethlehem" and his account of the slaughter of the newborns.

But according to all other sources, Ephrath is located to the north of Jerusalem (rather than south, where Bethlehem is located), and there can be found the remains of a village identified as Ramah; and near that village are some ancient monuments known locally as "The Graves of the Children of Israel."

2:19-23 Joseph takes his family from Egypt to Nazareth

Exercise:

1) Read Numbers 6:1-8 for a presentation of the "nazirite vow." Read Judges 13:2-7 for the nazirite vow taken for Samson.

2) Where did Mary and Joseph live before the birth of Jesus? Read Luke 2:39, and perhaps from v. 15 on to establish the setting.

Discussion:

1) For anyone in a Christian culture, Nazareth, after Bethlehem, is the best known town in Holy Land. How famous exactly was Nazareth in Jesus' time? Not very. It is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible or in any other ancient records that we know of. It is unknown outside of the New Testament.

The "prophecy" at the end of this section, in verse 23, "He shall be called a Nazarene," is either a play on words or, more likely, a misunderstanding. The Greek word used by Matthew is "Nazoraios," which presumably could mean either Nazarene or nazirite. Since Nazareth or Nazarene is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, the only possible reference seems to be to Judges (13:7) which contains a line, "the boy [Samson] is to be God's nazirite..." -- a word meaning "consecrated to God." And this story of the dedication of Samson is an application of the law given in Numbers 6:1-8.

2) Whereas Luke refers to Mary (and presumably Joseph) as already living in Nazareth, Matthew has Joseph and Mary resettling in Nazareth after a return from exile in Egypt.

Table 3: Comparison of Nativity Accounts in Matthew and Luke

Matthew Luke

Mary and Joseph lived ...in Bethlehem ...in Nazareth

When Jesus was born, his family was visited by

...wise men ...shepherds

When the family left Bethlehem, they went

where? ...to Egypt, then to Nazareth ...home to Nazareth

when? ...after a lengthy stay in Egypt ...immediately

SOURCE

Psalm 130:8

1:21 "...And You Must Name Him Jesus"

21"And she will give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

1:22 - 25 "A Virgin Shall Conceive and Bear a Son

"22Now all this was done to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,

23Behold, a young woman will be with child,

and shall give birth to a son,

and they shall call his name Emmanuel,

which means God is with us. 24Then when Joseph woke, he did as the angel of the Lord had told him, and took his wife home, 25and he did not have intercourse with her till she had given birth to her firstborn son. And he named him Jesus.

SOURCES AND PARALLELS

Psalm 72:10,15

Isaiah 60:3,6

V.23: Isaiah 7:14

PARALLEL

Luke 2:5-7

2:1-12 The Magi visit

2:1Now when Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea in the reign of Herod the king, suddenly some Magi came from the east to Jerusalem, 2asking, "Where is the one who is born King of the Jews? We have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him." 3When Herod the king had heard this, he was disturbed, and all of Jerusalem with him.

4And when he had called all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where the Christ was to be born. 5And they said unto him, "In Bethlehem of Judea: for this is what was written by the prophet:

6And you Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,

are not the least among the princes of Judah,

for out of you shall come a leader,

who shall rule my people Israel."

7Then Herod, when he had called the Magi to talk with him privately, asked them exactly what time the star had appeared. 8And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, "Go and search diligently for the young child, and when you have found him, bring me word again, so that I can come and worship him too."

9When they had listened to the king, they left; and then the star which they had seen in the east went before them, till it came to a stop over the place where the young child was. 10When they saw the star, they were filled with delight. 11And when they went into the house, they saw the young child with his mother Mary, and they knelt down and worshipped him. And opening their treasures, they presented him gifts of gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

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

SOURCE

V.6: Micah 4:14/5:1 - 5:3/4

(?) PARALLEL

Luke 2

2:13-15 Joseph and his family flee to Egypt

13And when they had left, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, and said, "Get up, and take the young child and his mother, and escape to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, for Herod will search for the young child to destroy him." 14So Joseph got up and took the young child and his mother that night, and went to Egypt, 15and stayed there until the death of Herod, to fulfill what the Lord had spoken through the prophet, saying:

Out of Egypt I have called my son.

SOURCES

Exodus 4:19

Numbers 23:22

Judges 13: 2-7

Hosea 11:1

PARALLEL

Luke 2:1-40

2:16-18 Herod massacres children around Bethlehem

16Then Herod, when he saw that he had been fooled by the wise men, was extremely angry, and he had all the children in Bethlehem, and in all the surrounding districts, killed, two years old and under, according to the time which he had been careful to ask of the wise men. 17Then the prophecy spoken by the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled, which said,

18In Rama a voice was heard,

lamenting and weeping,

and mourning,

Rachel weeping for her children,

refusing to be comforted,

because they are no more.

SOURCES

Genesis 35:16-20

Jeremiah 31:15

2:19-23 Joseph takes his family from Egypt to Nazareth

19But when Herod had died, suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20and said, "Get up, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel, for the ones who wanted to kill the young child are dead." 21And he got up and took the young child and his mother and went back to the land of Israel. 22But when he heard that Archelaus ruled in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. So, being warned by God in a dream, he went instead into the district of Galilee. 23And he came and settled in a city called Nazareth, so that the prophecy, spoken by the prophets, might be fulfilled, that:

He shall be called a Nazarene.

SOURCES

Exodus 4:19-20

Numbers 6:1-8

Judges 13:2-7

PARALLEL (?)

Luke 2:39

Table: Comparison of Nativity Accounts in Matthew and Luke

Matthew Luke

Mary and Joseph lived ...in Bethlehem ...in Nazareth

When Jesus was born, his family was visited by

...wise men ...shepherds

When the family left Bethlehem, they went

where? ...to Egypt, then to Nazareth ...home to Nazareth

when? ...after a lengthy stay in Egypt ...immediately

The following is an excerpt from my book, Matthew, Christian Rabbi, available from a number of online sources , including Amazon and AuthorHouse.

Here's what I have found as answers to questions I have always had. Perhaps you have had similar questions.

--Christopher B. Sanford

Time Machine Exercise:

You have been transported back to the Galilee of two thousand years ago, and you see a familiar figure strolling ahead of you on a main street in Nazareth or Capernaum. You call out, "Jesus!" What happens?