Matthew 2:  Is it False or Is it True?

 

 

      I.   Introduction

 

The common theme of many claims made by Christian apologists and missionaries to their Jewish targets is that Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies contained in the Christian "Old Testament", and various passages from the New Testament are cited as evidence of their fulfillment.  A Jewish person, one who lacks a good Jewish education and who might be looking for some spiritual nourishment, could easily be convinced about the efficacy of these claims. 

 

In this essay, the content of an entire chapter out of the first book in the New Testament, Chapter 2 in the Gospel of Matthew, is analyzed in order to test the validity of such claims.  It is demonstrated that, under scrutiny, claims of prophetic fulfillments attributed to this chapter do not survive.

 

    II.   Matthew 2 in the King James Version

 

The King James Version (KJV) translation of the second chapter in the Gospel of Matthew is replicated below, including footnotes to identify verses that are claimed to be describing the fulfillments of specific prophetic messianic passages from the "Old Testament".  The actual statements of these alleged "fulfillments" are shown in highlighted text:

 

Matthew 2(KJV)

 

(1) Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

(2) Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

(3) When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

(4) And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

(5) And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

(6) And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.[1]

(7) Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

(8) And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

(9) When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

(10) When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

(11) And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

(12) And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

(13) And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

(14) When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

(15) And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.[2]

(16) Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

(17) Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,

(18) In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.[3]

(19) But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,

(20) Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.

(21) And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

(22) But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

(23) And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

 

[1] v. 6 -   Micah 5:2[1 in the Hebrew Bible]

[2] v. 15 - Hosea 11:1

[3] v. 18 - Jeremiah 31:15[14 in the Hebrew Bible]

 

The references to the prophetic passages in the (Christian) "Old Testament" are taken from footnotes in popular Christian Bibles such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the New International Version (NIV) Bible.

 

  III.   Can  Both Matthew 2 AND the Hebrew Bible Be True?

 

In the second chapter in the Gospel of Matthew, the author records four events which, according to him, were foretold by the Jewish prophets and were fulfilled by Jesus.  Each of the four "fulfillment" accounts in Matthew 2 is now contrasted against the claimed corresponding prophetic statement in the Hebrew Bible to test its validity.

 

A.      Claim #1:  Bethlehem Is the Messiah's Birthplace[1]

 

According to the opening verse, Jesus was born in Bethlehem:

 

Matthew 2:1-2(KJV) – (1) Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, (2) Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

 

Upon hearing this proclamation, a very concerned King Herod summoned the chief priests and scribes to the royal court.  He wanted to know where this child was born, and was told the following:

 

Matthew 2:5-6(KJV) – (5) And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,  (6) And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

 

In Matthew 2:6, the author attempts to quote the verse Micah 5:2 from the "Old Testament", which is Micah 5:1 in the Hebrew Bible.

 

This passage suffers from two major problems.  First, according  to the historians, Herod reigned for some 33 years, from 37 B.C.E. to 4 B.C.E.  This implies that, if the story in Matthew 2 were true, the events described thus far would have had to take place prior to the advent of the Common (Christian) Era.  In other words, Jesus would have had to be born not later than 4 B.C.E. to fit into this scenario.  The chronology of the historical events conflicts with the time of birth of Jesus according to Christian theology.

 

Second, the claim that Jesus fulfilled the purported prophetic statement, that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, is based on the misapplication of this passage.  Table III.A-1 shows side-by-side English renditions of the verse from the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament (Mt 2:6), of the original verse from the Book of Micah in the KJV "Old Testament" (Mic 5:2), and of the original verse from the Book of Micah in the Hebrew Bible (Mic 5:1).  Also displayed, for reference, is the corresponding verse from the Hebrew Bible.

 

Table III.A-1 – Comparison of Matthew 2:6 with Micah 5:1[2]

 

 

The information in Table III.A-1 demonstrates that Matthew 2:6 not only "twists" the original text in order to make it fit the story line, it is not even a complete quote of the verse in the KJV "Old Testament".

 

Is the original verse, Micah 5:1, really a prophecy that  (mashi'ah), the Messiah, will be born in Bethlehem?  Without a doubt, the entire passage is messianic; it is about King David's ancestry, which will also be the ancestry of  (mashi'ah), who will be a descendant of King David.  Since Bethlehem was the place from which King David's family hailed, it is also the place of origin of  (mashi'ah), though not necessarily his place of birth.

 

Support for the claim by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Mt 2:1) is found in the New Testament, in the Gospel of Luke:

 

Luke 2:4-7(KJV) – (4) And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) (5) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. (6) And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. (7) And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

 

The author of the Gospel of John writes that some people believed the Messiah to come from Bethlehem, while others asserted that he was of Galilean origin:

 

John 7:40-43(KJV) – (40) Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. (41) Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? (42) Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? (43) So there was a division among the people because of him.

 

However, he does not capitalize on the opportunity to demonstrate that Jesus fulfilled Micah's prophecy and state that Jesus was born there.  Consequently, this omission might indicate that the author of the Gospel of John did not necessarily concur with the authors of the other two Gospels that Jesus, in fact, was born in Bethlehem, and he lets stand the opposing assertion that Jesus was of Galilean origin (see also Jn 1:46).  This is consistent with all other references (except for those of his birth) in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, that Jesus was from Nazareth.  Curiously, the author of the earliest of the four Gospels, the Gospel of Mark, is silent on this matter. 

 

Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority, has been excavating in the area of an Israeli village, known as Beit Lehem haGalilit, Bethlehem of the Galilee, which is located a few miles west of Nazareth.  This town of Bethlehem is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as being in the territory of the Tribe of Zebulun, which included the lower Galilee (Josh 19:15).  From his findings, Oshri concludes that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of the Galilee, not in Bethlehem of Judea.  Here is a translated portion of the summary to his article:

 

 

What has been described above indicates that Jews occupied Bethlehem of the Galilee in the time of Jesus.  During the Byzantine era there is a massive Christian presence in that place, a presence that has, if fact, continued to our times with the settling of the Templars.  In addition, we learn from the New Testament that the life of Jesus centers around the lower Galilee and the Kineret [the Sea of Galilee].  According to the New Testament, the pregnant Mary rode [on a donkey] to be in her hometown, [yet] it makes no sense that a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy would ride such a distance [Bethlehem of Judea is situated some 70 miles {~113 kilometers} south of Nazareth].  The distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem of the Galilee, in contrast, is only about 7 kilometers [~4 miles].  The explanation that ties Jesus to Bethlehem in Judea is clear enough; the Christian claim is that Jesus is the Messiah, the Messiah, according to the Old Testament, will come from the House of David, and his [David's] origin is from Bethlehem in Judea.  Therefore, if this historical entity existed and was named Jesus, and if he were born in Bethlehem, then it follows that it is Bethlehem of the Galilee, and not that of Judea.[2]  [Clarifying editorial comments within the brackets are mine. (UY)]

 

It is also interesting to note that, in contrast to the important messianic attributes spelled out by the Jewish prophets in the Hebrew Bible, being born in Bethlehem, even if it were true, would be inconsequential.

 

Consequently, Matthew 2:6 is:

 

X     Inconsistent with the accepted historical chronology

 

X     Is a misapplication of a passage from the Hebrew Bible

 

Conclusion:  Claim #1 becomes Pious Fraud Example #1.

 

B.     Claim #2:  The Return of Jesus from Hiding in Egypt Is Foretold by Hosea

 

Matthew 2:13-15 tells of a dream Joseph had, in which an angel appeared to him and told him to flee with his family to Egypt and stay there till he is told to return.  Upon waking, Joseph did as told, and remained in Egypt until the death of Herod.  In the last verse of the passage, the author of the Gospel of Matthew makes the claim that the return from Egypt by Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, is the fulfillment of an "Old Testament" prophecy:

 

Matthew 2:15(KJV) - And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

 

Table III.B-1 shows side-by-side English renditions of the verse from the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament (Mt 2:15), of the original verse from the Book of Hosea in the KJV "Old Testament", and of the original verse from the Book of Hosea in the Hebrew Bible.  Also displayed, for reference, is the corresponding verse from the Hebrew Bible.

 

Table III.B-1 – Comparison of Matthew 2:15 with Hosea 11:1

 

 

The phrase "… Out of Egypt have I called my son …" in Matthew 2:15 points to Hosea 11:1 in order to convey the notion that the flight of baby Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod’s homicidal intentions was not an arbitrary event.  Rather, it was the fulfillment of what Hosea had foretold. 

 

To test the validity of the claim, consider the passage Hosea 11:1-2 (two renditions are shown, a Jewish translation and the KJV translation):

 

Hosea 11:1-2 – (1) For, when Israel was young, I loved him, and from Egypt I called my son. (2) [Yet, as much as] they [the prophets] called to them [Israel], so did they turn away from them; they sacrificed to the Ba’als [ (la'b^ealim)] and burnt incense to the idols.

 

Hosea 11:1-2(KJV) – (1) When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.  (2) As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.

 

In either rendition, it is clear that the entire first verse, Hosea 11:1, does not describe a child/Messiah fleeing to Egypt and then being summoned back.  The prophet relates how G-d called the fledgling nation of Israel out of Egypt.  In the second verse, Hosea 11:2, Hosea tells how, in spite pleas by the prophets, those called out of Egypt sinned against G-d – they worshipped the  (b^ealim)[3], Ba'als, and other idols.

 

The author of the Gospel of Matthew would have created a serious dilemma, had he quoted both verses in their entirety.  The context of Hosea 11:1 is that it is not prophetic, but simply a restatement of an event in the history of Israel.  Likewise, Hosea 11:2 is a continuation of the recounting of events in the history of Israel.  To attribute Hosea 11:1 to Jesus would be tantamount to making him and his Jewish parents idol worshippers and, thus, they all would be sinners.  The author avoided this problem by lifting out of this historical passage just the phrase that suited his purpose, "Out of Egypt have I called my son".

 

Did this trick solve the problem?  Not really, since by going back to the source, Chapter 11 in the Book of Hosea, one would realize that this son is Israel - the Jewish nation, and not Jesus.

 

Conclusion:  Claim #2 becomes Pious Fraud Example #2.

 

C.     Claim #3:  The Killing of All Children by King Herod Is Foretold by Jeremiah

 

King Herod, apparently angered at being mocked by the wise men and desiring to neutralize the threat to his throne posed by this newborn child of whom they spoke, kills all of Bethlehem's children of age two years and younger:

 

Matthew 2:16-18(KJV) – (16) Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. (17) Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,  (18) In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

 

Of particular interest here is Matthew 2:18, which is, according to the author of the Gospel of Matthew, the alleged fulfillment of a prophesied sadness that would follow the massacre of the children by King Herod.

 

Table III.C-1 shows side-by-side English renditions of the verse from the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament (Mt 2:18), of the original verse from the Book of Jeremiah in the "Old Testament" (Jer 31:15), and of the original verse from the Book of Jeremiah in the Hebrew Bible (Jer 31:14).  Also displayed, for reference, is the corresponding verse from the Hebrew Bible.

 

Table III.C-1 – Comparison of Matthew 2:18 with Jeremiah 31:14[15]

 

 

This verse from the Book of Jeremiah is part of a passage, Jeremiah 31:2-20 [1-19 in some Bibles], that is chanted in every Jewish synagogue as part of the prayer services on the second day of Rosh haShanah, the Jewish New Year.  Perhaps the primary reason this passage found its way into the liturgy is that its last three verses speak of the efficacy of repentance.  Another reason is that the passage contains a prophecy of the national restoration of Israel, which brings to the Jewish people a heartening message of hope to encourage them in their darkest ages.  The verse in Jeremiah 31, which immediately follows the one being "quoted" in Matthew 2:18 as the original prophecy, continues with this positive message:

 

Jeremiah 31:15[16 in Christian Bibles] – So said the L-rd, "Refrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; for there is reward for your work," the word of the L-rd, "and they shall return from the land of the enemy."

 

This verse points to a delightful and idyllic picture of the joy of a redeemed Israel.  Probably more Jewish liturgy and music has been drawn from this chapter in Jeremiah than from any other single chapter in the Hebrew Bible! 

 

The allusion to Rachel's weeping over the disappearance of her children has no connection to the killing of the children by King Herod, as suggested in Matthew 2:17-18.

 

Conclusion:  Claim #3 becomes Pious Fraud Example #3.

 

D.     Claim #4:  The Prophets Foretold of Jesus Being from Nazareth

 

Joseph finds out that Herod had died, and that he is to bring his family back to the Land of Israel.  However, since Herod's son was the ruler in Judea at that time, Joseph decides to go north to the Galilee to settle in the town of Nazareth.  The author of the Gospel of Matthew claims that this, too, was a fulfillment of something which was foretold by the Jewish prophets:

 

Matthew 2:23(KJV) -  And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

 

A search of the Hebrew Bible for passage containing the substance of that which was allegedly "… spoken by the prophets …" will not yield any results.  There are no such verses in the Hebrew Bible.  Moreover, nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is there any reference to the Messiah as a Nazarene and, in fact, the town of Nazareth is never mentioned therein.  Since there are no references in the Hebrew Bible against which this passage may be compared, one could ask, "What might have been the author's agenda here?"

 

Various speculations exist concerning a possible answer to this question.  One suggestion is that the author was referring to the description of the Messiah as a  (netser), an offshoot, used in Isaiah 11:1, a metaphorical allusion to a new, flourishing scion from King David's lineage.  This idea is problematic since, even though the metaphor is utilized by Isaiah, nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is it indicated or implied that  (mashi'ah) will actually bear the name  (netser).  Moreover, the author of the Gospel of Matthew wrote "… which was spoken by the prophets …", i.e., he refers to a plurality and not to a single prophet who may have made such a prophetic statement.  Since there exists no other messianic application of the Hebrew term  (netser) in the Hebrew Bible, the attempt to force the connection with Isaiah 11:1 fails.

 

Another suggestion is that the author was using a "play on words" with the Hebrew root verb  (natsar), [to] guard, [to] watch [over].  However, this idea, too, cannot be supported from within the Hebrew Bible.  The Hebrew name for Nazareth is  (natsrat) or  (natseret), which may have a possible connection with the verb  (natsar), primarily due to the geography of the town, as it is situated on an elevated plateau.  However, one who hails from Nazareth is called  (notsri; pronounced noh-tsree), a term that has become the Hebrew word for a Christian.  However, the common noun derived from the verb  (natsar) is  (notser), a guard, a watchman, and such a term is never used in the Hebrew Bible in connection with  (mashi'ah).

 

Still another proposed idea is that the author is referring to Jesus as being a Nazirite, an English term that comes from the Hebrew noun  (nazir), one who is consecrated through a vow (e.g., Num 6:2, Jdgs 13:5).  However, nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is it stated, alluded, or implied that  (mashi'ah) will ever take the vow of a  (nazir)[4].  Moreover, there is no linguistic relationship between the Hebrew word  (nazir), Nazirite, which derives from the root verb  (nazar), and the Hebrew word  (notsri), Nazarene, which derives from the root verb  (natsar).

 

The strongest evidence, the "smoking gun", may be found within the verse Matthew 2:23 itself, since it provides the reason for Jesus being called a Nazarene [NazwraioV (Nazoraios), of/from Nazareth in Greek].  Jesus is called a Nazarene because he resided in the town of Nazareth [Nazareq (Nazareth; in Greek)].  This has no relevance to the Hebrew words  (netser),  (natsar), or  (nazir) and, therefore, any speculations about what the author of the Gospel of Matthew had in mind here, in terms of references to Hebrew words, are moot.

 

Consequently, whether or not the author of the Gospel of Matthew did this with intent, the outcome remains the same, Matthew 2:23 points to a nonexistent prophecy in the Hebrew Bible.

 

Conclusion:  Claim #4 becomes Pious Fraud Example #4.

 

IV.   Summary

 

This study of Chapter 2 in the Gospel of Matthew identified and analyzed four claims made by its author, of allegedly "fulfilled" prophecies from the "Old Testament".  The analysis demonstrated how these claims turned into four examples of pious fraud, and how the author deceived his readers by retrofitting his stories to appear as fulfillments by Jesus of alleged prophecies by the Jewish prophets.  In typical fashion, the authors of the New Testament searched for, and found, in their Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, passages that had "Christological appeal", and then wrote "Jesus stories" around them to create the impression they were "fulfilled".

 

Though not the earliest of the four Gospels, the Gospel of Matthew is the first book in the New Testament and, thereby, it sets the tone for the rest of that portion of the Christian Bible.  This is, perhaps, the most compelling motivation for a study such as was presented herein.

 

The first chapter in the Gospel of Matthew (and in the New Testament) provides the material for two other essays.[5]  In these two essays, the claims are demonstrated to be false relative to the Hebrew Bible.  With the first two chapters in the New Testament having no credibility, how can anyone accept the entire book as valid, let alone as Scripture?.

 

Regardless of the truth, Paul advocated the perpetration of "divine deception":

 

Romans 3:7-8(KJV) - (7) For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?  (8) And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

 

1 Corinthians 9:19-22(KJV) – (19) For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.  (20) And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;  (21) To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.  (22) To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

 

2 Corinthians 12:16(KJV) – But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

 

These passages, in effect, give Christian missionaries the "license" to perpetrate their deceptive deeds.  Only by carefully studying such texts can one discover how deceptive, insidious, and sinister they really are.