07 Why Matthew Says Jesus Fulfilled a Prophecy That Doesn't Exist (Matthew 2:19-23)

Krisan Marotta: Thank you for listening to Wednesday in the Word. I'm Krisan Marotta, and this is my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. This is the seventh talk in our series on the Gospel of Matthew. Today we're gonna study Matthew chapter 2, verses 19 through 23. You can find lecture notes with links to everything mentioned in the talk and an outline of the main points on our website. You can find those notes by clicking on the link below the podcast, or you can go to wednesdayintheword.com slash Matthew 7. Thanks for listening today. Four times in this section, Matthew relates an event in the early life of Jesus and then says that something in the Old Testament is fulfilled. And as we have seen, he does not mean that an Old Testament passage predicted an event that has now come to pass in the life of Jesus. Rather, what Matthew means by fulfilled is that in the Old Testament we find a theme, we find a picture, and then in the New Testament we find a fuller expression of that theme or that picture. A spiritual principle is shown now in its fullness or completeness. We might say it's the epitome, it's an analogous reality. And as I've said, for example, I might say, just as Moses led the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt, God, through Jesus, leads us out of captivity to sin. And in that sense, Jesus is the fulfillment of Moses. In Jesus' life, we see a fuller picture of the theme or the idea that we saw with Moses. So Jesus' life fills up and fills out the Old Testament passage in some way. When I say fulfilled in that sense, I am not saying that Moses' actions predicted Jesus' actions. I'm making a comparison, an analogous reality. What Moses did in his day, Jesus did in his day even more so. Jesus is the epitome of that principle or moral truth or theme that you see in the story of Moses. He's the fullest picture of that principle or the culmination of it. And I have argued that quite often, when you see the scripture was fulfilled, it is being used in the second sense, especially in Matthew. We've also seen that Matthew expects us to be familiar with the Old Testament, its history, its background, and the context of each of the passages he quotes. And we're going to find that is true again today. Let me review where we are in the story. Matthew made the point that Jesus is the Christ. He is that one descendant of Abraham and one descendant of David who will fulfill the promises that God gave to them. In the first two chapters, Matthew gives an account of the birth of Jesus and his early life. And just a review, God caused Mary, a virgin, to miraculously conceive a son. Then God acted to protect that child by speaking to her fiance, Joseph. Assuming that Mary was unfaithful, Joseph had planned to quietly divorce her, but God speaks to Joseph in a dream. God tells Joseph Mary has not been unfaithful, and that her son would be the promised Messiah who would save his people from sins. Joseph takes Mary as his wife, he accepts Jesus as his own son, which makes Jesus his legal heir, and that puts Jesus legally in the line of David, since Joseph was in the line of David. The wise men from Babylon come looking for the child who's been born king of the Jews. Herod asks them to tell him where the child is after they find him, but God warns the Magi in a dream not to return to Herod, and they leave via another route. When the wise men don't return, Herod has no way of knowing where the child is, so he devises an evil plan to get rid of the child. He has all the boys in Bethlehem who are age two and under killed. Now after the wise men leave, God warns Joseph in a dream to flee to Egypt. He immediately takes Mary and the child and flees. So Jesus is not killed in this execution of the boys of Bethlehem, and Joseph and his family remain there until after Herod's death. So today we're going to look at the last of the four fulfillment passages in this section, and we're picking up the story when Herod has died. This is Matthew chapter two verses nineteen through twenty three. But when Herod died, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child's life are dead. And he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. We're looking then at Matthew two twenty three. He went and lived in the city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. The problem we have to solve with Matthew two twenty three is this doesn't seem to be a quotation from the Old Testament. There is no passage that we can find in the Old Testament that says he shall be called a Nazarene. And as you can guess, scholars have debated what Matthew is doing here for 2,000 years. And there have been many different proposals for how to understand it and how to figure out what Matthew's doing, ranging from Matthew made a mistake to Matthew totally knows what he's doing. So I'm going to give you what makes the most sense to me. This is my theory. Well, it's not my theory, I was taught it, but it is the theory that makes the most sense to me. And if you want to see what some of the options are, you can find that in the commentaries. But I will give you one of the more popular options. You'll find it in a lot of the commentaries, but it fails to persuade me. It is one you will run into though if you read some of the commentaries. One popular theory is that Matthew is quoting Judges thirteen, which deals with the birth of Samson. Samson's mother is barren, and an angel comes to her and tells her that she will give birth to a son, and she does and names him Samson. This is Judges thirteen verses one through five. And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, so the Lord gave them into the hand of the Philistines for forty years. There was a certain man of Zora of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah, and his wife was barren and had no children. And the angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her, Behold, you are barren and have not borne children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. Therefore be careful and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for behold you shall conceive and bear a son, no razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines. Now Judges three five, that last verse is the verse people think Matthew is alluding to for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb. Admittedly, that's not a verbatim quote, and no one who advocates this theory claims that it is a verbatim quote. As far as I can tell, the main reason that folks think Matthew is quoting this verse is because the Greek word that Matthew uses sounds very similar to the Hebrew word in Judges. So Matthew uses a form of the word that means from Nazareth, which is Nazarion, or I'm not exactly sure how you pronounce it, and that word refers to geography. Judges uses a Hebrew word which means one who is separated or consecrated, or one who consecrates himself by taking a vow. Matthew says that he shall be called a Nazarion, highlighting what people will call him, while Judges says he will be called a Nazarite, indicating that he will practice the Nazarite lifestyle and not shave his head. While the two words do sound similar, as far as I can tell, there is no connection between living in the village of Nazareth and being a Nazarite, and there is no evidence that Jesus ever took the Nazarite vow. As I said, this argument does not persuade me, but let me try to give you the case for it as best I understand it. And I apologize if I don't do this argument justice. This is the best way I understand it. Matthew says that the prophets say this. Judges isn't a book by a prophet, and it doesn't record the words of a prophet. But it is in the section of the Old Testament that is referred to as the prophets. So Matthew could mean this book. Matthew could be saying, I want to make a play on words for you. Samson was one of the judges of Israel, and he was a Nazarite, and he practiced certain religious disciplines. By growing up in Nazareth, Jesus was a Nazarite. By a type of pun or play on words, we can think of Jesus as the ultimate Samson, the ultimate judge of Israel who will deliver his people from their oppressors. He is the one who truly consecrates himself to God and will truly deliver his people, but not from external oppressors, he will deliver them from their real oppressor, that is their slavery to sin. And there is a certain logic to that, and a lot of scholars will argue for this understanding. They probably argue it better than I do, but that's the basic argument as far as I can tell, that Matthew is making a kind of play on words, a kind of a pun, we might say, and he's counting on the fact that this Greek word and this Hebrew word sound alike, and he's drawing a comparison between Samson, who delivered his people from the Philistines, and Jesus, who will deliver his people from their sins. Now, I do prefer a different line of thinking, and you'll find this one in the commentaries too. And let me try to explain it. First, I think we can make a good case that Matthew is not quoting a particular Old Testament passage, and that he does not intend to quote a particular verse or even allude to one specific verse. Rather, I think he's giving a general sense of what the prophets have said. We do this kind of thing all the time today. For example, I might say, the Bible says that the gospel is Jesus Christ died for your sins. Now, you might go to the Bible and look that up and say, hold it, croissant, you made a mistake, because nowhere does the Bible say that exact phrase. And I would say, you're right, it doesn't say that exact phrase, but I am summarizing the kind of thing that it says all over the place. And it's fair for me to say the Bible says this, even if it doesn't say it in so many words, because I'm summarizing a concept that is taught there. And that's what I think Matthew is doing. Now we have two clues that point us in this direction. Here's the first one. In the other three fulfillment passages, Matthew uses the singular word prophet, and we find those in 122, 215, and 217. But in 223, the passage we're looking at today, he uses the plural word prophets. So in the first three, he uses the singular word prophet, and in one of them he even names Jeremiah, and then a definite quote follows. But in 223, he uses the plural form of the word. That suggests to me that Matthew means to summarize what several prophets have said and not quote one particular verse. That's one clue. The second clue involves grammar. When we report that someone else has said something, we sometimes quote them verbatim and sometimes we summarize what they said. For example, if I go to the doctor and my husband asks, what did the doctor say? I might answer, the doctor said everything is great, meaning these are the exact words. And if I was writing that in an email, I would put quotation marks around it to show that I am giving an exact quote. But I also might say the doctor said that everything is great, meaning that was the general sense of what she said. Those were not her exact words. She actually spoke in medical mumbo jumbo, but the gist of what she meant is everything is great. And if I were writing that in an email, I would not put quotation marks around it because it is not a direct quote. Rather, more often I would introduce it by the word that. She said that, everything is fine, indicating that this is the content of what she meant, but this is not an exact quote. The doctor's specific words might have involved blood test numbers, height weight ratios, cholesterol levels, heart EKDs, and so forth, but I'm summarizing the content of her speech by saying she said that everything is fine. We have that same kind of choice in scripture. We have to ask ourselves, is the author reporting an exact quote of a message or passage, or is the author summarizing the content of a message or passage? In the other three fulfillment passages we've looked at, Matthew uses a construction that is common for indicating an exact quote of scripture. He introduces each quote using the participle legantas, which means to say or to lay forth. So in 122, all this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet saying. There's our participle. In 215, this was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet saying, out of Egypt I called my son. And in 217, then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah saying. Now a lot of the English translations omit this participle. They just leave it out, they don't put it in. Instead, they use quotation marks to say this is the quote. But Matthew tends to use the participle when he introduces a direct quote. Because remember, Greek didn't have quotation marks. Now in Matthew 223, Matthew does not use that participle, that word saying. So we have he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that it's just the Greek word hati uses that word, that he would be called a Nazarene. So that Greek text does not have the participle saying, it has a different word, which is usually translated that, and it is often used in just the way I finished describing. It is frequently used when I'm summarizing what someone said, and I'm not giving a direct word for word quote, I use this word, that, as in my doctor said that, everything is fine. And we could legitimately understand two twenty three this way. After being warned in a dream, Joseph withdrew to the regions of Galilee and came and lived in the city of Nazareth, so that this idea which was discussed in the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene, so that that idea might be fulfilled. So before we even look at the Old Testament, it seems reasonable to think that Matthew is not giving a direct quote, but that he intends to summarize a theme or idea that is found in the prophets. And my two clues for that is he uses the plural word prophets rather than the singular, where he used the singular and the other three. He does not include the participle indicator that he typically uses when he introduces a direct quote. Instead, he uses another word that is often used when you're summarizing, when you're relating the gist of what someone said. Now, if that understanding is correct, rather than looking for a specific verse with these exact words of Matthew 223, we should look for a combination of passages that indicates this idea that the Messiah would be from Nazareth. Do we find that idea in the prophets? No. Immediately we hit an obstacle. Neither the word Nazarene nor the word Nazareth ever appears in the Old Testament, which is not surprising because the town of Nazareth did not exist in Old Testament times. We are not going to find that direct idea anywhere because the town didn't exist yet. So we're not going to find that particular word in that form. Now, is that a problem? Well, not necessarily. Let me give you an analogy. Suppose for a minute that the Bible was set in the American Wild West, and Matthew wrote, The prophets said that he would be a cowboy. But we look all through the old Western scriptures and we find, whoops, that word cowboy is never used. However, we see a prediction that he would wear spurs, and we see a prediction that he would ride a horse and wear a Stetson hat, and we see a prediction that he would be skilled at wrestling cattle, all indicators that he was a cowboy, even though that word is never used. Would it be fair to summarize the prophets as saying he would be a cowboy because they say he will wear spurs and ride a horse and wear a Stetson hat and be skilled at wrestling cattle? Could I summarize all those themes as saying he will be a cowboy, even though the prophets never use the word? Well, absolutely. Especially if, as I have argued, Matthew is saying, this captures the gist of the point I'm making, but you won't find these exact words. Okay, now we're looking for an Old Testament passage that could be captured by the idea of being from Nazareth or being a Nazarene. So similar to my analogy, he will be called a cowboy, we're looking for something that would have the idea he will be called a Nazarene. Taking that idea and looking for it in the Old Testament, what do we find? Well, the fact that Jesus is from Nazareth is related to the fact that he's from Galilee. Do we see the prophets talking about the fact that the Messiah will be from Galilee? As a matter of fact, we do. We saw this in Isaiah near the passage that said a virgin shall bear a child. Isaiah is talking about how the Assyrians are going to conquer the northern kingdom of Israel, which is where Galilee is located. But in the midst of this prediction of this coming judgment on the northern kingdom, Isaiah tells us there's some good news. This is Isaiah chapter nine verses one and two. But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light, those who dwelt in the land of deep darkness on them has light shone. Zebulun and Naphtali are in the area of Galilee, and Isaiah says they have been in great gloom, they have been in darkness, but they're going to see a A great light, and what is this great light? He tells us in nine, six and seven. For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore, the zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. So here in Isaiah we have a passage that connects the dawning of the light of the coming Messiah with the northern kingdom region of Galilee. The region of Galilee has been in great sorrow, it's been in great anguish because of the Assyrian conquest, but they will be comforted. From this despised region of Galilee of the Gentiles, which has known great sorrow, will come the great light of the Messiah. We know that at the time of Jesus, the Jews of Jerusalem held Galilee in great contempt, and yet Isaiah tells us the Messiah will make his appearance in Galilee. Well, what about Nazareth? As I've said, Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, but we can make a deduction from this passage in the Gospel of John. Philip, who is one of the disciples of Jesus, is from Galilee, and Philip tells his friend Nathaniel that Jesus is here. Nathanael is also from Galilee, and he says this. Philip found Nathaniel and said to him, We have found him of whom Moses and the law and also the prophets wrote. Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. Nathaniel said to him, Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Philip said to him, Come and see. Now that's an interesting quote because it tells us something about how Nazareth is thought of. Remember, Nathaniel himself is a Galilean, and even he doesn't think anything good or anything important can come out of Nazareth. And we can see that Nazareth had a very low reputation among the Jews, especially when it comes to anything of prophetic importance. Their belief was nothing prophetically important could come out of Nazareth. Bethlehem, yes, that's the city of David. Jerusalem, certainly, but not Nazareth. Now some argue that this phrase became proverbial, like today we might say someone is a redneck or someone's from the sticks, indicating that they come from lowly, insignificant origins. If that's true, when Jesus is referred to as a Nazarene, it's probably not a complimentary phrase. It probably carries a pejorative, derisive kind of nuance, like saying, Oh, Jesus from Podunkville. The sign on the cross that says Jesus, the Nazarene, King of the Jews, was probably meant as an insult because how could a Nazarene be King of the Jews? We have another reference that indicates to us what it might have meant to be called a Nazarene. Paul is being tried before Felix at Caesarea. The high priest and some elders are laying out their case against him, and as part of their complaint, they call Paul a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. This is Acts 24, 5. Speaking of Paul, they say, For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. It seems that in that time they referred to Christians as one who followed the Nazarene, and that was probably meant as an insult. They're saying they follow that redneck. They followed that guy from the sticks who was no one from nowhere, and they mean it as an insult. So the idea we see emerging is to say that Jesus is a Nazarene is to say something dismissive or insulting. He's one to be ignored and to be dismissed because he is no one from nowhere. Do we find that idea in the prophets? We found the idea that he would be from Galilee. Do we find the idea that he will be despised, that he will be no one from nowhere? And yes, the idea that the Messiah would be dismissed is one that we frequently see in the prophets. I think we see it most clearly in the servant songs of Isaiah. This is Isaiah forty nine verses six and seven. In this section, God is speaking about his servant who I think is the Messiah. In forty nine, six, he says, It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel. I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth. Thus says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel and his holy one, to one deeply despised and abhorred by the nation, the servant of rulers. Kings shall see and arise princes, and they shall prostrate themselves because of the Lord who is faithful, the holy one of Israel who has chosen you. So God is speaking to the suffering servant here. I understand that servant to be the Messiah, and I believe the Messiah to be Jesus. And notice he describes his servant, he describes the Messiah as one deeply despised, abhorred by the nations, the servant of rulers. He's been chosen by God to bring light to all the nations, and yet he will be despised and abhorred by them, but ultimately kings will bow down to him. We see this again, I think, more clearly in Isaiah fifty three, this is fifty three verses one through three. Who has believed what he has heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant and like a root out of dry ground. He had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and as one from whom men hide their faces, he was despised and we esteemed him not. Here Isaiah is again talking about the servant, he's been sent out among the men, but no one believes him. He doesn't look like anything special, he doesn't have the impressive royal qualities we think kings should have. He's not a conquering king leading an army into Jerusalem, the rather he's just someone who comes from the middle of nowhere. He's rejected by men, he's despised. It's as if men hide their faces from him. They don't even want to look at him. He's so despised and they don't properly esteem him. So far then, what we have is that the prophets tell us that the Messiah will come from Galilee and that he will be despised. And we've seen that in the time of Jesus to call someone a Nazarene was an insult that meant they were despised and seen as no one from nowhere. Matthew could easily summarize this idea that the Messiah will be despised by saying he will be called a Nazarene. It's like us saying today he will be called a redneck, he'll be called a hick, no one from nowhere. His audience, Matthew's audience, would understand that to be called a Nazarene is not just a geographical reference, it's a dismissive slight and carries with it the idea that he is despised. Now there is one more possible connection to this line of thought. I'm not quite sure I buy this one, but you'll find if you read in the commentaries about the debate over what Matthew's doing here, you will find this included. A number of passages describe the Messiah as a twig or a sprout or a branch from the root of Jesse. Jesse was King David's father. For example, in Isaiah eleven verses one and two, there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit, and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. This imagery is drawing on the fact that the throne of David will be destroyed. So the throne of David is like a tree that has been cut down, leaving only the stump. But from its roots, from the stump of that a new tree will grow, and David's line is like a tree, all that's left is a stump or root, but one day a branch will sprout from that seemingly dead stump, and that branch will be the Messiah. Now what's the connection? Why am I bringing up this verse? Well, the word for branch is the Hebrew word Nazar, which has the same letters that form the word Nazareth. We don't know for certain, I think, but some scholars argue that the name Nazareth means the place of the branch, and that they understood it as the place of the Messiah. Scholars make that claim today, but I can't find any evidence that it was true at the time that people thought Nazareth was the place of the branch. However, it is one more possible connection, and that is that the name Nazareth has some messianic significance. And perhaps Matthew is making a kind of play on words that is it is fitting that the branch of Isaiah would be from a town called the branch. So some scholars will bring that in. I'm not sure. I think that connection is a little tenuous. So let me summarize what I think is going on. We might expect that when the Messiah comes, he would live in Bethlehem, the city of David. Joseph seems to have wanted to settle there, but because of the political dangers and the warning from God, Joseph instead takes his family to the surprising backwater of Galilee. But if we stop and think about it, is that really so surprising? The prophets said that the Messiah's light would dawn in Galilee, and that's where Jesus lived. The prophets said that he would be despised and dismissed, and Jesus lived in a town and was raised in a town that was almost proverbial for being of no importance. So Matthew's telling us it shouldn't be surprising that people would call Jesus a Nazarene, because this is what the prophets led us to expect. They told us that he would begin his ministry in Galilee, that his light would dawn there first, and they told us that he would be despised, he would be dismissed, and he would be rejected. And so what the prophets said has been fulfilled. They're calling Jesus a Nazarene, they're calling him someone who's from nowhere, he's despised and dismissed and rejected. Now, however, we understand Matthew 223, the fact that Jesus came from Nazareth is significant. This is the Messiah, this is the one who can call forth the armies of heaven. This is the one to whom ultimately every knee will bow. Yet God chooses to give him his start in the middle of nowhere in the obscure regions of the promised land. When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he said this in First Corinthians chapter one, verses twenty six and twenty-seven. For consider your calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth, but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise. God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. Well, we could say that this is true of the Messiah himself. He's not the sort of man that the world would immediately recognize as great and full of potential. He's just not impressive. He's an obscure man from an obscure town. He appeared to be a hick or a redneck from nowhere. But if we're familiar with the Old Testament, that should come as no surprise. Isaiah told us the suffering servant would be a man who was overlooked and despised by the world. And Isaiah told us that his light would dawn first in Galilee. Now we could speculate on why God might do things this way. Our relationship with the Lord and his Messiah is based on a choice. Each of us must ultimately decide what to do with Jesus. Each of us must choose do I believe him or not? Do I believe that he is who he said he was? Do I believe that he's the Son of God, Son of David, Son of Abraham who will save his people from his sins? Do I believe that I need saving? But think about it, that choice would be easy, almost inevitable if Jesus fit our Hollywood stereotype of the charismatic royal ruler. If he was powerful, beautiful, rich and influential, of course we'd want to follow him. Who wouldn't want to align themselves with an obvious winner? If he rode in with a conquering army, drove out the Romans, had Pontius Pilate groveling at his feet, and stood there with his sword shining at his side and his long hair and cape blowing in the wind, we'd all say, Hey, that's my guy. He's a clear proven winner. Of course I'm gonna follow him. Who wouldn't want to follow him? Just look, he's a superhero. But Jesus doesn't seek our approval based on how impressive he is from a worldly perspective. He attracts us by his wisdom. He attracts us by diagnosing our true problem and offering the solution to that problem. He attracts us by the salvation he offers despite the path that it took to reach that salvation. Coming from the Poduk town of Nazareth and being no one from nowhere is a stumbling block for the world, but it should not be a stumbling block for the followers of Jesus. God delights in ignoring the obvious worldly appeals so that we might respond to the truth, and I think that's what Matthew's getting at. This is an amazing story. Joseph, the father protector of the child Jesus, wants to take him to live in Judea, the region of Jerusalem, and the place of central power. But instead, Joseph takes him to a little town in the middle of nowhere. Jesus is raised on the fringes instead of in the political and theological center of things. His ministry begins in the backwaters. And this is not an accident. We are called to see past what the world considers insignificant and see instead the wisdom and salvation of God. To conclude, then let me summarize what we've seen in chapters one and two so far. By fulfillment, Matthew typically does not mean that the Old Testament predicted an event and then that event happened. Rather, Matthew sees the themes and promises brought to their fullest expression in the life of Jesus. For example, Isaiah spoke of a child named Emmanuel, which means God with us, which was meant to point us to the day when God would send the Messiah to rescue and redeem his people. Jesus is that child who is himself God with us. He is that Messiah who brings about the promise inherent in the name Emmanuel, God with us, to its fullest expression. The second example, Hosea reminded Israel of the Exodus when God called them out of slavery in Egypt under Moses. But Jesus has come to bring the true rescue of Israel. God drove this comparison home by sending Jesus to Egypt and then calling him out again. Jesus will bring about the true exodus of saving his people from sin. In Jesus, the idea of God rescuing his people has come into its ultimate fullness. The third example. Isaiah highlights the tragedy of the exile by picturing Rachel in her grave weeping over her lost children, who are no more as they are gathered for deportation to Babylon. But Isaiah comforts her because God will send the Messiah to gather his people again, and this time the covenant will work because God intends to write the law on their hearts so that they do not turn away from him. Likewise, the attempts to kill the Messiah by killing the children of Bethlehem just down the road from Rachel's tomb appears to be an even deeper tragedy because if the Messiah is lost, Israel loses everything. And yet, the Messiah is not lost, and God will keep his promises to Israel. The attempt to kill the Messiah is the fullest expression of Israel's lost and helpless state. Yet the deliverance of the Messiah will lead to the ultimate, full, true deliverance of Rachel's children, and she can rejoice. Then the last example, the prophets indicate that the Messiah will be despised, unimpressive, easy to reject, and easy to dismiss. And we can say Jesus is fulfilling this in the more traditional sense, and that he came from Nazareth in Galilee. He doesn't fit the picture we have of a superhero who will save us. He is no one from nowhere from Galilee. We've also seen that Matthew highlights the connection between Jesus and the nation of Israel. He divides the genealogy into three significant sections. The first section started with Abraham, and Jesus is a son of Abraham. Jesus is the one who will fulfill the promises given to Abraham that God will bless the world through Abraham and his descendants. The second section started with David, and Jesus is a son of David. He is the one son of David who will fulfill the promises that God will bless Israel and the world through the throne of David. The third section starts with the deportation to Babylon. The exile seems like the end of hope. It seems like the end of the people of God, it seems like the end of the throne of David, the end of the line of Abraham, and the loss of all the promises, and yet Jesus is the one who will fulfill those hopes and reestablish the throne of David. And Matthew continues this theme into our fulfillment passages. The Isaiah passage about a virgin conceiving occurs in the context of the Assyrian exile, and yet the promise is made that God will still be with them, and Jesus is the fulfillment of their hopes. The Hosea passage about out of Egypt is also in the context of the Assyrian threat. God called them out of Egypt in the past, and they're being sent back into exile because of the rebellion, yet God promises that one day He will call them back out of that exile, and we see Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of that hope. The Isaiah passage about Rachel weeping in her tomb occurs in the context of the deportation to Babylon. Again, it looks like all hope is lost in the sands of Babylon, but one day God will gather his people again and restore the throne of David, and Jesus fulfills that promise. And even today's passage about Nazareth, the promise that the Messiah will appear in Galilee appears in the context of the destruction of Galilee by the Assyria. God judged the northern territories in the past, but one day God will shine the light of the Messiah among them. Jesus coming from this lowly despised place will ultimately make everything right and establish them once again as the people of God and fulfill their hopes. And finally, I'm struck by the role of geography in Matthew's story. It's important to know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The prophet Micah said that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, and we see Herod trying to kill the Messiah there. Matthew uses the proximity to Rachel's tomb to highlight and explain this tragedy and the way that Jesus has come to end Israel's tragedy. We then see Jesus flee to Egypt and return, and we need to know the history of the Jews in Egypt and their rescue from Egypt. The geography points us to the fact that Jesus has come to bring about the true Exodus to deliver his people from sin and establish righteousness and justice on the earth. And it's important that we know where Nazareth is and where Galilee is and how they were viewed. Galilee is despised by the Jews in Jerusalem, and Nazareth is despised even by the Galileans. And yet from this lowly beginning, Jesus will conquer sin and death and rule over all creation. His story starts in Nazareth and will reach its climax in Jerusalem. You've been listening to the Wednesday in the Word podcast. My mission is to explain not only what a passage means, but how we figure it out. Your podcast speed may be limited to the last 20 or so episodes, but you can hear all previous episodes on my website. You'll find those at wednesdayintheword.com. There are no ads on my website, only Bible study materials, and it's all free. I don't take any advertising and I don't ask for donations. If you want to thank me, please join the mailing list. Subscribe to the podcast. Leave a positive rating or review wherever you listen to your podcast. And most importantly, tell a friend what you learned and where you learned it.org. And by the way, he's got a new CD coming out. I can't wait. Thank you for joining me today. I'm Krisan Marotta, and I'll see you next week at Wednesday in the World.