Joseph obediently responded to the Lord"s command. However before he could do Song of Solomon , news reached him that Herod the Great"s Song of Solomon , Archelaus, had begun to rule as ethnarch over Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. The rest of Herod the Great"s kingdom went to his sons Antipas, who ruled as tetrarch over Galilee and Perea (4 B.C- A.D39), and Philip. "Tetrarch" means Philip ruled over one-fourth of the kingdom of his father, Herod the Great. Philip became tetrarch of Iturea, Trachonitis, and some other territories (4 B.C- A.D34). The title "ethnarch" was a more honorable title than "tetrarch." It meant ruler over a people. It was also a title inferior to "king," however. [source][source][source]
"One of the first acts of Archelaus was to murder some three thousand people in the temple because some of their number had memorialized some martyrs put to death by Herod. Like father, like son." [1][source]
Archelaus proved to be a bad ruler. Caesar Augustus banished him for his poor record in A.D6. [2] Philip was the best ruler among Herod the Great"s sons. [source][source][source]
Evidently God warned Joseph not to return to Archelaus" territory. Joseph chose to settle in Nazareth in Galilee instead, on the northern border of Zebulun, undoubtedly guided there by God. This had been his and Mary"s residence before Jesus" birth ( Matthew 13:53-58; Luke 1:26-27; Luke 2:39). Matthew noted that this move was another fulfillment of prophecy ( Matthew 2:23). Nazareth stood70 miles north of Bethlehem, and archaeological evidence points to a population of about480 at the beginning of the first century A.D. [3][source]
". . . the ancient Via Maris [4] led through Nazareth, and thence either by Cana, or else along the northern shoulder of Mount Tabor, to the Lake of Gennesaret-each of these roads soon uniting with the Upper Galilean. Hence, although the stream of commerce between Acco and the East was divided into three channels, yet, as one of these passed through Nazareth, the quiet little town was not a stagnant pool of rustic seclusion. ... But, on the other hand, Nazareth was also one of the great centers of Jewish Temple-life. ... The Priests of the "course" which was to be on duty always gathered in certain towns, whence they went up in company to Jerusalem, while those of their number who were unable to go spent the week in fasting and prayer. ... Thus, to take a wider view, a double symbolic significance attached to Nazareth, since through it passed alike those who carried on the traffic of the world, and those who ministered in the Temple." [5][source]
Careful attention to the terms Matthew used to describe this fulfillment helps us understand how Jesus fulfilled Scripture. First, Matthew said the prophecy came through "prophets," not a prophet. This is the only place in the first Gospel that he said this. Second, Matthew did not say that the prophets "said" or "wrote" the prediction. He said "what was said or spoken" through them happened. In other words, Matthew was quoting indirectly, freely. [6][source]
There is no Old Testament passage that predicted that the Messiah would come from Nazareth or that people would call Him a Nazarene. How then could Matthew say that Jesus fulfilled Scripture by living there? The most probable explanation seems to be that Nazareth was a specially despised town in the despised region of Galilee in Jesus" day ( John 1:46; John 7:42; John 7:52). Several of the Old Testament prophets predicted that people would despise the Messiah ( Psalm 22:6-8; Psalm 22:13; Psalm 69:8; Psalm 69:20-21; Isaiah 11:1; Isaiah 42:1-4; Isaiah 49:7; Isaiah 53:2-3; Isaiah 53:8; Daniel 9:26). Matthew often returned to this theme of Jesus being despised ( Matthew 8:20; Matthew 11:16-19; Matthew 15:7-8). The writer appears to be giving the substance of several Old Testament passages here rather than quoting any one of them. There may also be an allusion to the naser ("branch") in Isaiah 11:1 that the rabbis in Jesus" day regarded as messianic. [7] In that passage David"s heir appears to be emerging from a lowly, obscure place. One writer gave evidence that the Targums, as well as the New Testament writers, exegeted the Old Testament messianically. [8][source]
"In the first century, Nazarenes were people despised and rejected and the term was used to reproach and to shame ( John 1:46). The prophets did teach that the Messiah would be a despised and rejected individual (e.g. Isaiah 53:3) and this is summarized by the term, Nazarene." [9][source]
Fruchtenbaum called this type of prophetic fulfillment "summation." [6]9 Cooper preferred to call it "literal prophecy plus a summation." [11][source]
"Jesus is King Messiah, Son of God, Son of David; but he was a branch from a royal line hacked down to a stump and reared in surroundings guaranteed to win him scorn. Jesus the Messiah, Matthew is telling us, did not introduce his kingdom with outward show or present himself with the pomp of an earthly monarch. In accord with prophecy he came as the despised Servant of the Lord." [6]7 [source]
Less satisfying explanations of this prophecy and its fulfillment are the following. First, some connect "Nazarene" with "Nazirite" (cf. Judges 13:5). However, Jesus was never a Nazirite ( Matthew 11:19). Furthermore the etymologies of these words do not connect. Second, some believe the Hebrew word translated "branch" (naser) in Isaiah 11:1 sounds enough like Nazareth to justify a connection. The problem with this view is that the Hebrew word and the town of Nazareth have nothing in common except similar sounding names. Also naser occurs in only one passage, but Matthew quoted the "prophets." Third, some writers have posited a pre-Christian sect and suggested that Matthew referred to this. There is no evidence to support this theory. Fourth, some believe Matthew was making a pun by connecting the names Nazareth and Nazarene. If this were true, how could he claim a fulfillment of prophecy? Fifth, some think the writer referred to prophecies not recorded in Scripture but known to and accepted by his original readers. Matthew gave no clue that this unusual meaning is what he intended. Furthermore later readers would not only reject such an authority but would charge Matthew with fabricating such a source to support his argument. [source][source][source]
Matthew chapter2advances the writer"s argument significantly by making three major points. [source][source][source]
"The first relates to the Gentiles. The Magi come from the East and worship the King of the Jews. A glimmering foreview of all the nations of the earth being blessed in Abraham is seen in this act.... The second point Matthew makes concerns the Jews. They are shown to be unconcerned and indifferent to any report concerning Him. Finally, Matthew , by his use of the Old Testament, proves that Jesus is the promised Messiah. He is the fulfillment of all that is anticipated in their Scriptures. These three things form the basis of Matthew"s Gospel. Jesus is presented as the Messiah prophesied and promised in the Old Testament. The Jews reject Him. Because of this rejection the King turns to the Gentiles and the kingdom program for the Jews is postponed. [source][source][source]
"Chapter one declares the theanthropic character of the person of the Messiah. The reception which is to be given the claims of the Messiah is set forth in chapter two. Matthew three begins the narrative of the historical account of the presentation of Israel"s Messiah to that nation." [13][source]
" Matthew 1-2serves as a finely wrought prologue for every major theme in the Gospel." [1][source]