“I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near; a star shall come forth from Jacob, a scepter shall rise from Israel . . .” Numbers 24:17

Come Forth – Balaam was not the best among the prophets.  His story reads with a touch of humor and pathos.  But when it comes to far-reaching vision, Balaam saw the truth. Matthew knew all about Balaam’s vision.  In fact, in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Tanakh), the same root word is used in Balaam’s prophecy that Matthew uses when he describes the birth of the Messiah.  That word is anatelei (in Numbers – come forth) and anatole (in Matthew – in the east).  Matthew’s readers would recognize the correspondence and take notice of the fulfillment of the prophecy.

OK, so what?  Wouldn’t anyone draw the same conclusion?  Why is it such a big deal?  It’s a big deal because it tells us something important about Matthew’s readers.  It tells us that:

1. Matthew’s readers must have been familiar with the Numbers passage.  He assumes that they will know his allusion.
2. Matthew’s readers knew the Messianic import of Balaam’s prophecy.
3. Matthew (or his translator) knew the Greek LXX similarity.
4. Matthew considered the events surrounding the birth of Yeshua to be proof of His role as the Messiah.

And this, of course, means that Matthew considered the Tanakh the official, authoritative source of God’s revelation of Yeshua’s purpose.  Take away the Old Testament background, remove its authority from Matthew’s readers, and all of this intricate connection evaporates.  It is meaningless unless his audience considers the Tanakh God’s final word on the matter.

Of course, most of us have no problem with this at all.  We believe, and rightly so, that the Old Testament prophecies are the final word of God’s revelation about His Son and His plan of redemption.  But this leaves us in a dilemma.  If the prophecies are God’s valid word for Matthew’s audience (and for us), then why is the rest of the Tanakh no longer valid?  What allows us to pick and choose which verses should be accepted as proof and which ones are no longer necessary?  Do you think that the Hebrew readers of Matthew’s good news thought to themselves, “Well, isn’t it nice to know that God predicted this centuries ago.  That really matters.  But, of course, all the other stuff doesn’t matter anymore.”  Does it seem conceivable to you that Matthew would accept some verses as absolute proof from God but reject others as no longer what God intended?  Can you read Matthew without this artificial division?  Try it.  You might discover a different picture of the good news.

Topical Index:  rise, east, Balaam, anatole, Matthew 2:9, Numbers 24:17