Author: Jim Cantelon

Infanticide Matthew 2:16-18

It’s surprising that Herod’s paranoia had not fuelled more efficient “intelligence gathering”, in that he sent no place with the Magi, nor did he commission any of his officials to “follow the star” to Bethlehem. He simply asked the magi to let him know once they had found the baby king. But, in his rage at being deceived by the Magi, his paranoia and cruelty kicks into gear and he orders every male child in the Bethlehem region to be killed. None of our Christmas traditions include this unspeakable tragedy. We focus on the one baby. We forget the others.

Matthew captures the sorrow and heartbreak of the mothers by quoting Jeremiah 31:15,

“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”

Rachel, of course, was the much-loved second wife of Isaac, and the mother of Joseph and Benjamin. One of Joseph’s sons was named Ephraim, and Ramah, centuries later, was an Ephraimite town not far from Jerusalem. When Jeremiah penned these words he was probable thinking of Israel being exiled to Babylon, but Matthew sees a proper double meaning. The exalted sounds of the angelic announcement of Jesus’ birth is followed a year or so later by the wailing of the bereaved. A stark juxtaposition to say the least.

Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15)

This is the second time an angel gave instructions to Joseph. As husband and protector of Mary and the baby, he was told to “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt.” This was to avoid Herod’s murderous intent.

We read a couple of sentences like this and tend to “watch” the action like we do a movie. The scenes shift from moment to moment, from place to place, and sometimes from time zone to time zone in the flash of an editor’s cut. But, we need to slow down here. It takes at least twelve hours to ‘drive’ from Tel Aviv to Alexandria. (Joseph’s likely destination would not only take ‘days’, but would require amazing fortitude.)

Egypt was a haven for Jews over the centuries. Alexandria alone housed about one million Jews in the first century. And every town and village in Egypt had Jewish citizens. In Egypt a Jewish immigrant would find synagogues, markets, housing, and food that provided a seamless transition. Ironically, a Jew could feel “at home” in Egypt. Yes, the Exodus had been about escape from “out of Egypt I called my son” (Ho. 11:1), but Matthew applies that ancient word to what was happening with the Christ child. With his parents he would emigrate to Egypt and later migrate back to Palestine. For a time, Egypt was the Messiah’s protector.

The Wise Men – Matthew 2:1-12 (Part 3)

And, to add a bit of historical context, at that time there was a synergy of both religious and secular hope, or expectation, that a kingly figure would emerge from somewhere in the mediterranean basin and rule the world. The Jewish messianic hope, four hundred years “back-burnered” by prophetic silence, was beginning to percolate again. Josephus, the Jewish historian wrote, “about that time one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.” And the Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus also bear witness to the mediterranean-centric hope for universal reign. It was an eschatological “perfect storm”.

Enter Herod. Called “the Great” because he was a great builder, he was nonetheless one of the most pathetic persons of his day. For one thing he was desperately insecure. Much of this was rooted in his “half-breed” status, half Jew and half Idumean. He had Edomite blood in his veins. As such he was looked down upon by his Jewish subjects. And, as is often the case, his insecurity fed a troubling paranoia. In old age he became a “murderous old man” murdering his wife Mariamne, her mother Alexandra, three of his sons: Antipater, Alexander, Areistobulus; all seventy of the Sanhedrin, three hundred court officers., and countless others. The Roman emperor Augustus said it was safer to be Herod’s pig than Herod’s son. Appointed governor in 47 BC, he became “king” in 40 BC and reigned until 4 BC. He was the only Roman ruler of Palestine to keep the peace. Part of his success was due, no doubt, to his generous care of the poor. But it was he who in the Christmas story, ordered “the slaughter of the the innocents” in Bethlehem.

The Wise Men 2:1-12 (Part 2)

Then there’s the star. There have been many attempts to explain this phenomenal aberration. Some commentators refer to Halley’s Comet (11 BC), or to the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter (7 BC). Other talk of the Egyptian “dog star”  (Sirius) that rose at sunrise.

My view on the star is heavily influenced by v. 10, “When they saw the star they were overjoyed” (NIV), or as the KJV puts it, “When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.” The Greek word for “exceeding” is “sphodia” which means “excessive” or “violent”. Why the excess of joy? After all this “star” had accompanied them for over a year of travel. Could it be that once it led the Magi to Jerusalem, it dimmed, or left them altogether? If it did disappear they would have been both perplexed and disturbed. They hadn’t seen the new “king” yet. Was the journey and the expense in vain?

The fact that it reappeared to lead them from Jerusalem to Bethlehem (a mere 5 miles) indicates that it may have been a bright light only hundreds of feet above and in front off them. Halley’s Comet or Saturn and Jupiter would never be able to direct anybody for such a short distance. It may have been a supernatural phenomenon like the “pillar of cloud by day” and the “pillar of fire by night” (Ex. 13:21) that led the children of Israel out of Egypt to the Promised Land. After all, if God is God, the supernatural is his stock-in-trade.

The Wise Men 2:1-12 (Part 1)

There are four points of interest in these twelve verses: Bethlehem, the Wisemen (or “Magi”), the Star, and Herod the Great.

Bethlehem literally means “house of bread”. In Micah 5:2 the prophet adds “Ephratah” to Bethlehem which reads, “House of Bread twice blessed”. Perhaps Micah, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was thinking of the double blessing in terms of Bethlehem being not only “the city of David” (1 Sa. 16:1; 17:12, 20:6), but also the birthplace of Israel’s Messiah. In most messianic writing, Bethlehem was the expected birthplace of David’s “anointed” son, so Micah writes in the tradition. We know from scripture that Jacob buried Rachel near Bethlehem (Ge. 35:19,20; 48:7) — indeed “Ramat Rachel” is now a thriving neighbourhood on the outskirts of Jerusalem with Rachel’s tomb still very much in evidence. And, we also know that Ruth and Boaz lived there (Ru. 1:22). It was, and is, a small town, situated on low lying hills, surrounded by steep valleys on the north, and wide plains on the east. Its hills are scored with cave-pocked fertile terraces. Although sleepy-looking, Bethlehem “breathes” with history and messianic significance.

Traditionally the Magi are believed to have been Medes from Medea. This territory, the ancient name for Northwest Iran, covers most of what we know today as Azerbaijan and Kurdistan. Magi were mainly a tribe of priests, but they have also been seen in a multitude of roles as philosophers, teacher, holy men, doctors, soothsayers, interpreters of dreams, truth seekers, and astrologers. As astrologers, especially, they believed that a “star” could be the “counterpart” of “angel” (“fravashi”) of a great ruler. Perhaps they were acquainted with the Jewish expectation that the Messiah would be identified by a “star out of Jacob” (Nu. 24:17). They were driven by astrological mystery and eschatological hope.

We don’t know how many made the long trek to Bethlehem but the three gifts presented to Jesus suggest there were three.

Jesus’ Birth 1:18-25 Part 2

We don’t know how far the divorce proceedings had progressed, but at some time in the process, “an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.'” The angel goes on to say, “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” No other man in history had or has received such a message. It’s amazing, indeed a testament to Joseph’s spiritual fine-tuning, that he accepted this dream-word uncritically.

“From the Holy Spirit” are the key words. The angelic messenger announced a supernatural creation of life. Just as the Almighty had called the universe into existence, He was now calling the Redeemer of that fallen space-time created order into being here on planet Earth. An d, God being God, this creative act was entirely within his capacity to do.

Only a supernatural act could qualify the developing embryo to be called “Immanuel” (v. 23), “God with us”, or as one rabbi put it, “God tabernacled with us.” The apostle John, one of the Matthew’s fellow disciples of Jesus, put it this way, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” (Jo. 1:14) This miraculously conceived baby was to become “God made flesh”.

Then without any nativity narrative, Matthew hastily tells us the noble Joseph abstained from sex with his wife until she “gave birth to a son” named “Jesus”.

Jesus’ Birth 1:18-25 Part 1

Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth is blunt and to the point, lacking Luke’s beguiling detail. Matthew seems to rush into the messianic narrative, impatient to recount Jesus’ powerful, earth-shaking ministry. So he summarizes the story of the incarnation. But the words he does use are charged with meaning.

The word Matthew employs to depict Joseph and Mary’s marital status is “betrothed” or “engaged” in the Greek. The NIV translates it as “pledged”. We modern readers need a little help with this, because Joseph is referred to as Mary’s “husband”, not “fiancé”.

In those days marriages were arranged by the parents and/or a matchmaker. From there earliest memory Mary would have known that Joseph was her intended husband. Their “betrothal” was totally bindings and could be broken only by death or “divorce”. When the day came where within a year she would be married she would call Joseph her “husband” and he would call Mary his “wife”. But, there would be sexual union until he “took her into his house” after that twelve month period. If, on the other hand, a man were marrying a widow that trial period was reduced to one month.

So even thought Joseph and Mary were not yet married, Matthew tells us in v. 19, “Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace he had in mind to divorce her quietly.”

Joseph was “law-abiding”, a righteous man. He was also kind. He didn’t ask questions or confront Mary with her extra-marital pregnancy. He simply decided to protect her dignity and privately divorce her. Impressive.

Jesus’ Ancestors (1:1-17) Part 10

Before moving on, just a word about “levirate marriage”. In De. 25:5-10 we read this:

“If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

“However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to carry on this brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.’ Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, ‘I do not want to marry her,’ his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, ‘This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.’ That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandled”

The word “lever”, from the Latin “brother-in-law”, is derived from the Hebrew, “have”. At the time in history, not just the Israelites, but many other ethnic peoples believed the the only form of “immortality” a man would have would be “patrilineal” succession and bequeathing of property to a son. A man who died without a son was summarily excised from memory. So his brother was expected to marry his brother’s widow, and give her a son who would bear the departed brother’s name and inherit his property.

The Book of Ruth sees the custom of levirate marriage in very flexible terms. When the closest  male relative refuses to “redeem” Naomi’s property, her next-in-line kinsman, Boaz, chooses to do so. And he gives Naomi a son by marrying her daughter-in-law Ruth (Naomi being too old to become pregnant). In this way Boaz becomes “Kinsman Redeemer” and fulfills the levirate duty as well. The whole point, of course, was lineage and inheritance – to say nothing of genealogy.