CHRISTIAN TOP 500 BIBLE COMMENTARY, THEOLOGY, EBOOK

Mat 2:1-12 

According to God’s promise (2Sa_7:12-13) Jesus is the rightful heir to David’s throne. Chapter 1 has made this clear. He is the son whose throne will be “established forever” (cf. 2Sa_7:13 with Luk_1:32-33). It is fitting, therefore, that royal homage be rendered to him, and this not only by the Jews but also by the Gentiles; for he is Lord of all (Mat_28:16-20), and the gospel call goes out to all, regardless of race or nationality. Thus we see that there is a close connection between chapters 1 and 2 of Matthew’s Gospel: chapter 1 has shown that Jesus deserves royal honor, chapter 2 shows that he receives it. The latter begins as follows: Mat_2:1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem. Two facts thus far unrecorded regarding Jesus’ birth are here set forth: a. that he was born in Bethlehem, and b. that this event took place in the days of Herod the king. The specification that this Bethlehem was the one in Judea serves not so much to distinguish it from the one located west of Nazareth in the tribe of Zebulon (hence, in Galilee) as to make clear that Micah’s prophecy was indeed fulfilled in Jesus’ birth. See on verses Mat_2:5 and Mat_2:6. A comparison between Mat_2:1 and Mat_2:19 lends support to the view that Jesus was born a little while before Herod’s death. Since Herod died shortly after a lunar eclipse at the close of March or beginning of April of the year 4 B.C., the date late 5 B.C. for Christ’s birth may well be correct.
Shortly after Jesus’ birth there arrived in Jerusalem certain “wise men.” Their unexpected appearance aroused considerable interest, which Matthew wants his readers to share; hence, he writes, “Behold.” Literally the strange travelers from afar are in the Greek original called magoi (sing. magos), from which the Latin magi (sing. magus) is derived, which is also found in several English translations, often capitalized. Who, then, were these magi? Where did they come from? The expression “from the east” is rather indefinite. Did they come from the regions inhabited by the Medes and Persians, as some think, or from Babylonia, as others have confidently affirmed?
The Greek word is really a transliteration of an Iranian original. When the word first appears in Herodotus it indicates one of the tribes of the Medes. It would seem that because of the skill which this tribe derived from the study of the stars the name magi subsequently began to be applied more generally to the entire like-minded priestly caste among the Medes and Persians. The magus was deeply interested in religion and in several related fields of human interest, including the study of the stars and their supposed influence on human events. Though many of his theories would today not unjustly be regarded as below the level of scientific knowledge and more nearly akin to superstition, and though his religion can scarcely be called even an approach to Christianity—there was no place in it for redemption from sin through an atoning sacrifice—, the magus was by no means merely a nonsense peddler. He generally believed in only one God, in man’s duty to practice the good and shun the evil, in the necessity of prayer, and in the nobility of manual, especially agricultural, labor.
But is this also the meaning of the word magi as used here in Matt. 2? Some answer in the affirmative. They believe that the wise men who came from the east and arrived in Jerusalem were Medes or Persians. In support of this belief they point not only to the Iranian origin of the word magoi or magi but also to the fact that, as pictured in the earliest Christian art that has been preserved, the travelers from afar are wearing Persian robes. Moreover, such early writers as Clement of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Juvencus, Prudentius and others agree that the magi came from Persia. Is it not true also that in the various dispersions of the Jews that took place from the eighth to the sixth centuries B.C. not a few were deported to “the cities of the Medes” and to those of the surrounding country (see 2Ki_17:6; cf. 1Ch_5:26; Est_1:1; Est_9:2; Act_2:9-11)? Is it not probable, therefore, that these Jewish monotheists propagandized their Messianic expectation among their equally monotheistic neighbors, with the result that when Messiah’s star appeared a few of these Median or Persian magi set out for the land of Judea to honor the newborn “king of the Jews”?
It is an interesting theory with strong support in tradition, but it has not found universal acceptance. Origen believed that the magi came from Chaldea. Many agree with him. One reason for this is that the Chaldeans or Babylonians, too, had their “wise men” (Dan_2:2, Dan_2:10, Dan_2:27, etc.). Through the influence of Daniel and his friends (see Dan_2:48; Dan_5:11) these wise men and their associates, whether wise or not so wise, were brought into contact with the only true and living God, and, of course, also with the Messianic expectation. Though much of the learning of these counselors of Babylon’s king was worthless, as the book of Daniel clearly shows, and though it is true that among the Jews there was even a saying, “Whoever learns anything from a magus is worthy of death, it was, nevertheless, the study of the stars by the Babylonian astrologers—perhaps we should say astronomers—which, though faulty in many respects, has been credited with establishing the foundation for the planetary world-system, time computation, and the calendar.
Conclusion: We know very little about the wise men mentioned in Matt. 2. We know, however, that, as their actions are here described, whatever they do makes them deserving of the name “wise men.” The best course for us to follow would appear to be to adhere strictly to the text, and to agree that these magi came from “the east,” in all probability from either the one or the other of the two favored areas.
How many wise men there were is not recorded. The fact that they presented the child with three gifts (Mat_2:11) has given rise to the theory that there were three men. Whether this inference is justified is doubtful, though there may, indeed, have been exactly three men in the party. We simply do not know. There is no basis whatever, not even in Psa_72:10 and Isa_60:3, for the notion that these men were “kings.” The line “We three kings of Orient are” belongs to the same vast collection of legendary Yuletide lore to which belongs also “But little Lord Jesus no crying he makes,” and many similar bits of fancy. Add also the mythical names of these wise men: Melchior, Balthasar, and Caspar; the belief that one came from India, one from Egypt and one from Greece; that they were subsequently baptized by Thomas; and that their bones were discovered by Saint Helena, were deposited in the church of Saint Sophia at Constantinople, were later transferred to Milan and were finally brought to the great cathedral of Cologne. One must be gullible, indeed, to accept all this!
Before leaving this subject it should be pointed out that in the original the word magos (Lat.—us) is also used in a different, though closely related, sense, namely magician, one who practices magic. The relation of these last two English words to the Greek is immediately apparent. The word magos is used in this unfavorable sense (magician) in Act_13:6, Act_13:8, with respect to a false prophet, a Jew by the name of Bar-Jesus. The root of the Iranian word of which the Greek magos is a transliteration means great. It is cognate with the Greek megas, Latin magnus, as reflected in several English words, one of them being megaphone: a cheer-leader’s voice-magnifier. One can be great in one’s own estimation and in the eyes of deluded admirers. Such was Bar-Jesus. One can also be truly great, that is, great in the eyes of God. Such were the wise men whose story is told in Matt. 2, and with reference to whom we are now told that they were Mat_2:2. saying, Where is the (new)born king of the Jews?
If the sudden appearance of these strangers rouses the Jerusalem citizenry, their question, repeated over and over, does even more. Not for a moment do the wise men express any doubt with reference to the fact as such of the recent birth of the One whom they call “the king of the Jews.” For them the birth is real and the title is true. What they desire is an answer to the question, “Where is he?” Unless they receive this information they cannot fulfil the purpose of their long and arduous journey. So much is clear from what follows: For we saw his star in its rising and have come to worship him. Two questions can hardly be evaded: first, What was the nature of this star?; secondly, How was it that the magi connected it with the birth of the king of the Jews?
As to the first, various answers are given; namely: a. it was a genuine “star” (in the sense in which the sun is also a star) of extraordinary brilliance; b. the planet Jupiter, often associated with the birth of kings and therefore called the king-planet; c. the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the Sign of the Fish; d. a comet acting erratically; e. a luminary hanging low in the sky; and f. the star of destiny, of hope, one’s guiding star within the heart; etc.
Answer f. can be dismissed immediately, for it is clear that the remarkable luminary was a physical object that could be seen and observed by the human eye (verses Mat_2:2, Mat_2:7, Mat_2:9-10). It was not a subjective monitor nor an optical illusion. As to answers a. – e., objections can be advanced against each of them, but the general statement should suffice that the nature of the astronomical object is not indicated in the text. Hence, we simply do not know. Even answer e. “a luminary hanging low in the sky,” though very definitely being in closer harmony with verse Mat_2:9 than answers a. – d., is hard to bring into agreement with verse Mat_2:2, especially with the phrase “in its rising,” which is the common Greek expression for the first appearance of a star upon the horizon. One might say, therefore, that in verse Mat_2:2 whatever it was that the magi saw acts as we would normally expect a star to act, but in verse Mat_2:9 (see on that verse) it behaves very differently. We are left in the dark, and should attempt no further explanation as to the identity of this astral phenomenon. Suffice it to say that the wisdom and kindness of God is evident from the fact that he “spoke” to these students of the stars in a language which they could understand, namely, that of a “star.”
With respect to the second question we fare no better. Though it is safe to assume that the wise men had been taught by the Jews to expect the coming of a Deliverer, an expectation that was probably rather widely spread in those days and by no means confined to the Jews (cf. Joh_4:25), their linking of his birth with the appearance of a definite star, called “his star,” remains unexplained. Had they received some information about the time when, on the basis of someone’s interpretation of Dan_9:25, the One whom the Jews expected would be born; and did this make it easier for them to connect the appearance of the remarkable star with the fulfilment of the Messianic expectation? Did the star appear in that particular sector of the heavens which by them was somehow linked with happenings in Judea? had they heard about Balaam’s prophecy, “There shall come forth a star out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel” (Num_24:17)? There are those who say that this passage, if the magi had heard about it, which is still a question, could not have influenced them in any way, since the word “star” is here used in a metaphorical sense as referring to a person, not to a bright celestial luminary. Is this reasoning sound? It should be borne in mind that expressions which were originally intended to be interpreted figuratively have often been taken literally. The New Testament is full of examples. See NTC on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, p. 125. The magi, too, might have linked Num_24:17 with the appearance of a literal star announcing the birth of the king of the Jews. The passage cannot be legitimately used on either side of the argument.
Again, according to a rabbinical legend, in the night when Abraham was born the servants of Terah and the wise men of Nimrod arrived to celebrate the birth. When they left Terah’s house that night they saw a brilliant star. On its course through the heavens it devoured four other stars. Seeing this, these men interpreted this to mean that the newborn child would become powerful, etc. Some would argue, therefore that when, many centuries later, another brilliant star appeared to a similar company of wise men, the latter saw in this radiant luminary a definite sign that another majestic person, “the king of the Jews,” had been born.
It is obvious, however, that all of these opinions as to how and why the wise men connected the appearance of this star with the birth of the Messiah are mere conjectures. We do not have the answer. We are left in the dark.
This, moreover, is exactly what makes Matthew’s story so beautiful and instructive. Everything else is left out of the picture in order that the full emphasis may be placed on this one thing, namely, “We have come to worship him.” We are not given a detailed description of the star. We are not told how the magi connected this star with the birth. We are not told how many magi there were, how they dressed, how they died, or where they were buried. All that and much more is purposely left in the shade in order that against this dark background the light may shine forth all the more brilliantly. These wise men, whoever they were, wherever they came from, came to worship him! In the present instance, as is clear from verse Mat_2:11, this can mean nothing less than that it was their intention to fall down before the Messianic King in humble adoration. Matthew is telling all those who read this story or hear it read that they too must do the same. If even the world of the Gentiles pays homage to him, should not the Jews—who have received the oracles of God—do so? And for the Gentiles there is this encouragement: the king of the Jews desires to be your king also.—Who would dare to criticize Rembrandt for the light-versus-shade contrast (the “chiaroscuro” effect) of that great masterpiece which is popularly known as The Night Watch? It was Rembrandt who shows in all of his best paintings that he has caught the spirit of the inspired Gospel-writers!
Continued: Mat_2:3. When King Herod heard this he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him. It is clear from the connection between verses Mat_2:2 and Mat_2:3 that the wise men did not immediately wend their way to Herod’s palace. The king indirectly heard what was happening. It was reported to him that strangers had arrived from afar, inquiring about the whereabouts of a child recently born, whom they called “the king of the Jews.” When Herod heard this he was frightened, terrified. The verb used in the original is very descriptive. Literally in the active voice this verb means to shake, stir up, trouble, agitate, as when Egypt’s king is said to resemble a monster that troubles the waters with its feet, thereby contaminating the rivers (Eze_32:2). Figuratively it has reference to the upsetting or throwing into confusion and alarm of mind and/or heart; here in Mat_2:3 the meaning is, of course, being upset or frightened. Thus the disciples were troubled when they imagined that they were looking at a ghost (Mat_14:26); Zechariah when he saw an angel (Luk_1:12). See also Joh_14:1.
That a man with the inner nature and disposition of Herod would become alarmed at the mere mention of a king of the Jews other than himself is not surprising. Was not he, even Herod, the one and only “king of the Jews”? Had he not received this title from Rome? Had it not taken him months, years even, of struggle to make this title come true? Was this, then, another attempt to dethrone him? Would this rumor about another king of the Jews stir up the freedom riots among those fanatics who hated him so thoroughly and had already caused him so much trouble? Herod is agitated and angry. He is convinced that unless radical measures be taken his worst fears will be realized. But he is not going to take this lying down. In his depraved mind a wicked plot is beginning to develop.
The king was mistaken. It does not appear from Matthew’s account that the Jerusalem populace had become deeply impressed by the magi’s question. Nothing in the nature of a “We shall overcome” revolt was being planned. Nevertheless, “all Jerusalem” was indeed alarmed, for the people had learned by long and sad experience that there were no limits to the wrath and vengefulness of a thoroughly alarmed Herod. They dreaded to think of what new atrocities were in store for them. As the sequel shows, they had reason to be thus frightened.
This may well be the proper place to answer the question, What was the character of this man who, in order to give him credit for the great talents which he undoubtedly possessed and to distinguish him from all other bearers of the same name, is often referred to as “Herod the Great”? Reference has already been made to the Maccabean revolt (see p. 127). In the year 198 B.C. Palestine had become subject to Syria. The ruling nation, in trouble with Rome and forced to pay a heavy penalty for its unsuccessful attempt to meddle in the affairs of the city on the Tiber, had imposed a burdensome tribute upon the Jews. When about the year 175 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanes became king, conditions worsened. While Antiochus was leading an expedition into Egypt the Jews rejoiced when a false rumor of the king’s death gained currency. Returned, Antiochus massacred thousands and sold others into slavery. After another attempt to take Alexandria, Antiochus was thwarted by the Romans at the very moment when he regarded the final victory to be within his grasp. Again he decided to vent his wrath upon the Jews. His general Apollonius in 168 B.C. waited for the sabbath; then fell upon the defenseless city and devastated it, killing people right and left. Antiochus Epiphanes and his helpers determined to wipe out the Jewish religion root and branch. They took various measures to accomplish their purpose. By sacrificing swine on the altar of burnt-offering they defiled it, and they destroyed all the holy writings they could lay their hands on.
In this time of sore affliction and distress the saints cried to Jehovah for help. Their prayer was heard. The revolution arrived. At Modein, not far from Jerusalem, there lived an aged priest, Mattathias. When the commissioner of Antiochus requested that he take the lead in offering a pagan sacrifice, the priest not only refused but slew both the commissioner and an apostate Jew who was about to comply with the request. This was the beginning of the revolt which occurred at that time.
After the death of Mattathias his son Judas, a humble child of God and a military genius, achieved victories that constitute a classic in the science of strategy. He was always battling greatly superior forces. His courage was leonine, his swiftness incredible. As a result of his triumphs, about the year 165 B.C. the temple at Jerusalem, which by the wicked Antiochus had been consecrated to Zeus, was cleansed and rededicated to Jehovah. This rededication was the origin of “the Festival of the Lights” (Chanukah) celebrated by the Jews ever since. See NTC on Joh_10:22. The Jews regained religious freedom. After the death of Judas his brother Jonathan, just as daring as Judas himself, ruled for a while and gained remarkable victories. In his attempt to outwit the Syrians he was himself outwitted and executed.
Under the next son of Mattathias, Simon, a very wise administrator, a truly glorious period was ushered in. See I Macc., chapter 14. But in the year 135 B.C. Simon was treacherously slain by his own son-in-law. The Maccabean rulers who followed had imbibed the Hellenistic spirit. They placed greater emphasis upon secular than upon spiritual affairs. Simon’s son John Hyrcanus was the first of these rulers. Though he was highpriest as well as civil ruler he was a first-class warrior. To the north he conquered Samaria, and destroyed the Samaritan temple built on Mt. Gerizim. To the south he brought Edom into subjection.
If Hyrcanus may be termed a ruler of questionable merit, his son Alexander Janneus (Jonathan) was far worse. His hands reeked with blood. One happening that occurred during his reign must not remain unmentioned for it had far-reaching consequences. Over the country of Edom, conquered, as was indicated, by his father, Alexander appointed a governor, Antipas, whose son, Antipater, was going to play an important role in the history of the Jews. Even more would this be true with respect to Antipater’s son, the very Herod mentioned in Matthew 2 and Luke 1 and nowhere else in the New Testament.
After the death of Alexander his widow Alexandra assumed leadership. After her death her sons Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus contended for the throne. Some of the people sided with Hyrcanus II, who was the elder; some with Aristobulus, who was the stronger of the two. There was also a third class consisting of those who longed for the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a form of government in which the priests should rule the country in accordance with the law of Jehovah. The three parties appealed to Rome.
When Aristobulus became impatient with Rome’s delay in reaching a final decision he decided to take matters into his own hands. The result was Pompey’s invasion of Judea and the capture of Jerusalem in the year 63 B.C. When Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus were contending for the mastery the aforementioned Antipater, now governor of Edom, took full advantage of the troubled situation. Both Antipater and his son Herod were characterized by slyness. They would court the favor of whoever happened to be on top in Rome. As soon as the government changed hands they would immediately change their allegiance and shower their compliments and presents upon the man whom “until yesterday” they had opposed. And so in course of time it happened that when the Jews were unable to settle their own affairs the Edomite Antipater was by the Romans made procurator of Judea and was allowed to appoint his son Herod tetrarch of Galilee. This happened in the year 47 B.C. In 40 B.C. Palestine was invaded by the Parthians, civil war broke out, and Herod fled to Rome. By the Roman senate Herod was then nominated king of Judea. An army was given him, to enable him to carve out his own kingdom with the sword. This was no easy task. It was, however, his one great ambition. After encountering vigorous and unrelenting opposition from far and near he finally triumphed in the year 37 B.C. Since, according to Josephus, Herod, at his death (in 4 B.C.) was seventy years of age, he must have been born around 74 B.C. He may already have passed his sixty-ninth birthday when the wise men arrived in Jerusalem, but the exact date of their arrival is uncertain.
After the year 37 B.C. Emperor Augustus increased Herod’s territory until it included all of Palestine, even the border regions of what is now known as Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. He had indeed become “the king of the Jews.” Amid fierce and protracted struggles he jealously clung to his position of authority until the day of his death.
By race or nationality Herod was not a Jew, though at times, for selfish political reasons, he encouraged the view, proposed by others, that he was of rich and noble Jewish ancestry. But, as stated earlier, his father, Antipater, was an Edomite. Also, his mother, Cypros, was a Nabatean; that is, she hailed from an Arab kingdom to the east and southeast of Palestine. When the Edomites (or Idumeans) had been conquered by John Hyrcanus, the Jewish religion was in a sense forced upon them. It is not surprising, therefore, that it is said at times that Herod “practiced the Jewish religion.” If one is willing to interpret this term “Jewish religion” in a sense wide enough to include profound devotion to Hellenistic culture, the statement would probably be correct.
As pictured by Josephus, Herod was capable, crafty, and cruel. That he was capable admits of no doubt. The swiftness with which, even while still a very young governor of Galilee, he destroyed the bands of guerrillas that were making forays against the cities and despoiling the countryside, his efficiency in collecting tribute for Rome, the oratorical ability he revealed when he addressed the troops under his command or the Jerusalem populace, his subtle diplomacy, and the decisiveness with which he turned defeat into victory, were some of the qualities that made him the kind of monarch the Roman emperor admired.
He was also a great builder. As such he gave Jerusalem a theater. Just outside the city he built an amphitheater and a hippodrome. On the city’s western edge he constructed a luxurious palace for himself, with three famous towers, called respectively Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamne. In honor of his benefactor, Emperor Augustus, he instituted and presided over quinquennial games, for he was a lover of sports. It is true that with this phase of his activity Herod by no means ingratiated himself with all the Jews. In fact, his enthusiasm for athletic activities infuriated many of the more devout, who regarded it as an expression of worldly-mindedness, a bad example for the youth, and a flagrant desecration of pure religion. As they saw it, the prominent place accorded to the figure of the emperor in the amphitheater, as well as the many trophies hung on the wall, were in conflict with the divine law forbidding images. An attempt was even made to assassinate the king, but it failed. The ten conspirators were tortured and afterward executed.
In order to add to the luster of his name and, if possible, to win the people to his side, Herod proposed to rebuild and greatly enlarge and beautify Jerusalem’s sanctuary, the one at times referred to as “the second” or “Zerubbabel’s” temple built in the year 516 B.C., seventy years after the destruction of the first (see Ezr_5:2 ff.; Hag_1:13-15). In an eloquent address to the people the king, if we can trust Josephus, divulged his plan “to make a thankful return, after the most pious manner, to God, for the blessings I have received from him, who has given me this kingdom, and to do this by making his temple as complete as I am able.” He began to build it about the year 19 B.C. Long after his death it had not yet been entirely completed. See NTC on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, p. 126. The grandeur and beauty of this temple which Herod started to build and on which he made very considerable progress is evident from Mat_24:1-2; Mar_13:1-2; and Luk_21:5-6. See further on Mat_4:5; Mat_21:12-13, Mat_21:23; Mat_24:1-3.
The king’s building activities were by no means restricted to Jerusalem and its vicinity. He restored and adorned on a magnificent scale the ancient city of Samaria, renaming it Sebaste in honor of the emperor. Its temple, also dedicated to the emperor and containing the gigantic statute of Augustus, crowned the city-summit. On the coast between Joppa (now Jaffa) and Haifa he built the magnificent port of Caesarea, which soon afterward became the capital of Roman Palestine. Within the boundaries of his country he rebuilt and beautified many other cities. Outside of Palestine such places as Antioch, Beirut, Damascus, Tyre, Sidon, Rhodes, and even Athens benefited from his urge and ability to build and embellish.
In speaking of Herod’s capability as a ruler it is but fair and just to mention one important event that occurred during the thirteenth and fourteenth year of his reign. There was a perpetual drought that affected both Judea and Syria, resulting in a famine that has been described as the greatest since the days of Ahab. The royal treasury was empty because the money had been largely spent on the king’s vast building program. Most of the people, never very affluent, lost whatever they had. As a result Herod’s ability and obligation to provide relief was taxed to its utmost limit. But here again his resourcefulness was equal to the occasion. Says Josephus, “He cut off the rich furniture that was in his palace, both of silver and gold … and sent the money to Petronius, who had been made prefect of Egypt by Caesar.” Petronius and Herod were friends. It is remarkable that once again as before (cf. Gen. 41, 42) the relief during a famine came from Egypt. The king provided food for all upon conditions which each family was able to meet, wisely making distinctions according to ability to repay. Inasmuch as because of the drought many of the sheep and goats had perished, so that winter clothing had become hard to obtain, Herod also imported and distributed the necessary garments. Moreover, he saw to it that the farmers had seed. Naturally, he himself benefited from this welfare program. For a while he even gained a measure of popularity. He took care that the people understood that the help came “from himself!” One could expect Herod to do just that.
In addition to being capable he was, however, also crafty. He was sly, not to be trusted. The opprobrious epithet “that fox,” by the Lord applied to Herod Antipas (Luk_13:32), could have been used also to describe the latter’s father, Herod the Great. He knew that the Jews regarded him as a foreigner, since, as already indicated, he was not a Jew. He was painfully aware of the fact that his subjects would far rather be ruled by a Hasmonean, a descendant of the original Maccabees. So he looked upon the very existence of prominent Hasmoneans as a threat to himself and his throne. He had no less than ten wives and more than a dozen children. Outstanding among all his wives was Mariamne I (hereafter simply called Mariamne), a real Hasmonean. In view of what he later did to her it is probably wrong to say, as is nevertheless often done, that he was deeply in love with her. It must have been rather a matter of infatuation, emotional fondness, or at best strong sentimental attachment. Marrying her was, moreover, a clever move, for by means of this union Herod sought to win status among the Jews and to legitimatize his rule over them. However, when he became aware of the fact that his subjects neither loved nor trusted him he plotted the destruction of the entire Hasmonean house. But he went about it in a very devious manner.
When, as a result of the pleading of Herod’s wife, Mariamne, and of her mother, Alexandra, the king at last agreed to appoint Aristobulus, the brother of Mariamne, to the highpriestly office, Herod began to take notice of the fact that the comely young man, especially when he was performing his sacred office, was the darling of the people, who “mingled with good wishes their joyful acclamations which they made to him” (Josephus). Herod was exceedingly displeased, and immediately resolved to do away with his brother-in-law. However, the act must be comitted in such a manner that no one would ever be able to prove that the king himself was the murderer. So the young man, along with many others, was invited to a Jordan River swimming party near Jericho. The day was very hot. At first the king and the highpriest remained on the river-bank, as if it were beneath their dignity to mingle in the water with the commoners. But at last Herod prevailed upon Aristobulus to go into the water. After a while some of the young men, appointed by the king for this very purpose (according to Josephus), plunged the highpriest under water, as if it were all in fun. They held him there until he suffocated. Herod provided a magnificent funeral and in public shed copious tears!—Many additional illustrations of the king’s treacherous conduct could be given. Deceit was ingrained in his very nature.
The murder of Mariamne’s brother Aristobulus also shows what a cruel man Herod was. His cruelty was being constantly nourished by his overweening egoism and by his morbid distrust of anyone who, as Herod saw it, might aspire to replace him on the throne. He knew that many of the Jews hated him. They regarded him as the instrument used by a foreign power to keep them under bondage and to rob them of their substance. They thoroughly understood that his Jewishness was a sham and that in heart and mind he was a pagan. He loved power more than anything else. Therefore, the least suspicion that someone had arisen who might wish to deprive him of his throne often drew from him the immediate reaction, “He must die!” These dark and sinister drives of his nature grew on him because he did not pray for grace and spiritual energy to crush them. So, as he advanced in age he made progress also in mental and moral depravity until he was completely ruined.
It stands to reason that his wrath was directed especially against the Hasmoneans, for it was to them that the people, whether openly or secretly, looked for deliverance. With the diagram on p. 161 before us, let us see what happened to Mariamne’s family tree:
Beginning at the top of the list and working step by step to the bottom, we first meet Mattathias (see p. 157). In the year 167 B.C. he died from the rigors of the revolt which he so nobly initiated. Descending one rung or generation, we note that in 135 B.C. Simon, a son of Mattathias, was treacherously slain by his son-in-law. Still further down, John Hyrcanus, after ruling for nearly three decades, died peacefully in 105 B.C. his son, Alexander Jannaeus, a cruel and bloodthirsty person—he once ordered the execution of 50,000 of his own people—died in 78 B.C. from an incurable disease. His widow Alexandra ruled for nine years and died in 69 B.C. Next we descend to the days of The First Triumvirate. Crassus, Pompey, and Julius Caesar have divided the government of the Roman Empire between themselves. They “go down” in that order: first Crassus, then Pompey, finally Julius. In the year 49 B.C. Aristobulus, a son of Jannaeus, was poisoned by partisans of Pompey. Alexander, a son of Aristobulus, was beheaded.
Herod now appears upon the scene. These are the days of The Second Triumvirate: Lepidus, Antony, and Octavian. During the bitter struggle for possession of Jerusalem, Herod, in the year 37 B.C., having sent presents to his friend of long standing, Antony, sees to it that Antigonus, another Hasmonean, is executed. This same Antigonus, son of Aristobulus, had mutilated his uncle (see the chart), the weak highpriest Hyrcanus II, so as to disqualify him for the high-priestly office and to undermine any pronounced political influence he might exercise or others might exert in his behalf. Just a little later, in 35 B.C., Aristobulus the brother of Mariamne (hence, not to be confused with the son of Alexander Jannaeus) meets death by drowning, as has just been related (see p. 162). One can well imagine how Alexandra and Mariamne felt about this. Could the king blame them for distrusting him?
Alexandra writes a letter to Queen Cleopatra, the Egyptian, informing her about the murder of Aristobulus. Cleopatra, in turn, tells Antony, who orders Herod to meet him and give an account. Before departing, Herod instructs Joseph, who was both his uncle and brother-in-law (the husband of Herod’s sister Salome) to slay Mariamne if he, the king, should fail to return alive. On Herod’s safe return Salome, who had begun to hate her husband, informs her brother that Joseph had bestowed improper attention upon Mariamne. Herod has Joseph put to death. Mariamne denies any guilt and for a while she and her husband are reconciled. But this does not last.
In the year 30 B.C. Herod saw in the aged and mutilated Hyrcanus II a threat to the throne, and had him executed. By this time whatever love Mariamne may have had for her husband had turned into hatred, for she saw him now as the murderer of her brother Aristobulus and of her grandfather Hyrcanus II.
In September of the year 31 B.C. the historic naval battle of Actium takes place. Antony, who had divorced Octavian’s sister Octavia, in favor of the bewitching, ruthless, grasping Egyptian Queen Cleopatra (the former mistress of Julius Caesar) whom he married, had been defeated. The following year, August 30 B.C., both Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide. See and/or hear Shakespeare’s vivid and imaginative drama Antony and Cleopatra. These deaths were a severe blow to Herod, who had consistently taken the side of Antony and had even offered to help him. The king of the Jews feared that Octavian, now Emperor Augustus, would deprive him of his throne and perhaps even put him to death. So Herod sets out on a trip to make a humble appeal to the one whom he had up to now opposed. Before leaving he instructs an underling, Sohemus, to put to death both Mariamne and Alexandra in the event that he, the king, should meet with death. Before Augustus he very shrewdly does not try to play down his former loyalty to Antony but even emphasizes it, climaxing his appeal with the words, “To you I will be the same loyal friend.” This strategy succeeds. In triumph, his royal title having been reaffirmed, he returns, in the expectation that his wife will receive him with open arms. In the meantime, however, she has learned about the instructions Sohemus received with respect to her. So on her part the welcome-back is less than enthusiastic. In striving to discover the reason for this coldness Herod hears that there has been a relation of intimacy between Mariamne and Sohemus. The latter is executed. After a mock trial, in the year 29 B.C. Mariamne is convicted of adultery. She is put to death. Herod’s subsequent pathetic remorse does not restore her to life. The next year, 28 B.C., Mariamne’s mother, the scheming Alexandra, is also executed. So from the chart on p. 161 the name of every Hasmonean who, either in reality or in the sick imagination of the king, was considered to be a challenge to his power, has been crossed out. But two sons of Herod by Mariamne, namely, Alexander and Aristobulus, are still alive. See the chart on p. 189. Surely, Herod will not harm his own children! Yes, he will even do away with them, if he is convinced that they in any way threaten his title as “king of the Jews.” And so, in the year 8 B.C., after many a family plot and counter-plot, these two sons are also put to death. And even this is not the end of the horrors. Herod goes from bad to worse. His lust for power, dark suspicion, and almost insane eagerness to avenge himself, enslave him until at last they kill him. Five days before his death there is one more murder of a son. But inasmuch as that occurred after the visit of the wise men a more definite reference to it is reserved for later. See p. 186.
By thus describing Herod as a cruel, bloodthirsty tyrant, an increasingly wicked person, more and more as the years rolled along bent on getting rid of anyone who, as he saw it, might wish to deprive him of his power, are we not being unjust to him? Were there no extenuating circumstances? From a medical point of view can it not be argued that, especially in his final years, the king was afflicted with a severe case of hardening of the arteries? Did not the reduction in blood-flow to the brain cause him to lose some of his earlier capacity to subdue his wicked traits? Again, is it not true that Herod was by no means alone in his destructive designs? Was he not being constantly prodded by his equally wicked sister Salome, a palace resident as was his mother-in-law Alexandra, another trouble-maker? Was not even greedy Queen Cleopatra guilty of making matters worse by her unauthorized interference? Was not Herod’s firstborn son, Antipater, an arch schemer? And Herod’s sons by Mariamne, were they not cut from the same piece of cloth? Was not the king’s court a veritable hotbed of underhanded plotting? Granted that Herod was a great sinner, was he not also the victim of the sins of others?
Allowance must be made for all this, but it does not blot out or excuse his own accountability. According to Scripture self-control is one of the cardinal virtues, the fruit of the Spirit’s operation in the heart (Pro_25:28; Act_24:25; Gal_5:23; 2Pe_1:6). Strikingly touching and forever valid are the words of Rom_6:12, “Let not sin therefore reign [or: be king, hold sway] in your mortal body, to the end that you should obey its lusts.” Herod, who was eager to be and to remain a king, was actually a slave, and this by his own choice!
It is probably the last year of Herod’s reign and of his life. He is gravely alarmed because the wise men have arrived, asking, “Where is the (new)born king of the Jews? For we saw his star in its rising and have come to worship him.” Understandably, all Jerusalem is also fearfully perturbed. On hearing the bad news the old king stirs up the dying embers of his energy and goes into action. In fact, he becomes very active: he assembles, summons, sends, perceives, is enraged, kills … and then dies! See verses Mat_2:4, Mat_2:7-8, Mat_2:16, Mat_2:19, and Mat_2:22. It is immediately clear that the description here given matches that which we find in the extra-canonical sources. Essentially, therefore, the latter must be right! Herod is no laggard. He is a killer. The thoroughness he displays is matched only by the awakened wrath of which it is the product. Note also this hypocrisy: “that I too may come and worship him” (verse Mat_2:8), and his cruelty: the destruction of Bethlehem’s infants (verse Mat_2:16). With this background in mind we are now ready for verse Mat_2:4. And having assembled all the chief priests and scribes of the people he was seeking to learn from them where the Christ was to be born. Since Herod was living in a day when the hope of deliverance through the arrival and work of a promised Messiah was in the hearts and on the lips of many, he realizes that “the king of the Jews” and “the Messiah” are one and the same.
By their question the wise men have greatly disturbed Herod. Yet he is far too shrewd a person not to sense that expelling or killing these men would leave the one whom he regards as the potential pretender to the throne unscathed and even undiscovered. After all, not the magi but the Messiah, the king of the Jews, is the one Herod must destroy. To do this he must first of all identify this mysterious individual. He is sufficiently acquainted with the Jewish religion to know that somewhere in the ancient oracles there was a direct prediction of the place where Messiah was to be born. So Herod must learn what place this is, for this knowledge will be a stepping stone toward finding the child and killing him.
Herod knows exactly where to go for the desired information. He calls together the official representatives of the Jews, “all the chief priests and scribes of the people,” that is probably, the entire Sanhedrin. This was the Jewish Supreme Court. As long as it did not encroach upon the prerogatives of the Roman government, which, for example, passed the final decision on the death sentences of this court, it was the ultimate authority not only in strictly religious but also in civil and criminal matters.
The chief priests consisted of the present ruling highpriest, those who had formerly occupied this high office, and other dignitaries from whose ranks the highpriest was usually chosen. The scribes were the men of letters, those who studied and taught God’s law, the experts in the Jewish religion. To this body of men, therefore, Herod submits the question as to where, according to Scripture (implied), the Christ was to be born. Mat_2:5-6. They told him, In Bethlehem of Judea; for thus it is written through the prophet:
And you Bethlehem, land of Judah,
Are by no means least among the princes of Judah;
For out of you there shall come a ruler
Who will shepherd my people Israel.
On the part of the high council there is no hesitancy. Among the Jews it was a well-known fact that the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem (Joh_7:42). The words of Mat_2:6 are taken from Mic_5:2 (quoted in part).
Though the quotation from Mic_5:2 is not according to the letter—the main change being the one from “who are little to be among” to “are by no means least among”—it is according to the essence, for in both cases the meaning is, “Though you, Bethlehem, are but little, yet you are by no means least, for Israel’s Ruler shall come forth from you.” As Micah saw it, therefore, and as the Jewish authorities now interpret it, Matthew concurring, in the tribal meetings where each city and village was represented by its chief or prince, Bethlehem, though small in population, is very important because Israel’s great Leader was destined to be born there.
The final line of Mat_2:6 bears great similarity to what is found in 2Sa_5:2. According to the context there, the tribes of Israel come to David with the unanimous request that he be their king. To strengthen their appeal they quote the words which God on a former occasion had addressed to David, namely, “You shall be shepherd of my people Israel.” By the Sanhedrin—and Matthew is in full agreement—these words are now applied to David’s great Son and Lord, namely, the Messiah. According to Scripture, in several ways David was a type of Christ, for example, with respect to a. birth in Bethlehem: 1Sa_16:4, 1Sa_16:12-13; cf. Luk_2:4, Luk_2:7; b. being “beloved,” which is the very meaning of the name “David,” see also 1Sa_13:14; cf. Mat_3:17; c. being God’s anointed: 1Sa_16:13; cf. Psa_2:2; Isa_61:1: Luk_4:18, Luk_4:21; d. receiving royal position and honor, already implied in the anointing, see also 2Sa_7:13; cf. Luk_1:32-33; and e. the course each had to follow from bitter humiliation to glorious exaltation: 2Sa_15:23; 2Sa_22:17-20; cf. Joh_18:1; Mat_28:18; etc. Therefore, this application of 2Sa_5:2 to the Messiah was fully justified.
What is often passed by in silence is the fact that neither King Herod nor the Jewish Sanhedrin for a moment doubted that the reference of Mic_5:2 and the ultimate reference of 2Sa_5:2 were to a person (not a nation), namely, the Messiah. When anyone reads such precious Old Testament passages—and this includes also Gen_3:15, Gen_22:18; Gen_49:10; 2Sa_7:12-13; Isa_7:14; Isa_8:8; Isa_9:6; and many, many others—without seeing the Christ in them, is he not reading them blindly? See Luk_24:25-27, Luk_24:32.
Very beautiful and comforting is what is said about Messiah=Christ in the words, “Who shall shepherd my people Israel.” The shepherd is here the king. But this king is no cruel tyrant. In the estimation of those whom God tenderly calls “my people” (cf. Joh_21:5-17) this king is not only prominent but also provident. To them the word “shepherd” suggests not only solemnity but also solicitude (Isa_40:11; Mat_18:12-13; Luk_15:3-7; Joh_10:11, Joh_10:14, Joh_10:27-29; Heb_13:20; 1Pe_2:25; 1Pe_5:4; Rev_7:17).
Continued: Mat_2:7. Then Herod secretly summoned the wise men and ascertained from them the time when the star had made its appearance. The first meeting, the one of the king and the Sanhedrin, by its very nature could not be kept a secret. But adding a second public meeting to the first would have aroused even more suspicion and fear among the people than was already the case. This may well have been the reason why Herod summoned the wise men secretly, meaning not only that the command that they present themselves before him was issued in secret but also that the actual meeting took place in secret. On the basis of a. what has been brought to light previously with respect to the king’s duplicity (see pp. 161 f.) and of b. what a comparison between verses Mat_2:8 and Mat_2:16 reveals, we are fully justified in stating that in his private meeting with the magi Herod concealed his real intention. He did not ask them, “How old do you think this child would be by now?” but, “When was it that the star made its first appearance?” For the benefit of the wise men he feigned a deep interest in their specialty, the stars, while his real interest was in the child, that he might destroy him. Naturally, the more he would get to know about this potential competitor, as he saw him, the easier it would be to identify and kill him. He already knew his birthplace (verses Mat_2:4-6). Now, on the basis of the time of the star’s appearance he considers himself able to guess the child’s approximate age. Mat_2:8. And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, Go and make careful search for the little child, and when you have found him report to me … The king now sends the wise men to Bethlehem as his private detectives, ordering them: a. to conduct a thorough search for the child, and, on the presupposition that the search will be successful, b. to report back to him. With diabolical but characteristic cunning he adds, that I too may come and worship him.
The narrative now turns back to the wise men: Mat_2:9. So after listening to the king they went on their way, and look, the star they had seen in its rising went ahead of them. While still in their own country the magi had seen this wonderful star in its rising (verse Mat_2:2). Now (verse Mat_2:9) suddenly, dramatically—note: “and look!”—they see it again. Where had the star been between then (verse Mat_2:2) and now (verse Mat_2:9)? We are not told. We indulge in imaginative speculation when we say that by its reappearance every night the star had led these men all the way from the east to Jerusalem. Had this been the case would not the text have read thus, “And look, the star that had led them all the way to Jerusalem,” instead of, “And look, the star they had seen in its rising”? If any conclusion is valid at all, it would rather seem that the star seen in its rising now reappears for the first time.
However this may be, one fact is stated with great clarity: this star now went ahead of them. The luminous wonder was actually moving from north to south, from Jerusalem to Bethlehem! What a strange way for a star to behave. Nevertheless, this is what Matthew says. In their interpretation commentators differ widely. According to some, the star did not really point the way. In an unscientific manner Matthew is simply stating the impression which the stars make upon us. When we travel, they seem to travel along with us. When we stop, they seem to stop also. Not the star but Herod had pointed the way to Bethlehem. Others are of a directly opposite opinion. R. C. H. Lenski writes, “The star moved as a guide, the star arrived, the star stood. It is all perfectly plain, absolutely miraculous, unlike any star that ever was. But what has been done with this star? We are told, it never moved at all … the star only appeared to stand still when the magi stood still.”
On this point I happen to be in agreement with Lenski. It is entirely true that King Herod had sent the wise men to Bethlehem (verse Mat_2:8), to which might be added that God, through Micah, as quoted by the Jewish Sanhedrin, had fixed Herod’s attention on Bethlehem as the place of Messiah’s birth (verses Mat_2:4-6). But here, as often, God made use of two means: general revelation (the star) and special revelation (the prophecy of Mic_5:2). When both are present, they always agree.
Further, I do not believe that for the magi the star did exactly what stars are always doing for us. If that were all that was meant would it not be better to say that the wise men, by their traveling, were leading the star? Explain it we cannot, but this star actually went ahead of the wise men until it stood still over (the place) where the little child was. Literally Matthew says, “until, having arrived, it stood still over where was the little child.” The star pointed out the very house! As described in verse Mat_2:9, therefore, at this point the strange and wonderful luminary must have been hanging low. To say that in some other way the magi had discovered the location of the place where the child was fails to do justice to the text, as I see it.
Continued: Mat_2:10. At the sight of the star they were overjoyed. “They rejoiced exceedingly with great joy,” thus literally. See Isa_66:10; Joh_3:29; and 1Th_3:9 for similar expressions. Their cup of joy was running over. Possible reasons for this exuberant rejoicing: a. they saw their “old friend” once more, the very star they had observed in its rising, the one that, correctly interpreted, had started them upon the journey to greet the newborn king; b. they now discerned very clearly that God was guiding them by these two means: the star and the prophetic word; c. They knew that very soon they would reach their destination and would pay homage to the Messiah, the king of the Jews whose coming concerned the Gentiles as well.
The journey of the wise men reaches its climax in verse Mat_2:11. Having entered the house they saw the little child with Mary his mother, and they cast themselves to the ground and worshiped him. Nativity scenes depict the arrival of the wise men. Often, however, they are shown standing, or kneeling down, in the company of the shepherds, and in a stable. This is obviously incorrect. According to the evangelist Luke, when the shepherds arrive the babe is still “lying in the manger” (Luk_2:16). They come at once, that very night (Luk_2:8, Luk_2:15). The little family, Joseph, Mary, and the child, continues to live in relative poverty for at least forty days, as is evident from Luk_2:22-24; cf. Lev_12:2-8. If the wise men from the east, bringing precious gifts, had arrived within this period of forty days, then, on the fortieth day Mary’s purification offering would probably have been something better than “a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons.” It is clear that Joseph and his family had left the inn stable, perhaps very soon after the child’s birth, certainly before the arrival of the wise men. They are now no longer staying in an animal shelter but living in a building for human beings (with some relatives?). With well-nigh unanimity translators agree with the rendering, (the wise men) “having entered the house,” or something similar.
Having entered, the wise men see “the little child with Mary his mother.” Note that whenever mother and infant are mentioned together (verses Mat_2:11, Mat_2:13-14, Mat_2:20, and Mat_2:21) the infant is always mentioned first. It is that little child upon whom the main interest is concentrated. This is as it should be, for in this little one God has become incarnate:
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
Hail th’Incarnate Deity. (Charles Wesley)
How much of this truth the wise men understood we do not know. We do know, though, that on seeing him they cast themselves to the ground and worshiped him; literally, “and having fallen they prostrated themselves before them.” They revere him as the Messiah, the king of the Jews.
It is true that the verb used in the original and here rendered “worshiped” does not always indicate an act of reverence paid to God, the Creator and Redeemer. Sometimes it is the creature—Peter (Act_10:25); or the church in Philadelphia (Rev_3:9)—rather than the Creator, to whom homage is rendered. But when this is done these are regarded as standing in close relation to God, so that God speaks and operates through them. However, if, in such cases, the worshipper fails to draw this distinction, and begins to regard a mere man as if he were on a par with God, he may well receive a reprimand. Thus, when Cornelius falls down at Peter’s feet and worships him, he is told, “Get up; I myself am also but a man” (Act_10:26). When John, the author of the book of Revelation, falls down in order to worship his angel-guide, he receives a similar warning (Rev_22:8-9; cf. Rev_19:10). The magi, however, are not told to desist. They may have made more progress in the true faith than we realize. According to Mat_2:12 God, who had previously spoken to them by means of a star and (indirectly) by means of Micah, also speaks to them in a dream. Besides, as has been pointed out previously, believers who lived on the very threshold of the new dispensation must have told them about the Messiah to come. Equipped with all this knowledge, sanctified to their hearts as is clear from the entire account, we may well think of them as men who rendered to the Christ-child the type of homage that was in a very real sense acceptable to God. In this child they somehow see God, and worship him!
They have rendered the proper homage. They now offer the appropriate gifts (cf. Psa_72:10; cf. Isa_60:3; Ps. 87). We read: Next, they opened their treasure-chests and presented him with gifts: gold and frankincense and myrrh. They are pictured here as not only wealthy but also warm-hearted and worshipful. These men offer their treasures to him: they are meant for the child to honor him.
In works of exposition one use is at times assigned to each of these presents. There is probably a good reason for this. Nevertheless, it may not be amiss to begin by showing that in general Scripture assigns more than one use to each of these articles.
For example, gold was used extensively in the construction of the tabernacle and its furniture (Exod. 25-31; 35-40) and of the temple and its contents (I Kings 5-7; II Chron. 2-5). Yet, it was by no means limited to holy uses. It was also worn in the form of bracelets (Gen_24:22), necklaces (Num_31:50), and earrings (Exo_32:2-3). We read about “gods of gold” (Exo_20:23), one of them being “the golden calf” which Aaron made (Exo_32:4), though he denied that he “made” it: he merely cast the gold into the fire, “and there came out this calf!” (Exo_32:24). James tells the stingy rich that their gold and their silver are rusted (Jas_5:3). In a vision which John saw gold serves the very unholy purpose of decorating the great harlot (Rev_17:4-5); Frequently the word gold is used in comparisons, to teach men that there are things that are far more precious than gold (Psa_19:10; Psa_119:72, Psa_119:127; Pro_8:10, Pro_8:19).
As to frankincense (literally meaning pure incense), the Old Testament word is derived from a root meaning white. An incision is made in the bark of a certain tree of the genus Boswellia, growing on the limestone rocks of South Arabia and Somalia (E. Africa). The resulting fresh juice has a white or milky color; hence the name. Now frankincense, too, has various uses. It is mentioned in connection with meal offerings (Lev_2:1-2, Lev_2:15-16) and wedding processions (Son_3:6). It also occurs in a list of articles of commerce (Rev_18:13).
Myrrh was probably derived from a small tree with odoriferous wood, namely, the Balsamodendron of Arabia. It was used for the purpose of perfuming a bed (Pro_7:17) or a garment (Psa_45:8). It was prescribed for certain young ladies, to make them more desirable (Est_2:12). It was also used lavishly in bridal processions (Son_3:6). Mingled with wine it served as an anaesthetic (Mar_15:23). Finally, it was used in preparing a body for burial (Joh_19:39-40).
This list of various uses is somewhat incomplete as any Concordance will indicate. However, it establishes the point to be noted, namely, that according to Scripture (both Old and New Testament) each of the three gifts brought by the wise men serves more than one purpose. Now if this is true, what justification did Origen (and many after him) have for saying that the magi brought “gold, as to a king; myrrh, as to one who was mortal; and incense, as to God”? Does not this representation amount to oversimplification? On the surface it would seem that it does. However, another look at the entire list of passages in which these three items are mentioned proves that, to say the least, there is an important element of truth in Origen’s observation. To begin with gold, it is striking how often in Scripture this precious metal is indeed associated with royalty: with the king, the queen, the vice-gerent, and the prince. Joseph, a vice-gerent, wears a gold neck-chain (Gen_41:42). So does Daniel as third ruler (Dan_5:7, Dan_5:29). King Nebuchadnezzar, as the first and greatest in a list of earthly rulers, is represented by a head of gold (Dan_2:32, Dan_2:38). Rabbah’s king wears a crown of gold (2Sa_12:30). So does the author of Ps. 21, in the superscription identified with David. Princes own gold (Job_3:15). Psa_45:9 speaks about “the queen, in gold of Ophir.” The one who calls himself “king in Jerusalem” is a collector of gold and silver (Ecc_2:8). And King Ahasuerus holds out his golden scepter to Queen Esther (Est_4:11, Est_5:2; Est_8:4). As if this were not enough, it can be added that King Solomon not only had drinking vessels of gold and an ivory throne overlaid with gold, but was hemmed in by gold to such an extent that in seven verses descriptive of his wealth (1Ki_10:14-18, 1Ki_10:21-22) gold is mentioned no less than ten times! We see, therefore, that to anyone acquainted with the books of the Old Testament gold would amost immediately suggest royalty.
As to frankincense, in by far the most of the cases in which this word occurs in the Old Testament it is mentioned in connection with the service of Jehovah. It was stored in a chamber of the sanctuary (1Ch_9:29; Neh_13:5), and is frequently mentioned in connection with meal offerings, as an additive (Lev_2:1-2, Lev_2:15-16; Lev_6:15). According to Exo_30:34 it entered as an ingredient into the composition of incense, with respect to which it is specifically stated that it is not for the people but only for Jehovah (Exo_30:37). In the Old Testament the basic word incense occurs more than one hundred times. In the New Testament it is found in Luk_1:9-11 and Rev_8:3-4. Whenever it occurs it has to do with the service of God. In offering incense, burning coals were taken from the altar of burnt offering and placed on the altar of incense, the golden altar that stood in the holy place immediately in front of the holy of holies. On these coals the incense was then sprinkled. The fragrant smoke rising heavenward was symbolical of the prayers and thanksgivings of the people and the priests. The incense was definitely an offering made to God (see Luk_1:9 f.; Rev_5:8; Rev_8:3). Frankincense, and also incense in general, immediately suggests God, therefore. It belongs to him, to him alone. Even when it is offered to idols, God still calls it “my incense” (Eze_16:18). It is clear, therefore, that just as gold and king go together, so do also incense and God.
As to myrrh, in the more than a dozen Old Testament passages where the word occurs it is mentioned in connection with the service of Jehovah in only one instance. It enters into the composition of anointing oil (Exo_30:22-33). For the rest, as has already been indicated, it was a perfume used by and in the interest of mortal man, to make his life more pleasant, his pain less dreadful, and his burial less repulsive.
It has been established, therefore, that Origen had good reason to say that the magi brought “gold, as to a king; myrrh, as to one who was mortal; and incense, as to God.”
A famous poet said:
Not what we give, but what we share,—
For the gift without the giver is bare. (Lowell)
Here in Matt. 2 we have an illustration of genuine givers. They did not hesitate to make a long and arduous journey (probably more than a thousand miles) to render homage to him who by most people must have been regarded as merely a little child. He was, moreover, a child of humble birth, belonging to a nation that had lost its freedom. Yet, these important men not only prostrated themselves before him but presented him with gifts that were not only lavish but also definitely appropriate; gold, for he was and is indeed a king—yes, “King of kings and Lord of lords”—frankincense, for he is indeed God—the fulness of the godhead dwells in him—and myrrh, for he is also man, destined for death, and this by his own choice.
How much of this the wise men understood we do not know. Let it suffice to say that their coming, the homage they rendered, and the gifts they offered were acceptable in the eyes of God. Matthew’s main lesson for the Jews who were the first to read his Gospel, or to hear it read to them, must have been to remind them of the fact that salvation, though beginning with the Jews, does not end there. The Gentiles, too, must be won for Christ. The coming of the wise men was indeed a lesson for Jews … and for men of every nationality and race, a lesson to be taken to heart: if even the magi, with their limited knowledge, did this for Christ, then why do we, so highly privileged, fall short?
Continued: Mat_2:12. And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, it was by a different route that they retired to their own country. It is often difficult for thoroughly honest men to understand hypocrites, and for generous people to catch on to the schemes of self-seekers. So it is not surprising that the magi had failed to see what Herod was actually up to when he said, “Report to me that I too may come and worship him.” But though the eyes of the wise men are not sharp enough to penetrate the king’s disguise, before God nothing is hidden (Heb_4:13). He does not want any harm to befall the magi, nor does he want the life of his Son to be taken away before the latter has finished the work which his Father had given him to do. So the magi must be warned (verse Mat_2:12), and so must Joseph (verse Mat_2:13). In each case the warning arrives during a dream.
Having been instructed not to return to Herod, the wise men retire to their own country by a different route. The one by way of Jericho and the Jordan readily suggests itself, but this is no more than a conjecture.
Matthew’s nativity account makes mention of dreams as a means of divine revelation a. to Joseph (in Mat_1:20; Mat_2:13, Mat_2:19, Mat_2:22) and b. to the wise men (in Mat_2:12). The Passion narrative records the dream of Pilate’s wife (Mat_27:19). The Old Testament relates the dreams of Abimelech (Gen_20:3, Gen_20:6-7); Jacob (Gen_28:10-17; Gen_31:10-11), Laban (Gen_31:24); Joseph, Benjamin’s brother (Gen_37:5-11); the butler and the baker (chap. 40); Pharoah (chap. 41); a Midianite (Jdg_7:13-15); King Solomon (1Ki_3:5-15); Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2, 4); and Daniel (chap. 7). Frequently that which in the dream was seen—i.e., the vision—is emphasized.
In view of what we now know about dreams, is it reasonable to believe that the wise men actually “were warned” in a dream? We commonly think of a dream as something for which we ourselves are wholly responsible; that is, the dream reflects, generally in some distorted fashion, what has been on our minds previously. Out of lingering sensations, images, and thoughts a sequence of dream experiences is built up. The dream can be very vivid, a lively experience, whether joyful or alarming. Most dreams are said to occur just after we fall asleep or just before awakening. Since conscious daytime reasoning is no longer in control, and in the state of suspended consciousness and relaxation imaginative guesswork has taken over, the various sensations, images, and thoughts often combine and recombine in a bizarre manner. In many cases the dream, of brief duration, is soon forgotten. This need not bother us. Do not some etymologists maintain that the words träumen, to dream, and trügen (to deceive) are derived from the same root? Does not even Scripture teach that “in the multitude of dreams there is futility” (Ecc_5:7)? If that was true then, how much more today.
In countering this rather low estimate of dreams some point to the claims that have been made for ESP. For example, a lady dreams that her brother has committed suicide. Late at night she and her husband drive to the brother’s house and discover the body. Numerous similar instances have been reported. However, before any conclusion can be based on them, all those people who have had similar dreams which were subsequently proved to be at variance with reality should report their experiences also. Certainly not every nightmare mirrors reality! Scientifically adequate criteria for judging such reports, without bias in either direction, must first be established.
The question may be asked, “But if dreams were frequently meaningful in Bible times, why not (or: why not as clearly and emphatically) today?” The answer is that since we now have God’s full revelation in Jesus Christ, dreams as means of divine revelation are no longer necessary. In a fragmentary manner and in varied ways God spoke of old. One of these fragments and methods by which he revealed himself was the dream. In these last days, especially now that the full revelation in Jesus Christ has been recorded and the Holy Spirit has been poured out, God has spoken to us once for all in his Son (see Heb_1:1-2). It is reasonable to believe, therefore, that the less privileged wise men were indeed warned in a dream, but that for us dreams have lost much of the significance they once had.
To all this one more fact must be added. In by far the majority of the aforementioned interesting dream stories Scripture distinctly adds that the dream, far from being merely the precipitate of a person’s daytime experiences, amounted to a divine message. Sometimes the dreamer seems to have been aware of this even during his dream; at other times he recognizes it upon awakening; or else someone tells him this in the course of interpreting the dream. Thus we do not merely read that Abimelech dreamed, but that God came to Abimilech in a dream. He is also said to have come to Laban. Jacob, in his dream at Bethel, hears the Lord speaking to him and saying, “I am Jehovah…” By means of Pharaoh’s dream God revealed to him what he was about to do. Jehovah appeared to Solomon in a dream, saying, “What shall I give you?” In Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the tree it was the decree of the Most High that was being disclosed to him. It was in all probability an angel who interpreted Daniel’s dream to him, showing that also in this case the dream’s content was something for which Daniel himself was not exclusively responsible. Finally, in no less than three out of the four times a dream of Joseph, Mary’s husband, is reported, it was an angel who addressed him in the dream. Thus also the wise men were divinely warned in a dream.
If, in spite of these considerations and in spite of the fulfilment of these Biblical dreams a skeptic still insists on regarding them as wholly on the level with our own dreaming, the responsibility is entirely his own. He will have created for himself a problem that is impossible of solution as long as he remains a skeptic.

Digg

Stumble Upon

Del.icio.us

Buzz