by The Great Christ Comet- Revealing the True Star of Bethlehem (retail) (epub)
We suggest therefore that the Magi were convinced that the Messiah’s birth was taking place when they saw the Star at or around the time of its heliacal rising. Evidently, the Magi perceived significance in the Star’s location within the constellations, its form, and/or its behavior, and/or in the timing of the heavenly wonder.
Babylonian astrology and births. Babylonian astrologers in the last centuries of the first millennium BC were convinced that a person’s fate was encoded in the heavens at the point of birth.63 Accordingly, they created horoscopes for the date (occasionally even the part of the day or night or the hour) of the subject’s birth,64 based on their astronomical almanacs, diaries, and other collections of data.65 Twenty-eight Babylonian tablets containing horoscopes have survived, covering 410 to 69 BC.66 Typically, they specify the positions of the Moon, Sun, Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, Saturn, and Mars within the zodiacal signs, in that order, noting where a planet was not visible due to conjunction with the Sun.67 They also detail other astronomical data relevant to the month or year of the birth, particularly lunar phenomena and eclipses.68
In essence, Babylonian astrologers could detail two kinds of omens to mark a nativity: one (horoscopic) type related to the zodiacal sign in which the subject was born; the other (non-horoscopic) type related to some astronomical phenomenon that occurred on the birthdate (e.g., Jupiter’s heliacal rising or a solar eclipse) which was perceived to disclose the subject’s destiny.69
It is clear from Matthew that what impressed the Magi and prompted them to travel to Jerusalem related to what a Star did at or around the time of its heliacal rising. Obviously, therefore, what they saw occurred in the period shortly before dawn, around the time when certain other stars and constellations were heliacally rising. To that extent, what they saw was reminiscent of a horoscopic omen. However, in this case the focus was not on the place of the planets within the zodiacal signs but rather on the behavior of the one particular “star” that they associated with the Jewish Messiah. What the star did that was so meaningful to the Magi, it did in connection with its own heliacal rising, against the backdrop of the constellations. So the celestial sign was fundamentally non-horoscopic in nature, concerning an astronomical event that coincided with the Messiah’s birth.
Normally, the relevance and significance of an astronomical natal omen was determined retrospectively, decades after the birthdate. However, in the case of Jesus’s birth omen, the Magi perceived the meaning and significance of the celestial phenomenon as it happened. Based on it, they were able to deduce that the Messiah had been born in Judea.
The Magi’s Response to the Wonder. The Magi were deeply impacted by the behavior of the Star in the eastern sky.
Pilgrimage. The astrologers set out on their long journey to Jerusalem, inspired by what the Star had done in connection with its heliacal rising.
Intention: worship. The Magi were intent on worshiping the messianic child. The Greek verb proskuneō often means “to express by attitude and possibly by position [namely, prostration] one’s allegiance to and regard for deity.”70 It may also be used in nonreligious contexts of simple kneeling before one of higher rank, and is used thus in Matthew 18:26. However, Matthew almost always used the verb of an act of worship. When he is speaking of what people do in Jesus’s presence, it always refers to worship.71 This is in keeping with Matthew’s high Christology and his strong emphasis on Jesus as the Son of God.72 W. D. Davies and Dale Allison argue strongly that the verb implies worship here in Matthew 2:2, based on the fact that the verb “come” (erchomai) followed by “worship” (proskuneō) in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (LXX) usually refers to a cultic act, and because Jews regarded full prostration (proskynesis) as appropriate only when directed to God (cf. Matt. 4:9–10; Acts 10:25–26; Rev. 19:10; 22:8–9; Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 31, line 116; idem, De decalogo 64).73 The Magi, then, seem to have come with the intention not just of paying homage to the newborn King of the Jews, but of worshiping him as a deity. This obviously forces us to ask the question, What convinced the Magi that the recently born ruler was worthy of worship? This is difficult to explain unless the celestial sign that they saw directly or indirectly convinced them that the King of the Jews was both human and divine.
Herod and the People of Jerusalem
The Magi clearly expected the people of Jerusalem, or at least some of them, to know that the Messiah had been born, and where he was now. However, in this and in their trust of Herod later in the story, the Magi were mistaken: “When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born” (Matt. 2:3–4).
Herod the Great. The repetition of Herod’s title “the king” here stands in sharp tension with the Magi’s claim in verse 2 that the King of the Jews has just been born.
Historical backdrop. Herod had been endowed with the title King of the Jews by the Roman Senate.74 As the reigning king in his final years, Herod was utterly obsessed with securing his dynasty by choosing from his sons a worthy successor or successors.
Herod had ten wives and many sons. His most important children as regards the succession were Alexander and Aristobulus (sons of Mariamne I); Antipater (son of Doris); Archelaus and Antipas (sons of Malthrace); Philip I (son of Mariamne II); and Philip II (son of Cleopatra of Jerusalem).
When Alexander and Aristobulus returned from Rome to Judea in 17 BC, Herod let his favorable sentiment toward them be known. However, Herod’s sister Salome spread the rumor that these sons were conspiring against him. As a result, Herod turned his favor upon his eldest son and the child of his first marriage, Antipater, appointing him the sole heir. As for Alexander and Aristobulus, he decided to make charges against them before the Roman emperor. However, Herod in due course changed his mind about Alexander and Aristobulus and was reconciled with them. Thereafter, in 12 BC he incorporated them back into his will, so that each of them would be a ruler over a part of the territory. Unfortunately for Herod, this ideal state of affairs did not last for long. In 7 BC new rumors began to circulate to the effect that Alexander and Aristobulus were plotting to assassinate Herod; whether these rumors had a basis in fact or were merely manufactured by Antipater we do not know. Certainly Herod believed them, and he responded with fury and had the two siblings tried and executed. The king decided that Antipater should be the sole king, although now he specified that Philip I would be Antipater’s successor. Then, in 6 BC, Philip I was removed from the will, because Herod suspected that his mother was guilty of conspiracy against him, leaving Antipater as the sole specified heir.75
It is around this time, in 6 or 5 BC, when Herod was acutely paranoid and focused on the succession, and perhaps thinking that he had finally sorted out the whole messy business, that the Magi entered Jerusalem asking where the newborn King of the Jews was and declaring that they had seen his star in the eastern sky.
In fact, Herod’s paranoia and dynastic woes continued until his death. Early in 5 BC the king discovered that Antipater, before departing for Rome in 6 BC, had been conspiring to poison him. When Antipater returned to Judea late in 5 BC, Herod had him imprisoned and reported the crime to the emperor. He then named his youngest son, Antipas, sole heir. However, just prior to his death in the spring of 4 BC, Herod had yet another change of heart and divided up his kingdom between Antipas, Archelaus, and Philip II. Five days before Herod died, Antipater, his firstborn son, was executed.
Herod’s Response to the Magi. Herod was “troubled” by the announcement of the Magi concerning the birth of the newborn King of the Jews. The historical context helps us make sense of this. As we have seen, during the last four years of Herod’s life he was extremely paranoid, and with some justification. He had already killed two of his sons and 300 military officers supposedly conspiring with them in 7 BC and, within a few years, would have cause to have another son tried for conspiracy and executed. Consequently, H
erod was unlikely to take kindly to any threat to his dynasty.
In addition, Richardson suggests that Herod may have been strongly hostile to messianic movements generally.76
At the same time, Herod clearly believed that the one who had just been born was the actual Messiah. Later, Matthew tells us of how Herod assembled the chief priests and scribes to determine where the Messiah had been born, based on the Hebrew Scriptures, and passed this information on to the Magi, anticipating that they would find the newborn King of the Jews there (Matt. 2:4–8). So convinced was Herod that the Messiah had been born that he slaughtered every baby boy in the region of Bethlehem in their first or second year of life in a desperate attempt to assassinate him (v. 16). His fear therefore probably reflects his belief that the prophesied Messiah would pose a formidable threat to his dynasty.77
Herod was part Jewish and has been generously described by one biographer as a man of “piety” who adhered to “simple and uncluttered” Judaism.78 Certainly he was, at the very time when the Magi visited, overseeing the reconstruction and beautification of the Jerusalem temple. And yet Herod, though persuaded by the Magi that the Messiah had been born, did not rejoice, but recoiled with horror, because this momentous event did not accord with his succession plans.
The People of Jerusalem. Surprisingly, “all of Jerusalem” was also “troubled” (v. 3) by the Magi’s announcement. Although some scholars have argued that the city’s religious leaders are in view here,79 that is too narrow a reading of the phrase. The more natural interpretation is that it refers to the general population of the city. However, we might well wonder why the people of Jerusalem responded so negatively to the Magi’s proclamation. It can hardly be that the Jerusalemites preferred Herod to the Messiah. More likely the people in Jerusalem were troubled because they liked the status quo and were certain that Herod would respond with brutality to any serious threat to his dynasty. They may also have been afraid that Judea could degenerate into civil war. While some degree of fear might be expected, the lack of any positive rejoicing at the news that the long-awaited Messiah has finally been born is disturbing and, within the context of Matthew’s Gospel, anticipates the city’s rejection of Jesus at his trial (Matt. 27:15–26).
Had Herod and the Jerusalemites Seen the Star? The response of Herod and the people of Jerusalem has sometimes been taken to indicate that they had not seen the Star themselves.80 However, this is most unlikely. It would be very surprising if the people of Judea would have accepted as a celestial sign of the Messiah’s birth any phenomenon capable of being observed only by pagan Gentiles in Babylon and not at all by the Messiah’s own people in Judea. Moreover, the strength of the reaction of the king and people to the arrival of the Magi’s entourage and their query makes better sense if they had seen for themselves and been deeply impressed by the Star but had not perceived its momentous messianic significance.81 Had they not seen the Star for themselves, they would hardly have been so shaken by the Magi’s enquiry. What was new to the people of Jerusalem was not that there was a Star or even that the Star had done something unusual in connection with its heliacal rising, but rather that the Star had categorically signaled that the Messiah had recently been born. Exposed to that startling and evidently compelling interpretive key by some of the world’s most respected astronomers and astrologers, who were so certain of their interpretation that they had just traveled hundreds of miles to welcome the newborn Messiah, suddenly Herod and the Jerusalemites became disturbed concerning the Star.
Of course, it is possible that not everything the Star did was detected by those in Jerusalem, whether because of inclement weather, a lack of dedicated observation, or an inopportune time of occurrence.
Herod’s Meeting with the Jewish Teachers
Herod’s Ignorance. It is clear that Herod did not know where the Messiah was to be born. Apparently Micah 5:2, with its disclosure of the location of the Messiah’s birth, was not widely known or, at any rate, not widely understood. The Magi, Herod, and the population in Jerusalem as a whole were, it would seem, unaware that this verse held the key to identifying the place of the Messiah’s birth.
The king therefore assembled “all the chief priests and scribes of the people” (Matt. 2:4), which may perhaps mean that he summoned the whole Sanhedrin82 or simply that he gathered a sizable group of respected Bible scholars (in the Gospels, the Sanhedrin is normally designated “the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders,” but the elders are not mentioned here).
The Teachers’ Response. Herod presented the religious experts with his simple question: Where was the Messiah to be born? This half-Jewish king of Judea was clearly intent on assassinating the Messiah while he was still a baby. Completely devoid of any fear of God, he was prepared to use the revelation God had given concerning his plan of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures—to thwart the divine plan! The hard-heartedness and audacity of this man who had made the Second Temple one of the most glorious structures in the ancient world are mind-boggling. So self-deluded is this king of Judea that he actually imagines that he can take on God and win!
According to Matthew 2:5–6, the chief priests and scribes “told [Herod], ‘In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:
“And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.”’”
The response of the Jewish religious leadership to Herod’s question reveals a lot. Their answer reflects a high view of the Hebrew Scriptures. They regard Micah’s oracle as the word of God channeled through a prophetic agent (“it is written by the prophet”), and they interpret it in a literal and straightforward manner to refer to the Davidic Messiah. The chief priests and scribes manifestly do have a basic grasp of God’s plan of salvation through the Messiah. It is striking that Matthew is content to let these Jewish leaders introduce Micah 5:2 into the narrative concerning the birth of Jesus. Matthew does not explicitly state that the religious leadership was aware of the report of the Magi from the east. However, word concerning the Magi had spread like wildfire through the city, so that “all Jerusalem” heard it, and it is hard to justify excluding the Jewish religious leaders from this, particularly because Jerusalem was so oriented around the temple. Accordingly, when they answered Herod’s question concerning the birthplace of the Messiah by appealing to Micah’s prophecy, they were effectively testifying that, if what the Magi had seen was indeed the Messiah’s natal sign, the Messiah was at that very moment a newborn baby in Bethlehem.
Remarkably, however, the Jewish religious leaders, despite having a knowledge of the Word of God considerably greater than that of the Gentile Magi, made no effort to travel the five or six miles south to Bethlehem to see if indeed the Messiah had been born in fulfillment of the Prophets. They evidently despised the report, and perhaps those who brought it, and so they remained in Jerusalem. They were content with the status quo and did not crave the promised salvation of God.
Micah’s Oracle. The quotation from Micah 5:2 is significant:
But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose origin83 is from of old,
from ancient days.
Therefore he shall give them up until the time
when she who is in labor has given birth.
Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah, here declares that the messianic King, the one through whom Yahweh will supremely fulfill his covenant promises to David, will be born in Bethlehem, the very same town in which King David was born. The apparent implication of Micah’s prophecy concerning Bethlehem was that the Messiah would have strong Davidic ancestry.84
Micah’s reference to “she who is in labor” giving birth seems to recall Isaiah 7:14, where Isaiah foretold that “the virgin shall be w
ith child and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If so, Micah has evidently interpreted Isaiah’s prophecy as referring to the Messiah’s birth.85 Notably, Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23, claiming that it was fulfilled when Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary.
Matthew omits the latter part of Micah’s prophecy of the Messiah’s birth: “whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has given birth” (Mic. 5:3). However, as Davies and Allison suggest, the readers are probably supposed to fill this in for themselves.86
By replacing Micah’s “Ephrathah” with “in the land of Judah,” Matthew highlights that the Messiah had to be a member of the tribe of Judah, in accordance with Genesis 49:9–10, where Jacob prophesied that “Judah is a lion’s cub. . . . The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.”
Matthew also edits Micah’s “ruler in Israel” to say “ruler who will shepherd my people Israel” (Matt. 2:6). The introduction of shepherd imagery seems intended to recall God’s promise to David in 2 Samuel 5:2 (“You shall be shepherd of my people Israel, and you shall be prince over Israel”) and is thus very much in tune with the thrust of Micah’s prophecy.87
Matthew’s most striking change to the quotation from Micah is to transform “are too little to be among the clans of Judah” into “are by no means least among the rulers of Judah” (Matt. 2:6). In Micah, “small” highlights that the city in the era before fulfillment is of little importance, implying that its status will change fundamentally after the Messiah is born there. Matthew’s “by no means” is consistent with this.88 There has been a remarkable change in Bethlehem’s significance as a result of the Messiah’s birth there. From the eighth century BC, when Micah wrote, until Jesus’s birth at the end of the first century BC, Bethlehem had been an insignificant town, with its sole claim to fame being that King David had been born there. However, now it was guaranteed to be esteemed and famous forever, because the Messiah himself had been born there.
