Messiah and Bethlehem

Introduction:

We want to think through the importance of Jesus’ birth.

What does where he was born say about who he is?

We have much to consider, and from Matthew, we will think about the implications of the arrival of the Magi and how the city of Jerusalem learned about Jesus’ birth.

Jesus’ Birth as Pre-Condition

Matthew does not provide an account of the circumstances of Jesus’ birth.

Only Luke does that.

Matthew assumes his readers either know that information, or it is not important to what he wishes to spotlight for the reader.

He provides a statement designed to help the reader think about when and why the next major events took place.

That statement of time is: “with Jesus having been born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the King.”

Still, with that statement, we can conclude that Jesus was born in the days of Herod.

He ruled from 37 BC-4 BC.

Surprisingly, Matthew emphasizes the magi.

Note the “behold.”

Furthermore, this section functions as the main sentence, with the preceding statement as the pre-condition upon which the main action depended.

They are “magi from the east” who arrived to a Jerusalem unaware of the arrival of “the one having been born king of the Jews.”

The Jews had not had a David descendant, so far as we know, since the days of the destruction of the First Temple.

They explain two things after their inquiry.

Why they think he has been born.

Why they have come to see him.

Confusion and Clarity

On the one hand, Herod and the city becomes “shaken.”

They are confounded to hear of the birth of such an individual.

Both would have understood the magis’ phrasing to refer to someone of legitimate claim to rule rather than being a vassal like Herod.

The initial confusion prompts Herod to summon the individuals who could provide authoritative information based upon the scriptures.

Note that we have two ways of divine communication.

Why did Jerusalem not know? Bethlehem was only about 6 miles away, and much time has passed.

This remains a mystery, but the strangeness of events described by Luke must not have made their way to Jerusalem, they must not have been taken seriously, or too much time has passed (and they weren’t taken seriously)>

The priests and scribes provided clarity based on the scriptures.

Micah 5:2

There appears to be a two-fold thought on Matthew’s part:

First, there is the historical and literal fulfillment of Micah 5:2. Jesus was born in Bethlehem because that is what God promised about the Messiah.

See earlier passages beginning in Micah 4:8ff.

There has already been the assurance of the establishment of the Lord’s place in Zion (Micah 4:1) and the return of Davidic rule. (Micah 4:8).

The coming king would not be like their current king.

Second, there is a call back to the Davidic dynasty. The language at the end of the quotation mirrors Micah 5:4 which itself mirrors 2 Sam. 5:2. Matthew seems to be emphasizing a tradition, based on the scriptures, of the restoration of David’s dynasty through David’s own hometown. Hence, the one “born” king of the Jews is one of David’s direct descendants who will restore the Davidic monarchy after being born in David’s own hometown.