Why is ALL of Jerusalem troubled at Jesus birth?

[patrick457]

Not really sure what the problem is. It is to be expected that the nominal capital of the puppet kingdom of Judea would be in a state of heightened alert at such an alarming question ("Hey, my lord the king; we hear there’s a baby out there out to get your throne. Where can we find him to offer our support?), given that

1. Judea was not an independent state, but an autonomous puppet kingdom within the Roman Empire;

I actually thought of making a thread about that a while back before I got bored with it. Did you know that after the Babylonian Exile, the only time the Jews ever had an actual independent state in Palestine was during the time of the Hasmoneans and those brief interludes during the Jewish-Roman wars?

I mean, under the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans they spent their time as being either provinces of a larger empire or client states. During these times they were (most of the time) autonomous, the big empires controlling them mostly allowing them to do their thing (the Romans included), yes, but if I’m not getting my facts wrong, the Hasmonean period was pretty much the only time the Jews ever had a truly independent polity in Palestine post-Babylonian Exile, before the modern state of Israel was founded.

 

[porthos11]

I actually thought of making a thread about that a while back before I got bored with it. Did you know that after the Babylonian Exile, the only time the Jews ever had an actual independent state in Palestine was during the time of the Hasmoneans and those brief interludes during the Jewish-Roman wars?

I mean, under the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans they spent their time as being either provinces of a larger empire or client states. During these times they were (most of the time) autonomous, the big empires controlling them mostly allowing them to do their thing (the Romans included), yes, but if I’m not getting my facts wrong, the Hasmonean period was pretty much the only time the Jews ever had a truly independent polity in Palestine post-Babylonian Exile, before the modern state of Israel was founded.

That’s right. And Herod’s rule was arguably a continuation, if not usurpation of the Hasmonean throne. Knowing the Jews’ expectation of a Davidic messiah, naturally, the news of a Davidic pretender would alarm everyone. Herod, after all, was a cruel madman, and any civil trouble would bring the Romans down on Jerusalem.

A competing claim smelled of major trouble for the client ruler of the time, and major trouble for the client king meant trouble for the populace.

 

[M-Dent]

The line between astronomy and astrology was actually blurry back then. For all intents and purposes they were pretty much the same science. It’s kind of like how alchemy was once considered a legitimate scientific discipline before the scientific aspects of it became ‘chemistry’ and ‘medicine’. There was no divide between what we would call ‘belief’ or ‘superstition’ and ‘science’. Ancient doctors could (and did, actually) prescribe their patients some kind of prayer or incantation alongside their medicine.

While the Old Testament does speak against various occult arts and types of divination (say, necromancy), astrology is not explicitly included among them. They condemned the worship of the sun, moon and stars as gods that capriciously controlled human affairs and might ridicule the astrological practices of foreign nations, yes, but the Jews actually accepted the underlying principle behind ancient astrology: that the movements of the stars and planets show God’s designs for humanity, with the sky being an open book. Heck, people like Enoch, Daniel or Abraham were in some traditions also considered to be astrologers who looked to the sky to ascertain God’s will.

Patrick, good points.

Yet, would not the Jews around the baby Jesus (at that time - probably a few years after he was born) have looked with suspicion on these Foreigner/Persian travelers. It’s not as if they were among God’s chosen. If some (Jews) thought they leaned toward the occult would not be surprising.

This may be part of the lesson of Jesus to show how he also came for the gentiles. Even Pagans, who were good willed, would be attracted to Truth.

 

[jcrichton]

A monarchial claim does not have to be an act of the will; it can exist from birth, and therefore one can be a pretender from birth. The status is not because someone said “I am king” but because he is part of a hereditary line that has a claim to an unavailable or nonexistent title.

And yes, the throne was not available; it has not been available since it was abolished at the Babylonian Exile. Just like the French throne is not available today, and yet there are pretenders to it as well (three lines in fact). The throne Herod sat on was arguably the continuation of the Hasmonean throne, something that the Jews were divided on; it was not the Davidic throne and neither the Hasmoneans nor the Herodians made any claim otherwise.

And yes. Seriously. This was the question the Jews had to wrestle with after Judah fell: what happened to God’s promise? The Davidic throne was never resurrected, and Jesus, despite being popularly acclaimed, never actively claimed the throne or was crowned the Davidic king. They had to find a deeper layer if God’s promise was to hold water. I guess, they figure it serves as a prophecy for the far future. We Christians have no issue with it because we see the Old Testament Davidic kingdom as a mere type of the real Kingdom: the Church.

Yes, Jesus is King. He is king of Heaven, king of the Church, king of Israel, king of the Universe. But we are able to tell between the historical context and the true, full meaning. Jesus was never the historic, Davidic king of Israel. He even said as much to Pontius Pilate. Therefore, from a purely historic standpoint, he remained a pretender to the Davidic throne. That does not detract at all from what who and what he really is.

Typology is a key concept in Catholicism and is essential in understanding things like these.

Hi!

…again, thanks for the clarification…

…sometimes the question must be asked so as to allow a greater scope of explanation… the Davidic throne, as with many other themes in the OT, is a type (1 Samuel 8:4-8).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[goout]

What are we to make of this line in today’s Gospel:

“Where is the newborn king of the Jews?
We saw his star at its rising
and have come to do him homage.”
When King Herod heard this,
he was greatly troubled,
and all Jerusalem with him."

Why was all of Jerusalem troubled at the news? I have never understood this line.

Points out the nature of the Gospel and the lot of Christ in the world, which is so contrary to the status quo that He can be nothing but troubling to the world.
He should be troubling, if we are truly absorbing who he is and what he asks of us.
(even the star speaks of Him)