Why is ALL of Jerusalem troubled at Jesus birth?

[turtle18]

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.

Also, did the chief priests and scribes not see the star? Why were they so clueless about what was going on?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

Also, did the chief priests and scribes not see the star? Why were they so clueless about what was going on?

If you had lived under King Herod, you too would have been troubled when he was troubled…since his being troubled could directly impact your life very very negatively. His being troubled led to the deaths of the children in Bethlehem and forced the Holy Family to flee into Egypt as exiles, to place themselves beyond his grasp.

 

[psalm90]

Just a guess, but maybe all Jerusalem was troubled even before Herod was troubled. It’s like these wise guys were lighting a fuse and people might have been worried what was going to happen next (parallel to the current “trouble” about the incoming president).

Maybe people were saying to themselves, “wait 'til Herod hears about this.” The inhabitants were Jews and with these travelers inquiring about the new king, their blood may have run cold.

And, then, maybe their blood ran hot when they recalled the prophecies.

(hot, cold, I think I’ve covered most of the bases.)

 

[Usagi]

Also, did the chief priests and scribes not see the star? Why were they so clueless about what was going on?

The Magi were astrologers, knowledgeable in the patterns and meanings of the stars. The chief priests and scribes may not have been. Indeed, would astrology not have been among the forms of divination forbidden in God’s Law? Or would it have been considered “scientific” enough at the time (being an interpretation of natural phenomena) to not count as ungodly magic?

 

[edward_george]

If you had lived under King Herod, you too would have been troubled when he was troubled…since his being troubled could directly impact your life very very negatively. His being troubled led to the deaths of the children in Bethlehem and forced the Holy Family to flee into Egypt as exiles, to place themselves beyond his grasp.

As Josephus put it, “I’d rather be Herod’s pig than his son.” Herod kept kosher. Pigs were safe. He murdered his wife and children for political reasons. He was known to be brutal, so the Jerusalemites had reason to be troubled, as Father points out.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[jcrichton]

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.

Also, did the chief priests and scribes not see the star? Why were they so clueless about what was going on?

Hi, Turtle!

I suspect that there are several values going on:

• the most simplistic: figure of speech
• the most political: support of the leader (the leadership is representative of the people)
• the most spiritual: confusion and disbelief since it is obvious that there was no spiritual leadership pointing to the Birth of Christ

…as for the religious… consider these three passages:

16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:

“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.”

19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,

“I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”

20 And Isaiah boldly says,

“I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”

21 But concerning Israel he says,

“All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people.”

(Romans 10:16-21)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. (St. John 1:1-4, 9-13)

7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear,
to this very day.”

9 And David says:

“May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.”(Romans 11:7-10)
In God’s Salvific Plan, it was necessary that the Corner Stone be rejected so that the Rock would be a greater Foundation: the Savior of all of Abraham’s descendants (those of the blood and of the Faith).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[po18guy]

The Jews were awaiting a Messiah, not another brutal King in the manner of Herod. As well, a Messiah King from Bethlehem was a direct threat to Herod, who was then living, as well as to his son Archelaus, who would ascend to the throne once Herod was dead. This episode does tell us something about Herod’s character, inasmuch as he did not hesitate to oppose what was written by the prophets about the long-awaited Messiah. Rather, he chose to kill the prophesied child and hoped that he did.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

The word in the Greek means ‘agitated’ – think of your washing machine, which has an agitator that ‘agitates’ the clothes. In other words, it means that they were all stirred up by the news. Now, for Herod, the notion that a new “King of the Jews” was born would have stirred him up in a negative way. For the Jews in Jerusalem, though, I think it would be reasonable to suggest not only were they nervous that Herod was agitated, but that they themselves were all agog that, perhaps, the Messiah had just been born!

Take a look at Luke’s description of Zechariah’s reaction to the appearance of Gabriel to him. He, too, was ‘troubled’ (the same Greek word is used).

Also, did the chief priests and scribes not see the star? Why were they so clueless about what was going on?

The priests and scribes wouldn’t necessarily have been enthralled by astrology. It’s not that they “did not see the star”; just that they wouldn’t have come to the conclusion that it heralded the birth of the Messiah.

 

[porthos11]

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;
2. Its king was accountable to Caesar and local unrest could get him into trouble;
3. We have foreign ambassadors seeking a heretofore unknown newborn king;
4. Whose birth was apparently accompanied by a supernatural sign.

Even an infant pretender to the throne, especially a Davidic one, could cause major trouble for the Herodian dynasty. Such was the case of Joash, who was only seven at the time of his accession, but whose supporters still overthrew and executed the sitting queen.

If you got a Russian delegation bringing money and some radioactive material at the White House asking the President where we can find the next leader of the United States because we got a message that he’s stepping up real soon, because we’ve come to give him homage and some rather expensive gifts, the entire Washington will probably be troubled too.

Herod and Jerusalem were troubled because what the Magi were describing was a threat. A threat not only to his throne, but also to the civil order, which risked the wrath of Rome.

 

[PJM]

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.

Also, did the chief priests and scribes not see the star? Why were they so clueless about what was going on?

It might have been metaphorical, OR if literal it would have foreseen a revolution, for the good or for bad?

 

[M-Dent]

If you had lived under King Herod, you too would have been troubled when he was troubled…since his being troubled could directly impact your life very very negatively. His being troubled led to the deaths of the children in Bethlehem and forced the Holy Family to flee into Egypt as exiles, to place themselves beyond his grasp.

Exactly. Especially when King Herod was also appointed King of the Jews by the Roman Senate.

 

[Gorgias]

Even an infant pretender to the throne, especially a Davidic one, could cause major trouble for the Herodian dynasty. Such was the case of Joash, who was only seven at the time of his accession, but whose supporters still overthrew and executed the sitting queen.

Wow. That’s the most tortured explanation of the situation I’ve ever read. You’re calling Joash “an infant pretender to the throne”? Really? Joash? Whose grandma, upon the death of her son the king, attempted to kill all her grandsons and then successfully usurped the throne? And who, seven years later, was restored as rightful king when his genocidal grandma was deposed? Umm… ok…

If you got a Russian delegation bringing money and some radioactive material at the White House asking the President where we can find the next leader of the United States because we got a message that he’s stepping up real soon, because we’ve come to give him homage and some rather expensive gifts, the entire Washington will probably be troubled too.

There’s a big difference, though, that you’re not accounting for: the Jews of Jerusalem were eagerly anticipating the appearance of the Messiah, in order for him to overthrow foreign rule (not only Herod, but also Rome)!

 

[porthos11]

Wow. That’s the most tortured explanation of the situation I’ve ever read. You’re calling Joash “an infant pretender to the throne”? Really? Joash? Whose grandma, upon the death of her son the king, attempted to kill all her grandsons and then successfully usurped the throne? And who, seven years later, was restored as rightful king when his genocidal grandma was deposed? Umm… ok…

Yes, Joash was the pretender to the Davidic throne before accession, as Athaliah was the recognized monarch of Judah at the time. Unlike in today’s era of constitutional monarchies, rule by seizure was fair game back then. She may have been a usurper, but if one was successful in the usurpation, one’s rule was considered legit. It happened all the time in the Northern Kingdom.

Further, his grandma was not genocidal, as she did not oversee the murder of an entire people. She was, however, a mass murderer as she massacred Ahaziah’s entire family, except for Joash.

However, I was not talking about Joash being the pretender. I was actually talking about Jesus himself who was a, if not *the *pretender to the Davidic throne.

There is nothing offensive or “out there” about my explanation.

 

[jcrichton]

Yes, Joash was the pretender to the Davidic throne before accession, as Athaliah was the recognized monarch of Judah at the time. Unlike in today’s era of constitutional monarchies, rule by seizure was fair game back then. She may have been a usurper, but if one was successful in the usurpation, one’s rule was considered legit. It happened all the time in the Northern Kingdom.

Further, his grandma was not genocidal, as she did not oversee the murder of an entire people. She was, however, a mass murderer as she massacred Ahaziah’s entire family, except for Joash.

However, I was not talking about Joash being the pretender. I was actually talking about Jesus himself who was a, if not *the *pretender to the Davidic throne.

There is nothing offensive or “out there” about my explanation.

Hi!

…two points:

…when you use the term pretender it does intimate usurpation; usurpation is clearly removed from legitimacy–unless you are challenging Jesus’s legitimacy as the King of kings and Lord of lords, it does seem contentious.

…and while it is true that once a depot is in place his ascendency becomes “legitimized,” this does not mean that it is legit, only that those involved take the reign through all means and institute a continued terror campaign to hold the seat of power–murder and mass-murder, torture and oppression, and, non-alien, adductions of individuals, families, and townships are not ruled out in the course of their tyranny.

…also, this form of governance did not die long ago–in certain places of the world it can still be found right into the twenty first century, just read up on Iraq and Myanmar (two clear examples).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[porthos11]

Hi!

…two points:

…when you use the term pretender it does intimate usurpation; usurpation is clearly removed from legitimacy–unless you are challenging Jesus’s legitimacy as the King of kings and Lord of lords, it does seem contentious.

…and while it is true that once a depot is in place his ascendency becomes “legitimized,” this does not mean that it is legit, only that those involved take the reign through all means and institute a continued terror campaign to hold the seat of power–murder and mass-murder, torture and oppression, and, non-alien, adductions of individuals, families, and townships are not ruled out in the course of their tyranny.

…also, this form of governance did not die long ago–in certain places of the world it can still be found right into the twenty first century, just read up on Iraq and Myanmar (two clear examples).

Maran atha!

Angel

The word “pretender” does not carry with it any negative connotations. It is a technical term in political science regarding lines of succession.

Anyone who understands “pretender” in a pejorative sense does not understand the correct use of the word.

Jesus was a pretender to the Davidic throne for the sole reason that he had a claim to it, but the throne was not available. Other key pretenders to the Davidic throne included Jehoiachin (after his deposition), Zerubbabel, his grandson, and pretty much anyone listed in Matthew’s genealogy after Jehoiachin. All these people had a legitimate claim to the Davidic throne, but they were pretenders simply because they were never able to take it, as the Davidic monarchy had been abolished.

 

[jcrichton]

The word “pretender” does not carry with it any negative connotations. It is a technical term in political science regarding lines of succession.

Anyone who understands “pretender” in a pejorative sense does not understand the correct use of the word.

Jesus was a pretender to the Davidic throne for the sole reason that he had a claim to it, but the throne was not available. Other key pretenders to the Davidic throne included Jehoiachin (after his deposition), Zerubbabel, his grandson, and pretty much anyone listed in Matthew’s genealogy after Jehoiachin. All these people had a legitimate claim to the Davidic throne, but they were pretenders simply because they were never able to take it, as the Davidic monarchy had been abolished.

Hi!

Thanks for the clarification on the term “pretender.”

…so the Davidic throne was not available… this of course necessitates that all prophecies about the King and High Priest are wrong, does it not?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gorgias]

The word “pretender” does not carry with it any negative connotations. It is a technical term in political science regarding lines of succession.

It’s difficult to claim a seven-year-old as aspiring to a throne, let alone an infant.

Anyone who understands “pretender” in a pejorative sense does not understand the correct use of the word.

Fair enough. Yet, “claimant” only goes so far…

Jesus was a pretender to the Davidic throne for the sole reason that he had a claim to it, but the throne was not available.

… and this is further than it goes. Seriously? “The throne was not available”? Umm… Jesus was the Davidic king, from the time of his birth. Are you making an assertion about the popular acceptance of His claim? That’s a horse of a different color…

 

[porthos11]

It’s difficult to claim a seven-year-old as aspiring to a throne, let alone an infant.

Fair enough. Yet, “claimant” only goes so far…

… and this is further than it goes. Seriously? “The throne was not available”? Umm… Jesus was the Davidic king, from the time of his birth. Are you making an assertion about the popular acceptance of His claim? That’s a horse of a different color…

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.

 

[patrick457]

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.

It’s probably tied in with one of Matthew’s themes in his gospel: the Jewish rejection of Jesus.

You might say that the underlying theme of Matthew’s gospel is how Jesus, the promised messiah and the fulfillment of all those Old Testament prophecies, was disowned His own people who never accepted Him as messiah and constructs his retelling of the Jesus story accordingly.

‘Jerusalem’ in Matthew’s gospel is the stronghold of the people who rejected Jesus, the Jewish authorities; Matthew portrays Jerusalem paradoxically both as “the holy city” and as the center of Jewish rejection of Jesus. It’s not coincidental that in Matthew’s story, it is the non-Jewish magi who recognize Jesus as “king of the Jews” and pay homage to Him, while Herod and ‘all Jerusalem’ are disturbed and even seek to kill Him.

Here’s another trivia: in the narrative, we read that “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.” That verb, ‘to assemble’ (synagagōn = synagō) appears five times in his passion narrative to describe the ‘assembling’ of Jesus’ enemies against Him.

“All Jerusalem” being troubled with Herod is echoed later in the gospel, actually.

And when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up, saying, “Who is this?” And the crowds said, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.”

So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”

During Jesus’ birth, Jerusalem was troubled along with Herod. During the triumphal entry, ‘the whole city’ was disturbed and showed its ignorance over who Jesus is. During Good Friday, ‘all the people’ accepted responsibility for Jesus’ death.

 

[patrick457]

The Magi were astrologers, knowledgeable in the patterns and meanings of the stars. The chief priests and scribes may not have been. Indeed, would astrology not have been among the forms of divination forbidden in God’s Law? Or would it have been considered “scientific” enough at the time (being an interpretation of natural phenomena) to not count as ungodly magic?

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.