Matthew 2 The Magi and the King

"Now After Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem saying, 'Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.'" (Matthew 2:1-2)

Every Christmas we get cards and we see nativity scenes depicting three kings bringing their gifts to Jesus in the stable the night he was born. However, this conflates texts that happen at different times. When the magi visited Jesus it was some time after his birth. Jesus would have been a young toddler, and judging from Herod's plot to murder him, he may have been up to 2 years old when they finally arrived. The magi didn't come to see him in a manger, they came to a house and found him with his mother. They were not kings, but they were wise men. 

These wise men were probably similar to the wise men that we read of in the book of Daniel. King Nebuchadnezzar had many wise men whom he sought counsel from when he wanted to have his dreams interpreted. It was probably customary in Babylon for the rulers to have courts of these wise men, but how would they have known to look for a child born king of the Jews? They were probably not in the dark. The Jews had been exiled to Babylon in 586 BC and continued to have a Jewish population even after they were allowed to return to their homeland. These wise men could have learned about the expectation of a Jewish Messiah from the Scriptures used in the synagogues of Babylon. 

So, some time when Jesus was a toddler he was visited by these magi. They were foreigners--Gentiles--astrologers--and they came looking for this child who was born king. When they came, they didn't come straight to Bethlehem. They came to Jerusalem. They probably expected that a king would be found in the capital city, in a palace, but when they got there, no one seemed to know anything about this child king. Herod was the king, and he was paranoid. He killed his own wife, and he killed two of his sons because of his paranoia. One of the ancient historians said that it was better to be Herod's dog than his son. When the magi mention that a king was born, Herod's paranoia kicked into gear. He was already scheming to kill anyone who would challenge his rule. So he asked these magi to report back to him what they found. Herod called on the chief priests and the scribes to find out what these magi were talking about. These religious leaders had the right academic answers. They could quote the Old Testament and tell the magi to go to Bethlehem to find the new king. Yet one wonders, why were these religious leaders to apathetic. Why didn't they come along to worship Jesus too? They knew the prophetic expectation, but they didn't seem to care much that these gentiles came along saying that the Messiah had been born. 

So the magi made their way toward Bethlehem, and when they came to the house where the child was they worshiped Jesus and they gave him gifts. There's more that can be said here, but I want to draw attention to the contrast. These Gentile astrologers came and worshiped this new born king. The reigning king of the Jews who was appointed by Caesar wanted to kill him, and the religious leaders could care less. People still respond to Jesus in the same way today. Probably most people are in the place of the religious leaders. If you ask them what they think of Jesus, they may be able to spout an academically accurate answer. He's the Son of God. He's the Savior. But if you look at their lives there is no evidence that they really care about that. They are apathetic, and aren't moved to worship Jesus. Then others are in the place of Herod. They are hostile, and they are vocal. They want nothing to do with Jesus or God. They don't want anyone else to talk to them about Jesus. These may be relatively few, but in actuality, all of us, apart from God's grace are in this position. We all stand with our fists shaking at God and demand that he give us our way. We are rebels at heart, and we would rather kill God than worship him--unless He first does a work in us that calls us to worship him. Then there are the magi. These are the ones who would be far off and distant from God. They were not the Jews who had access to the Scriptures. They were pagans, yet they were drawn to Jesus, and they fell on their faces and worshiped him. These magi are the picture of all true Christians. Believers are those who are drawn into the worship of Jesus. We fall on our faces before him and are in awe. We give him our all as an act of worship--not because we are great people, like a king--and not because we are religious intellectuals with all the right Bible answers--like the scribes--but because we saw his star--we hear his voice calling to us--and we cannot help but bow down and worship the God who took on flesh.  

Redeeming Jingle Bells

Christmas is about Jesus, and Christians should always remember to make Christ the center of all of our Christmas celebrations. So what do we do with those songs that don't necessarily make any reference to Christ? Should we exclusively sing only songs about Jesus in a manger? I think that should be the predominant practice within the worship of the church; Christmas songs we sing for worship should all be about Christ. However, let me ask a followup question. Is there any place for Christians to sing the other songs of the Christmas season? Can't we just have fun and enjoy the festivities? I think there's a place for that. Christians shouldn't be scrooges with our faces all sour, ready to pounce on others in a legalistic fashion when they don't meet our expectations. Rather, we should be gracious to one another. 

 

So, what about Jingle Bells? The truth is, this song wasn't even written as a Christmas song at all. It was originally written for Thanksgiving. It's really more about the winter season. How should we think of children singing Jingle Bells in a church Christmas program? To tell the truth, I have mixed feelings. At first glance, nothing about the song lends itself to the Christmas story, so I lean toward excluding it in favor of other more explicitly Christian Christmas songs. However, as I have pondered this question throughout the week I see that there is a connection between Christmas and bells. Not necessarily a biblical one, but at least a Christian one. This connection is more readily seen in the song "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day." 

 
I heard the bells on Christmas Day Their old, familiar carols play, and wild and sweet The words repeat Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And thought how, as the day had come, The belfries of all Christendom Had rolled along The unbroken song Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

Till ringing, singing on its way, The world revolved from night to day, A voice, a chime, A chant sublime Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head; "There is no peace on earth," I said; "For hate is strong, And mocks the song Of peace on earth, good-will to men!"

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep: "God is not dead, nor doth He sleep; The Wrong shall fail, The Right prevail, With peace on earth, good-will to men."

 The bells that this song mentions are the church bells throughout the land. These bells were a reminder of the gospel herald ringing forth the message of the Gospel. Though the world is filled with wrong and hate, the expansion of territory marked with churches with their bells reminds us that as the Gospel rings forth, all the wrongs will one day be made right. The one who was born in Bethlehem and laid in a manger will one day come back riding a white horse and with a sword coming out of his mouth and he will then bring eternal lasting peace on earth.

So, while it isn't the express purpose or intent of the song Jingle Bells, out of forbearance and patience I will hold my tongue when the children sing Jingle Bells. And as I listen, I'll remind myself that these jingling bells just may be on the feet that carry good news.

Micah 5: O Little Town of Bethlehem

"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 coming forth is from of old, from ancient days." (Micah 5:2 ESV)

Micah was roughly contemporary to Isaiah. Their ministries covered the same kings, though Micah may have come a little later than Isaiah. Micah's name meant, "Who is like Yahweh?" Even his name is significant to this messianic text. It is in this name that we see the rock of the prophet's confidence as he proclaims this Davidic figure who would come from Bethlehem. The book of Micah ends in the question that is his name. Micah 7:18-20 says, 

Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love. He will again have compassion on us; he will tread our iniquities underfoot. You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea. You will show faithfulness to Jacob and steadfast love to Abraham, as you have sworn to our fathers from the days of old."

Of course the answer to the question is no one. No one is like Him. Yahweh stands alone among the gods as the one who has shown his covenant loyal love to his people. For the sake of his name he keeps his promises to Jacob and to Abraham. Though Israel and Judah had sinned, God would be faithful to his promise because he cares most adamantly about His own name. He will keep his covenant promises--not only to Abraham and Jacob, but to David as well. He promised David that their would be a son who would come from his body who would sit on his throne forever with an unending kingdom. This is where Bethlehem comes in.

The Assyrians were a threat to Israel and Judah. They destroyed Samaria and things got very bad for Judah--though there remained a king on David's throne. In 5:2, Micah says that though Bethlehem is small, it will be the birthplace of a coming ruler. Bethlehem was significant because it was the birthplace of David. It was called the City of David. When the little village of Bethlehem is brought up, it reminds the reader of David and all of the promises to him. Micah is telling God's people not to place their confidence in Jerusalem or their earthly king to save them. The earthly king will be stricken on the cheek, but a messianic King would one day come whose origins were just like David--the man after God's own heart.

Who is like Yahweh? He does not do things like you would expect. He didn't send His Son to be born in the palace in Jerusalem, He came to the lowly little obscure town. The messiah would come from humble beginnings.

Jesus held nothing back for us. He gave up the riches of heaven to become poor for us. He gave up the security and safety of siting by His Father's side to come and be threatened by a narcissistic murderous king. He left the comforts of glory to come down and be laid in a dirty feeding box. Who is like Yahweh? There is no God like the LORD of glory who sent his only Son to come and die for us.

 "And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. and they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. And he shall be their peace." (Micah 5:4-5a)

Isaiah 7--Immanuel

"Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive a and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14

Preaching from prophecy is a tricky thing. We are often tempted to look at the passages quoted in the New Testament as being fulfilled in Christ as if they had no immediate context. However, while the prophets did predict the future with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and while they did write out of a conviction that was tied to a messianic hope, they were nonetheless writing to those who lived in their own day as well. This makes the task of interpreting the prophets difficult. 

Take, for instance, the prophecy of a virgin birth from Isaiah 7:14. This is particularly difficult. While Matthew clearly identifies this as being fulfilled in Christ, it is hard to see this from the passage itself. There are a few objections that the majority of scholars point out. First, the Hebrew term which our Bible's translate as "virgin" in this verse is more accurately rendered "a young woman of marriageable age." While the Greek Septuagint translates the word specifically as virgin, the Hebrew does not require it. So, to be precise, the prophecy did not require a virgin birth in the sense that we understand that it is fulfilled in Jesus. Second, the immediate context of the verse suggests that Isaiah is talking about a sign that will happen in his immediate context. It appears that the sign is to be given for king Ahaz of Judah as a sign that God would protect them from the imminent danger of an attack from Syria and Israel, the Northern Kingdom. Isaiah says to Ahaz that the two kings he fears will no longer be a threat by the time the child is old enough to tell right from wrong. Finally, chapter 8, within the immediate context of Isaiah, we see that there is a child born who is intended to be a sign. Isaiah has a son named Maher-shalal-ash-baz of which it is said, "before the boy knows how to cry 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria." It seems as though Isiah's prophecy was fulfilled by the birth of his own son. Isaiah even says in 8:18 that his two children were given to him as signs from Yahweh for Israel. 

So how do we understand this in the light of what Matthew said? I believe he understood Isaiah 7 in the light of Isaiah 9. In Isaiah 9, we see another promise of a child to be born (9:6-7). In this promise it says that the child will be called "Mighty God" among other magnificent names. It also says that this child will sit on David's throne forever. In chapter 9, Isaiah is looking back to 2 Samuel 7:12-13. The LORD promised David, "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring [seed] after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever." This promised seed who would sit on David's throne forever is none other than the blessing that would come to all nations through Abraham. This son was also none other than the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15. I suspect, that in Matthew's mind the Isaiah 7:14 was connected with 9:6-7 and that these were pointing to something that would find their ultimate fulfillment in someone much greater than the immediate context suggested--they were fulfilled in Christ. Jesus was born of a virgin, he was God with us, and he was David's son who would sit on his throne forever.

"For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, and on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this." Isaiah 9:6-7