Matthew 2

I was expecting a little more about the birth of Christ, but Matthew's account seems a little dry and unadorned. He really doesn't give us much more than the most basic facts:

Mary was with child,
Joseph intended to put her away,
An angel appears to Joseph and says all is well.
Joseph marries her, and names Him Jesus
This fulfilled a prophecy.

Not exactly docu-drama material, eh? I mean, as one of the most important events in history, I want DETAILS, man!
Matthew seems to place the importance of the story on corresponding the events with propechies in the Old Testament.

He is born in Bethlehem
This fulfills a prophecy.

They went to Egypt
This fulfills a prophecy.

He will be called a Nazarene.
This fulfills a prophecy.

It makes me wonder if there was some doubt or argument regarding the Jewish prophecies, and Matthew is setting out to show how it was resolved. You know, if one prophecy said Egypt and another said Nazareth, and another said Bethlehem, I'm sure some scholars wondered how all of them could come true, and wondered about the authenticity.

From what I've seen of prophecy so far, it doesn't seem wise to try to predict how things will play out in advance. I'm betting that anyone who tried future-telling on THOSE three would never have guessed correctly. But in hindsight you can see the logic.
Whenever I think of a mere mortal being given a glimpse of what is to come I really can't comprehend it. Did God just leave these clues so that when we notice them we will realize how impossible it would be for anyone to do but Him, and therefore we glorify Him?

-=-=-=-

We Three Kings of Orient Are?

Thinking about the wise men, I almost have to clear my mind of the children's Christmas story that I grew up with, in order to get a more authentic picture of what the text implies. For one thing, I always picture three guys on camels but the text doesn't say that; It says three gifts were given.

If these were men of high position who had been traveling hundreds if not thousands of miles, it was probably quite a significant sized caravan with food and animals and whatever. It could have been any number of people. Traveling so far through unknown territory, do you think they had security guards?

I had forgotten that after they saw the star they travelled to Jerusalem first to check in with King Herod. Visitors from another country crossing into a land and proceeding directly to a manger to see a fresh pink baby (like my childhood mental picture protrays), without announcing the intention to the proper authorities would have been a no-no, right? I use a Life-Application bible, and my notes say the by the time they finally reached him he was probably already one or two years old. Notice the text in verse 11 refers to a house instead of a manger,

Mat 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

and throughout this chapter he is called a child, but before his circumcision he was referred to as babe. (OK, I cheated. I looked ahead to Luke 2:16).

The more I think about this scene, the more interested in it I become.

The text says Herod was troubled "and all Jerusalem with him".
All Jerusalem?
These visitors must have made quite a scene to get this result, huh?

I don't think Herod was troubled because he believed the baby was the promised one. I think his fear was that if the people started believing in a religious leader, his days would be numbered. He was sensitive to anything that could threaten his authority, especially since he wasn't the rightful leader and some were already calling him a usurper. He even had members of his own family killed.

But why was "all Jerusalem" so troubled? And how could these men from the east be so hip to the situation, without at least SOME of the Jews knowing what was happening?

I've heard speculation that when Daniel was released from the Babylonian captivity, he may have gone to Persia and started an "in-home study group" there , and that's how they knew what signs to look for. I guess I shouldn't spew stuff like that without a source, but regardless, it seems that others got it and Jews missed it.
How come?
I mean, they had access to all the wisdom and prophecy of the day, and had plenty of people/community for sharing/propagation of truth. I don't want to seem prejudiced or anything, but if the Jews were God's people and had thousands of years of God's examples and covenants and prophecies and hand-holding, why do they always seem blind to the truth? I suppose we are all blind and confused and fumbling about, but it seems like with all the history they had as their foundation they would be setting an example, and not be "troubled" by these events.
Were they upset because they felt left out?
Or did they think their objective was sheer madness?
Maybe they just didn't like visitors?

Consider the gifts they brought and what they symbolize,
gold is a gift for rulers, for kings.
Frankincense is a gift you would give to a priest,
and myrrh is an ointment for dead people.
Wha?
Bringing an ointment for dead people as a gift for a baby?
I wouldn't have thought of that...
But these guys seemed to know the significance;
That his death was to be an integral part of the story.
Jesus is the only one I know of who is an appropriate recipient of gifts for both Kings AND Priests.

And if they knew this, it seems significant to me that they chose this particular time to visit. The text says they came to worship Him. I mean, if it was me, I would rather come when he was at least old enough to Speak. To teach. I would want to witness some miracles. Or maybe I would be tempted to help him prove who he said he was when he was on trial. But no, they just wanted to worship him. That in itself seems a wonderfully loving giving action.
To come all that way just to see the baby was enough for them, receiving nothing in return.