←
Explanation for:
Matthew
2
:
23
And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene.
13
more explanations
& daily audio-books
spoken by
– enjoy in Theosis App –
Start your
Bible-journey
with explanations
& daily audio-books
only 4$* per month
{"arr":[{"author-name":"Jerome of Stridon","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88dcd3432c6dd41375498_Jerome%20of%20Stridon.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"Had the evangelist referenced a specific passage from the Scriptures, he would have articulated it as spoken by the prophet rather than stating “spoken by the prophets.” By employing the plural form, he indicates that he has not quoted the Scriptures verbatim but rather captured their essence. The term 'Nazarene' signifies one who is holy, and the entirety of Holy Scripture attests to the Lord's holiness. Furthermore, it can be noted that even when utilizing identical terms, the Hebrew text conveys a message through the prophet Isaiah. A shoot will emerge from the root of Jesse, and Nazareth shall grow from his root (Isaiah 11:1). Let the discerning critics and those who meticulously evaluate all interpretations respond: where have they found this? It is written in Isaiah. In the passage where we read and translate, “And a branch shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall spring up from his root,” the Hebrew text, aligning with the peculiarities of that language, states, “A branch shall spring forth from the root of Jesse, and the Nazorean shall rise from his root” (Isaiah 11:1). Why did the Seventy exclude this if it were not due to the impossibility of a literal translation? To overlook or hide this mystery is indeed sacrilege."},{"author-name":"John Chrysostom","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88ea76859f9f8e2ffd3ee_John%20Chrysostom.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"Which prophet communicated this notion? Do not be overly inquisitive in your search. Historical accounts from the Paralipomena reveal the loss of numerous prophetic texts. The Jewish people, often neglectful and prone to wrongdoing, allowed some texts to be lost, while others were deliberately destroyed. Jeremiah refers to one such instance, and the author of the fourth book of Kings recounts that after many years, they barely rediscovered the buried book of Deuteronomy. If the Israelites paid so little heed to the sacred scriptures in times of peace, how much less would they value them when under threat? The apostles, however, in accordance with prophetic declarations, frequently identified Jesus as the Nazarene. You may ask, does this not obscure the prophecies concerning Bethlehem? Not at all. Rather, it compelled a more diligent examination of what was said about Him. Nathanael initiated his inquiry by asking, \\"Can anything good come from Nazareth?\\" (John 1:46). Indeed, Nazareth was insignificant, not only as a locale but also in relation to the entire Galilean region. Hence, the Pharisees asserted, \\"Test and see that no prophet comes from Galilee\\" (John 7:52). Yet, the Lord is unashamed to bear this title, demonstrating His independence from human constraints. He even chose His disciples from Galilee, thereby nullifying the excuses of the indolent and teaching that external circumstances do not dictate our potential for virtue. This is why He did not establish a permanent dwelling; the Son of Man declared, \\"has no place to lay His head\\" (Luke 9:58). Consequently, He evaded Herod's threats, was born in a manger, resided in an inn, and chose a humble mother—teaching us to find no shame in our circumstances, thereby challenging human pride from the outset and encouraging us toward virtue. Why then do you take pride in your homeland, when I instruct you to wander the whole world and rise to a point where it cannot contain your worth? The origins of your birth are so trivial that even pagan philosophers disregard them as external and subordinate. You may argue that Paul acknowledges this notion when he states, \\"As regarding the gospel, they are enemies for your sake; but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes\\" (Romans 11:28). But consider: to whom is he addressing this? To Gentile believers who proudly opposed the Jews, further alienating them. Paul aims to quell arrogance in some while stimulating zeal in others. When he refers to esteemed individuals, hear his words, \\"For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned; but now they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly\\" (Hebrews 11:14-16). Furthermore, \\"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off\\" (Hebrews 11:13). Similarly, John admonished those approaching him, \\"Do not begin to say, 'We have Abraham as our father'\\" (Matthew 3:9); and Paul asserts, \\"Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel, nor are they all children of God because they are His descendants\\" (Romans 9:6). Consider the children of Samuel—what value was there in their father’s nobility if they lacked his virtue? What benefited the children of Moses who did not emulate his righteous life? They bore his name, yet leadership passed to another who embodied his virtues. Conversely, did Timothy suffer from having a Gentile father? How did Ham gain from Noah’s virtue if he ended up enslaved? The breakdown of will can override natural inheritance, as evidenced by Ham losing not only paternal nobility but freedom. Likewise, Esau was not favored by Isaac; despite his father's efforts for him to inherit the blessing, his physical frailty cost him everything, for he lacked God's favor. But let's not focus solely on individuals—consider the Jews, who were labeled God's children yet gained nothing from that title. Thus, if even one who is a son of God is punished for failing to embody such nobility, what merit is there in boasting of ancestral lineage? This theme resonates throughout both the Old and New Testaments. It is declared that those who receive Him will be granted the right to become children of God (John 1:12); however, many of these children find no benefit in this distinction, as Paul explains, \\"If you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing\\" (Galatians 5:2). If Christ offers no advantage for those neglecting self-examination, what remains for human mediation? Therefore, let us abandon pride in nobility or wealth and scorn those who deride such advantages. Instead of succumbing to despondency over poverty, let us strive for richness found in good deeds, shunning the poverty that leads us to sin. This is exemplified in the case of the infamous rich man who, though he cried out for a single drop of water, received none. In contrast, among us are beggars who thirst for refreshment. Even those in desperate hunger may find solace while the rich man was utterly deprived—not just of material comfort, but also of spiritual consolation. Why then do we envy riches if they do not grant us access to heaven? Consider that if an earthly monarch declared that wealth could not secure honor within his realm, would not everyone disdain their possessions? If we are willing to reject worldly treasures that compromise our standing before earthly kings, how much more should we dismiss earthly riches upon hearing the decree of the Heavenly King, who warns that wealth does not belong in His sacred presence? Shall we not forsake it all and renounce material gain in order to ascend into His eternal kingdom?"},{"author-name":"Ephraem the Syrian","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88b589fc3e99eb7bb1839_Ephraem%20the%20Syrian.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"He declares, “He shall be called Nazareth” (Judges 13:5), as the Hebrew term ‘natsor’ translates to ‘sprout.’ The prophet refers to Him as ‘the Son of Natsor,’ for He is indeed the son of the Branch. In his account, the evangelist, noting that He was raised in Nazareth and recognizing the similarity of this term to ‘natsor,’ proclaimed that “He shall be called Nazorean.”"},{"author-name":"Anonymous Commentary (Opus Imperfectum)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":4,"exegesis-text":"By referring to the prophets in plural rather than singular, the evangelist indicates that his assertion is not derived from the authority of a single prophet but expresses a unified message from all of them. Every prophet identifies Jesus as a Nazarene, which signifies 'holy.' It is also possible that they referenced other prophetic voices not present in our traditional canon. For instance, figures like Nathan and Ezra additionally prophesied and documented their visions. As reflected in Philip's words to Nathanael, \\"We have found him of whom Moses wrote in the law and the prophets, Jesus the son of Joseph, of Nazareth\\" (John 1:45). Nathanael, familiar with this prophecy, aptly responded, \\"Can anything good come out of Nazareth?\\" (John 1:46)."},{"author-name":"Cyrill of Alexandria","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88a8ea5c988a4fc073480_Cyrill%20of%20Alexandria.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":5,"exegesis-text":"When the Nazorean is understood as 'sacred,' or, as some suggest, 'a blossom,' these titles appear in various contexts. Daniel refers to Him as the holy of holies (Dan. 9:24), while Isaiah describes Him as the shoot from the line of Jesse, the blossom that emerges from it (Isa. 11:1). Furthermore, the Lord declares in the Song of Songs: I am the blossom of the field, the lily of the valleys (Song of Songs 2:1)."},{"author-name":"Chromatius of Aquileia","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88a3df6d7a747a33b4f4a_Chromatius%20of%20Aquileia.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":5,"exegesis-text":"Our Lord and Savior is referred to as Nazarene, deriving from both the location of Nazareth and the stipulations of the law. According to the scriptures, individuals who dedicated their purity to God and made a special vow to let their hair grow in order to present it as an offering were known as Nazoreans. Since Christ, the Lord, is the source of all holiness and purity, who commands through the prophet, \\"Be ye holy, for I am holy,\\" it is fitting that He is referred to as a Nazarene. He fulfills the law as the foretold offering to God the Father, sacrificing His own body for our redemption. This sacrificial act is acknowledged by David, who states regarding the Lord, \\"As he swore to the Lord, he made a vow to the Strong Man of Jacob\\" (Psalm 131:2). Thus, it is evident that the Lord is to be identified as a Nazarene in His earthly form."},{"author-name":"Theophylact of Bulgaria","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8989296bafed9104677d7_Theophylact%20of%20Bulgaria.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":11,"exegesis-text":"How can we reconcile Luke's account of the Lord arriving in Nazareth forty days after His birth and following Simeon's recognition of Him, with Matthew's narrative that indicates His return to Nazareth from Egypt? It is important to note that Luke includes details that Matthew does not mention. For instance, Luke states that after forty days from His birth, the Lord came to Nazareth. Conversely, Matthew narrates the sequence where the Lord fled to Egypt and then returned to Nazareth from there. Thus, their accounts do not conflict: Luke focuses on the journey from Bethlehem to Nazareth, while Matthew recounts the return from Egypt. \\n\\nThe statement ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’ lacks a direct prophetic source in the current texts, possibly due to the loss of many prophetic writings through the negligence of the Jewish people and their continual subjugation. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that this prophecy was conveyed among the Jews without being documented. The term Nazareth signifies 'sanctified'; hence, it is fitting that Christ, who is holy, be referred to as Nazareth, for the Lord is repeatedly identified by various prophets as ‘the holy one of Israel.’"},{"author-name":"Euthymios Zigabenos","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":11,"exegesis-text":"If he had concerns about entering Judea due to Archelaus, it would be wise for him to also fear Galilee where his brother Herod was in charge, as noted in Luke. However, Bethlehem, located in Judea, raised questions. ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’ Which prophets proclaimed this? Do not search; you will not uncover it, for numerous prophetic texts have been lost—some during the periods of exile, others due to the carelessness of the Jewish people, and some through ill intent."},{"author-name":"Nicephoros (Theotokis)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8958407451968d9c204fb_Nicephoros%20(Theotokis).png","category":"Christian Authors","century":18,"exegesis-text":"When you consider the insights of Luke the Evangelist, it becomes clear that Joseph, along with the child and His mother, spent two periods in Nazareth. The first occurred before their journey to Egypt, immediately following their visit to the temple: “And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city” (Luke 2:39). This marked Joseph's initial brief stay; later, as the holy Matthew recounts, “and having come, Joseph, with the child and His mother, lived in the city of Nazareth.” The prophecy stating that “He shall be called a Nazarene” (Matthew 2:23) does not appear in the exact wording of any other prophetic texts. This absence may stem from the fact that due to the numerous conflicts and sieges faced by the Jews, some prophetic writings have been lost, or it could be that the divinely inspired Prophets proclaimed it verbally, preserving it through oral tradition among the Jewish people. This is evident in the second letter of the Apostle Paul to Timothy, where he names those who resisted Moses, identifying them as Jannius and Jambres (2 Tim. 3:8), and also in Jude's epistle, where he recounts the confrontation between the Archangel Michael and the devil as well as the prophecy of Enoch (Jude 1:9, 14). Since these accounts are not recorded in the Sacred Scriptures, it suggests they were passed down through tradition. Just as these Apostles referenced unwritten occurrences, Matthew the Evangelist confirms a prophecy not found in Scripture. However, if one moves beyond the literal interpretation to the deeper significance of the term Nazarene, echoes of this prophecy can indeed be discovered in Isaiah and Daniel. The term Nazareth has dual significance: it conveys both color and holiness. As Isaiah foretold concerning the Messiah, “and a rod shall come forth out of the root of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots” (Isaiah 11:1). This clearly points to Christ's lineage from the root of Jesse, as His mother, the Holy Virgin, belonged to the tribe of David, son of Jesse; and He became the blossom that spread the fragrance of His virtues throughout creation. The Prophet Daniel also spoke of the Holy One, declaring, “And the Holy of Holies shall be anointed” (Dan. 9:24). Who, if not Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God and the Word, could be referred to as the Holy of Holies—the Source of sanctity, Who incarnated for our sake, was anointed by the Holy Spirit in His humanity, and was called Christ? The supreme and wise Providence of God has designed that while residing in Nazareth, Jesus should bear the name Nazarene, in accordance with the prophets' foretelling; this name signifies both the richness of His gifts and the holiness of His works radiating in the world."},{"author-name":"Abbot Panteleimon about the Trinity","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"Joseph moved to a town named Nazareth, the same location where they had previously resided and where he had a pre-established home for his family and children from his first marriage. This quaint Galilean town lies in a valley within the highlands, noted for its charming scenery and wholesome climate. Here, the Lord spent His formative years until He reached thirty, growing in spirit and physical stature, in obedience to His mother and to Joseph, His earthly guardian. The Evangelist remarks that Nazareth, and not elsewhere, was selected for His residence, as it was foretold that He would come to Nazareth. This is spoken by the prophets, not just one, indicating that while there is no single prophecy to reference, the prophets collectively convey through various passages (Is. 52:2-5; Ps. 21) the portrayal of Christ in a humbled condition. Nazareth was considered so unremarkable by the Jews that it was associated with shame, as illustrated in John 1:46, where they often derisively referred to Jesus as a Nazarene. Yet, our Lord embraced this title, exemplifying humility. In the Old Testament, the term 'Nazarene' (sanctified) indicated one set apart for God, and Christ, our Savior, embodies the ultimate sanctification, making Him the truest and most exalted Nazarene."},{"author-name":"Michail (Lusin)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c89550c567e172d15b3055_Michail%20(Lusin).png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"\\"He resided in a place known as Nazareth\\": Nazareth was a modest locality in Galilee, positioned to the west of Capernaum and not far from Cana, partly nestled in a valley and partly on the slope of a hill. As travelers describe it, its beauty endures even today, though it was likely even more picturesque during the time of the Savior, when the land of the Jews was not as impoverished as it is now. The inhabitants of the town were of humble means and lacked refinement, leading to the saying (John 1:46) about its reputation. It was here that Joseph and Mary lived around the time of their betrothal and the Annunciation, until their journey to Bethlehem due to Augustus's census decree; they also returned here after their time in Egypt, rather than to Bethlehem of Judea, which was under the harsh governance of Archelaus.\\n\\n\\"That it may be fulfilled,\\" etc.: In the selection of Jesus' home, which was quite reasonable for the holy family's situation (Matt. 2:22), the Evangelist underscores how what was spoken \\"by the prophets\\" regarding Him being called a Nazarene is accomplished. While there is no precise saying in the Old Testament that supports this, the interpretation is challenging to clarify. St. Chrysostom (cf. Theophilus) argues that this prophecy may stem from a text lost to the Jews. Others suggest that the Evangelist implicitly references Samson as a foreshadowing of Christ and relates it to the book of Judges (Judges 13:5); some see connections to Isaiah (Isaiah 11:1), where the Messiah is referred to as a branch, or Necer. Still, others propose that he alludes to a prophecy recognized only in Jewish tradition. \\n\\nIs it not more plausible that the Evangelist does not refer to a specific prophecy here but instead evokes the broader nature of prophecies about Christ’s humble condition? This could be concluded because 1) the Evangelist does not say, \\"spoken by the prophet,\\" as he does in Matt. 1:22, Matt. 2:5, 15, but rather \\"spoken by the prophets,\\" indicating that this is not a direct quote from one prophet but rather a familiar characteristic of prophecies; 2) the prophets, in their foretelling of the Messiah, frequently depicted His state of humiliation (notably in Is. 53:2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12; Psalm 21). The residents of Nazareth, as previously noted, were not esteemed among the Jews and were held in disdain. To come from Nazareth, or to be referred to as a Nazarene, implied neglect, scorn, humiliation, and rejection. Regarding Christ, who lived in Nazareth and endured humiliation even to the death on the cross, all that was foretold about His humiliation by the prophets was indeed fulfilled."},{"author-name":"Gladkow B.I.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88bf0ceef8c96e09a6521_Gladkow%20B.I..png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The time spent by Jesus in Nazareth, as noted by the Evangelist, was to realize the prophetic declaration that He, Jesus Christ, would be referred to as a Nazarene. However, this specific assertion does not appear in the Old Testament. John Chrysostom suggested that the Evangelist might have drawn this reference from an Old Testament text that has since been lost. Bishop Michael proposed that the Evangelist does not reference a specific prophecy but rather reflects the general tenor of prophetic messages concerning the humble condition of Christ, as he refers to what was said by the prophets rather than a single prophet. The prophets consistently spoke of the Messiah's humble state, and the people of Nazareth were looked down upon by the Jewish community; to originate from Nazareth or to be called a Nazarene implied being undervalued, rejected, and humiliated. In Christ, who lived in Nazareth and endured humiliation to the point of suffering death on the cross, the fulfillment of what the prophets foretold about His disgrace was evident. The establishment of His residence in Nazareth does not conflict with Micah's prophecy regarding Bethlehem. The prophet did not declare that the One whose origins were from eternity would dwell in Bethlehem; rather, he stated that the future Ruler of Israel would arise from Bethlehem. Thus, the prophecy came to pass: Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, emerged from there, yet resided in another town. The Evangelist Luke briefly depicts Jesus's early years up to the age of twelve, stating: \\"But the child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him\\" (Luke 2:40)."},{"author-name":"Lopuchin A.P.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c891400ee1341634d2276d_Lopuchin%20A.P..png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"With Herod’s death, the oppressive grip that had stifled both the sorrowful resentment and the hopeful aspirations of the people was finally lifted. For a long time, fanaticism had been simmering beneath the surface of the populace, and just prior to the tyrant's demise, it erupted into unrest at the temple. His departure left a void, as there was no longer anyone to contain the long-held grievances and animosities among the people. His reign, influenced by divine providence, had been a means to postpone the fragmentation of the Jewish nation and its ultimate dispersion among the gentiles, facilitating a smoother integration into the broader human family. Conversely, this rule also fostered a growing empathy toward Judaism among the Gentiles, establishing its rightful place among nations as the spiritual seasoning of the earth and the precursor to Christianity. The joy of the Jewish people at the liberation of the Davidic throne from the ruthless Edomite was immense. The longstanding animosity between the Israelites and Edomites was deeply entrenched in their history; even their ancestors were fierce adversaries, bolstered by tales from Jewish tradition that suggested a final betrayal by Esau against Jacob (Jubil. 37). When Israel emerged from Egypt, Edom barred their passage, forcing them to endure additional hardship in the wilderness (Num. 20:14-21; Judg. 11:17-18). The Edomites were implacable foes of Saul, Israel’s first king (1 Sam. 14:47), and David later subdued them, ruling over them along with Solomon. During the decline of Israel under its last kings, they became the staunchest and most relentless enemies, aiding the Babylonians in the conquest of Judah under Nebuchadnezzar and delighting in Jerusalem's destruction, eager to seize its wealth and integrate it into their rugged territory. Since the days of the prophets Amos and Joel in the ninth century B.C., they were denounced as leading adversaries of God's governance. Joel proclaimed, \\"Edom shall be a desolate waste\\" (Joel 3:19) for their oppression of the children of Judah and the shedding of innocent blood. Amos prophesied, \\"For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment\\" (Am. 1:11), condemning them for pursuing their brother with the sword and not recognizing familial ties. The prophet Abijah, lamenting over Jerusalem's destruction, rebuked the Edomites for rejoicing over Israel's misfortunes (Abd. 1:5, 10). Jeremiah and Ezekiel also warned of God's wrath against them (Jer. 49:7-22; Ezek. 35:13-15). Ultimately, the prophets declared them to be God's enemies, destined for annihilation by Israel. Even during Babylon's captivity, the Edomites occupied many Jewish lands, only to be expelled by John Hyrcanus around 135-106 B.C. This violent history only intensified their mutual hatred. In the Book of Jubilees, Jacob expresses this enmity to Esau, proclaiming a lack of brotherly love forever, and foretelling that peace would only come in a fantastical transformation of nature itself (Jubil. 37). A Jew, commenting on Edom in the time of Herod, prophesied that the children of Jacob would one day vanquish the despised tribe and subjugate them (Judg. 38). Yet, it was a bitter irony that a representative of this loathed lineage had ascended the throne of Israel for over a generation! With Herod's demise came the cessation of a national shame that had deeply hurt the hearts of God’s chosen people. \\n\\nAcross the land, hope ignited that this usurper would be the final ruler of his detested lineage. Unfortunately, this aspiration was thwarted; Archelaus, Herod's son, took the throne, perceived as an even greater tyrant due to his Idumean lineage and Samaritan maternal ties. The political machinations of the royal family and particularly Antipater, who despised his brothers, frequently altered Herod’s will in his final days. Eventually, it became clear that the strife among the royal heirs could be resolved only through a division of the realm, which had been Herod's lifelong mission to keep united. Consequently, he bequeathed the territories beyond the Jordan to Philip, who was born around 22 or 21 B.C. and was the son of Cleopatra, a beautiful Jerusalem maiden. He entrusted Galilee and Perea to his son Antipas, born approximately 20 B.C., while Judea, Idumea, and Samaria were given to Archelaus, both sons of Malfaka. At one point, he contemplated naming Herod, son of the second Mariamne, as Antipater's successor, but the complicity of this prince's mother with rabbinical intrigues sealed his fate. Herod's sister Salomia, a relentless adversary of the Maccabees, received cities like Jamnia and Azdoth. Upon Herod’s death, Salomia and her husband hastily liberated notable Jewish figures who had been summoned by Herod to his deathbed, gathering the army and citizens in Jericho to read the late king's letter to the soldiers, revealing his will for Caesar’s approval. Disturbingly, soldiers immediately proclaimed Archelaus as king, pledging their loyalty. \\n\\nNotably, Archelaus had hosted a grand feast just on the night of his father's passing. Following the expected pomp and reverence of the burial, Herod's lavish funeral further amplified the strained sentiments; adorned with a crown, sceptre, and clad in royal attire, he was carried in a splendid procession filled with his kinsmen and favored military detachment, all lamenting his passing. Yet, the show of extravagance could not hide the animosity felt by the populace, nor the animosity Archelaus encountered from his family as they fought over his inheritance. As Archelaus feigned grief for seven days post-burial, he hosted a monumental feast, then returned to the temple to thank the Jews for their loyalty, promising a more favorable future upon his confirmation by Augustus. The citizens listened with restrained patience until degenerating demands for tax relief and the release of prisoners emerged. He conceded to these requests and retreated to his palace, yet the following evening, crowds convened at his gates, mourning the fallen rabbis and young victims of Herod’s wrath. Tension escalated with calls for Archelaus to rise against the Romans. All attempts at placation failed and tensions surged, particularly with the Passover festivities bringing multitudes to Jerusalem; order could only be restored through force. The unleashing of Archelaus's military onto the rioters culminated in a horrific massacre of 3,000, expelling Easter pilgrims who returned home without undertaking the sacred feast. The pent-up wrath of the populace flooded forth, previously held in check by Herod’s iron fist.\\n\\nQuickly after Archelaus departed for Rome, the situation in Palestine worsened. The earlier massacres fueled fervor and rebellion broke out anew. Some factions believed the moment was ripe to restore divine rule and reclaim national sovereignty, with God as their only King. The wealthy and those indifferent to matters of faith desired a Roman procurator instead, prioritizing personal gain above all. Nonetheless, within a few generations, a faction arose devoted to restoring the theocracy envisioned in the Pentateuch. They regarded kings as thieves of the rights of the Lord. Their perspective was that Gentiles would not be tolerated any more than the ancient Canaanites were, believing the Promised Land belonged solely to God and His people, ruled solely by the high priest, rejecting any foreign or royal governance. Despite recognizing the difficulty in restoring such an ideal, they clung to it. Their ancestors had resisted Persian dominance, submitting to the Greeks only under the promise of safeguarding their national institutions. However, when Greek rule became corrupt and threatened their sacred laws, the pious rose against that authority, laying down arms to preserve true religion under the Maccabees. Yet, when unshackled from direct conflict, many distanced themselves from the Maccabean kings once again. Judas Maccabeus found himself increasingly isolated, ultimately fleeing with a handful of followers into the wilderness. The extended peace under John Hyrcanus saw an emphasis on religious law, establishing a protective 'fence' around the law to prevent decay in faith. This led to a growing insularity among the Jews, giving rise to Pharisaism, which became marked by stringent adherence to ceremonial law. Over time, this extremism led to a rift with the ruling Asmoneans, as the religious elite pulled away, supporting only the high priesthood as the ultimate authority. \\n\\nAs the struggle for power between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus raged on, the people recognized only piety and knowledge of the law as worthy qualifications. With the government failing them, the court's nobility became further disgraced. From the latter years under Hyrcanus's administration to the end of Iannaeus's reign, the rabbis gathered strength, driven to establish a strictly legalistic system to promote their ideals during the dynasty’s decline. Their selfless nature instilled deep devotion among the populace, who clung to their teachings. Hillel, a pivotal figure who emerged during this time, was destined to be a guiding light for the people. Nonetheless, Archelaus’s cruel reign fueled animosity among both Jews and Samaritans. To the collective offense of the people, he married Glaphira, widow of his half-brother Alexander; the marriage incited outrage. Though Glaphira did not linger long after returning to her former home, the adverse public perception remained resolute, culminating in widespread resentment toward Archelaus and his regime. Even among himself, he lacked the flair for public games and architecture that characterized his father, preferring instead to focus on fortifying his lands. As governmental tension escalated, an embassy was dispatched to Rome in accusation of Archelaus's tyrannical rule, seeking his removal.\\n\\nThe correspondence yielded swift action from Caesar, prompting the despot’s return to plead his case in Rome but concluding with his banishment to Gaul. Thus, the kingdom once again fell under Roman authority. The promised liberty Jews had anticipated turned bitter once they sensed the stark reality: true independence would remain elusive. The repercussions of Archelaus’s misrule not only marred his legacy but left a painful imprint upon the collective psyche of the Jewish nation. Archelaus’s departure marked the beginning of the end for Herod’s legacy, foreshadowing distress that would ultimately culminate in catastrophic loss for Israel as a nation, all while the young Jesus resided in the quiet of Galilee, apart from worldly strife."}]}
Support this project and get full access for only 4$/month
Commentarie text can’t be scrolled on PC at the moment. Please use your phone. We’re working on a fix.
