For Bible Study Nerds

For Bible Study Nerds


Matthew 2:19-23; The Return to Nazareth (Historical Backgrounds)

posted by Mike Nappa

Matthew reports that Joseph was afraid to live in Judea under the rule of Herod’s son, Archelaus—and apparently with good reason.

After Herod the Great died, there was a power struggle among his sons over who would inherent his kingdom. Archelaus had first assumed kingship, over the objections of his brothers. Meanwhile, revolutionaries stirred up opposition and threatened to derail Archelaus’ bid to rule. He responded as his father would have, sending in the Roman army and massacring 3,000 people during the Passover holiday. Fresh off that victory, he went with his brother to Rome to make a case for his kingship with the emperor. After much deliberation, Caesar Augustus made a compromise decision. He appointed Archelaus as “ethnarch” over Idumea, Judea, and Samaria, with a promise that he would be made king if he proved worthy. His brother Antipas was installed as “tetrarch” over Galilee and Perea, while Philip was also named tetrarch over other territories in the area.

When Archelaus returned to Judea, history reports that he “ruled both Jews and Samaritans with great brutality.” It was so bad, in fact, that Augustus deposed and banished Archelaus only two years later, around 6 A.D., after both Jews and Samaritans sent a delegation detailing the ethnarch’s cruelty in supposed service to Rome.

Roman Spatha (long sword); Matthew 2:19-23; The Return to Nazareth

Works Cited:

[ZP3, 138]

 

ΩΩΩ

About: For Bible Study Nerds™

About: Mike Nappa

Copyright © 2014 to present by Nappaland Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved.



Previous Posts

Matthew 5:33-37; Oaths (Bible Difficulties)
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made…’” In case you’re wondering, Jesus wasn't quoting the Old Testament when he said that. At least not exactly. Bible scholars think that this point in Chri

posted 12:00:59pm Sep. 15, 2014 | read full post »

Matthew 5:31-32; Divorce (Symbolism)
Jesus’ literal intolerance for the practice of divorce, as displayed in his Sermon on the Mount, takes on new meaning when viewed through a symbolic lens. Consider: Throughout the New Testament, Christ is presented figuratively as a bridegroom, and all his followers throughout the ages (the

posted 12:00:44pm Sep. 12, 2014 | read full post »

Matthew 5:31-32; Divorce (Bible Difficulties)
It’s hard to overlook the uncomfortable truth that, according to Jesus, a divorced woman is considered an adulterer in God’s eyes—merely by the fact that her husband divorced her. “Whoever divorces his wife,” Christ said, “for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit

posted 4:41:43pm Sep. 10, 2014 | read full post »

Matthew 5:31-32; Divorce (Historical Backgrounds)
You may be surprised to discover that Old Testament Law did not codify the practice of divorce. In fact, biblical history indicates that divorce predated the time of Moses. As such, it was acknowledged by the Law (see Deuteronomy 24:1), but not created by it. Divorce in Jewish society was general

posted 12:00:42pm Sep. 08, 2014 | read full post »

Matthew 5:27-30; Adultery (Historical Backgrounds)
The accusation of adultery in ancient Israel was no light thing, so it was significant that Jesus emphasized it in this portion of his Sermon on the Mount. In effect, Christ said to his audience, “I accuse you of adultery. Your inward sinfulness is criminally damning—regardless of your outward a

posted 12:00:49pm Sep. 05, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.