Skip to main content

Who was Herod Archelaus and Why were Joseph and Mary Afraid of Him?

    
                                                        

     While putting my Matthew blog together, I hit brick wall after brick wall. To be completely honest, the end result of my research on this blog topic is, partially, supposition. However, the facts that I did find, are truly fascinating.
      To begin, we must first delve into a quick background of Herod Archelaus. Archelaus was the first son of Herod the Great and the principal heir to the throne of Judea. After the, possibly very gruesome, death of his father, Archelaus had to travel to Rome to defend his birthright. His brothers, Antipas and Philip, both made equal claims to the Judean throne. Emperor Augustus, however, recognized that he should receive the largest portion of the inheritance, but he did not go as far as to name him king. Instead, Archelaus had to settle for the lesser title of ethnarch, which is equal to the governor of a specific region. This emphasized his dependence on the Roman Empire. His brothers, according to JewishEncyclopedia.com, were merely made tetrarchs, which are basically joint rulers over a region. Eventually, because of his bloodline and the complaints against his tyranny, Archelaus was banished to Gaul, where he died several years later. 

      Now, Herod the Great was no saint. In fact, he is the reason Joseph and Mary escaped to Bethlehem before the birth of Jesus. Herod had ordered the death of all infant boys in Bethlehem, trying to find and slay Jesus, the prophesied future king of the Jews. After Jesus was safely born, however, Joseph learned that Herod the Great had died, only to be replaced by his equally tyrannical son, Herod Archelaus. Because of this, Joseph and Mary do not return to Bethlehem with Jesus(Matthew 2:12). Instead, they returned to their home in Nazareth. One can only assume that stories of Archelaus' tyrannical nature reached the new parents and made them nervous to return to Bethlehem. Of course, there are no written records of their fear being their main motivation, but the assumption is easy to make when looking at Archelaus' history. 
      While Archelaus was awaiting word from Augustus concerning his inheritance, several uprisings began in Palestine, whose population was stirred into a frenzy because of the massacres brought about by Herod the Great and Archelaus. These uprisings were most likely instigated by the extreme oppression Sabinus placed on the people in Palestine. Sabinus was placed in a position of command until a decision on the inheritance was made. Disorders broke out all over the province and it took the Roman army to eventually regain a level of peace. However, this modicum of peace did not come cheap. Many people were lost on both sides. The Jewish community was devastated and even the Roman Army lost several thousand troops.

       Again, my assumption that Joseph did not want to return to Bethlehem because of the danger to his family and the lasting effects of Archelaus' tyrannical reign are purely conjecture. However, I believe it is a fairly solid argument to make, considering the political atmosphere of the region back then. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is There an Acceptable Reason to Divorce One's Spouse (according to Paul or the 1st Century Roman Empire)?

In 1 Corinthians, Paul has a lot to say concerning men and women, sex, marriage and divorce. He begins chapter 7 by stating that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman", but goes on to say that, because of the temptation of sexual immorality, "each man should have his own wife, and each wife her own husband". So, in this context it seems as though Paul is saying men and women should marry only to protect themselves from the sin of sexual immorality. This seems like a pretty bleak existence.  The question then, is this: According to Paul and the 1st Century Roman Empire, is there an acceptable reason to divorce one's spouse? The answer is not as cut and dried as one might think. In fact, and unsurprisingly, the two groups' opinions are split on the subject. It should be noted that Paul, as a disciple of Jesus, was taught that marriage is absolute . In Matthew 19:6 and 19:9 Jesus addresses a Pharisee who is badg
Post a Comment
Read more

A discussion on Paul's teachings about marriage and his views on women's rights in general

While reading Romans chapter 7, I was first struck by the seeming contradiction in Paul's statements on what marriage should look like for believers. In 1 Corinthians, Paul gives no alternative to being married once you're married, even in the case of adultery (or so it seems), which is directly against the lessons of his teacher, Jesus. He even says that if you DO   get a divorce, then you are not permitted to marry again. Period. Of course, he does allow for reconciliation and remarriage between the husband and wife, which is, admittedly, a small concession. In Romans, however, Paul teaches that if a husband dies, the wife is free from the marriage bond and allowed to remarry. Why is there such an obvious discrepancy between Paul's teachings to the Romans, who he had not even met yet, and his teachings to the Corinthians?  Also, why does Paul only address the issue as it concerns men? Many bible scholars agree that in Romans Paul is referencing the Mosaic
Post a Comment
Read more