Now
when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod
the king, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem,
saying, "Where is He that is born King of the Jews? For
we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him."
When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled,
and all Jerusalem with him.
–
Matthew 2:13
The above
passage of Scripture will be read countless times to the faithful
over the next week as Christians celebrate the ultimate miracle
of the coming of God made man, but no doubt the great majority
of listeners will not give this passage even a cursory hearing.
However, the wisdom contained therein proves salutary for even
those not of the Christian faith. The subtext of the passage
show how fundamentally radical the very concept of the Christ
is and how one of the shrewdest of ancient political minds,
Herod, understood this before the person of Jesus had ever uttered
a word.
The historian
James
Henry Breasted (America’s first Egyptologist) wrote a
useful textbook of ancient history in the early part of
the 20th century. Breasted’s basic premise is that
every culture of the East eventually had a ruler who assumed
the mantle of the divine, a man-made-god. With the divine ruler
came an oppressive bureaucracy (because the "man-god"
king knew best how to run everyone’s life) which eventually
sabotaged the cultural and economic advantages which the civilization
had struggled to gain. The democracy of the Greek city-states
was the alternative model (Greek culture’s fall eventually coming
at the hands of a Macedonian "man-god," Alexander).
In Breasted’s historical survey, "The East" is synonymous
with a culture of absolute despotism, be it Egyptian, Assyrian,
Babylonian or Persian. Only in the West did the idea of the
worth of the individual take root.
How disheartening
it must have been for Herod, the non-Jewish usurper of the throne
at Jerusalem and puppet of the empire of Rome, to learn that
men who knew about god-making where not looking for him but
an infant. Years of crafty political maneuvers, skillfully applied
terror, and an immense pork barrel public works program must
have seemed all for naught. Herod, who seemed well on his way
to achieving the status of a "man-god" king, had lost
out not to a rival politico or foreign power but a child. The
fact that it was a child, who had done nothing to achieve notoriety
or aggrandize himself with worldly power, is precisely what
must have had him "troubled, and all Jerusalem with him."
An infant worthy of worship was not one who had won the title
of "man-god" but was one who was a God-man, ruling
by his very nature.
Such a
concept "troubled" not only Herod but the entire establishment
of political hangers-on. They realized all too well the consequences
of the coming of a God-man – the legitimacy of "divine"
kings could no longer even be feigned. Naturally, such an innovation
in the minds of men had to be stopped and the slaughter of all
male children under the age of two seemed a reasonable enough
price to the power-drunk. (A few short decades later Caiaphas
gave counsel that it was expedient that one man be executed
in what he hoped was a political powerplay.)
For the
Christian, the coming of the Christ child had a myriad of eternal
spiritual repercussions. Quite simply, all has changed. One
of those changes, perhaps incidental in the eyes of believers,
is that "man-god" kings are obsolete. Since God has
condescended to become a man, it is preposterous (and sinful)
for a man to set himself up as a god. It is in the light of
this radical change that we are to interpret what it is that
belongs to God and what to Caesar.
The Caesars
continued down the path of deifying themselves. Breasted notes
in his history that by the time of Diocletian, three centuries
after the radical message of Christmas had been delivered, the
counter-Christmas political program was complete.