Herod the Great was a usurper. He had no right to the throne of Israel. Herod was an Edomite, though he converted to Judaism. He was a brilliant politician, builder, fabulously wealthy, and desperately wicked. He died of a combination of kidney disease and venereal disease and was nearly insane at the end of his life. He guarded his throne with a ferocity that cost many their lives, including two of his sons – Alexander and Aristobulus – and his wife, Mariamne. Part of his madness was the result of his guilt for ordering her execution.

Because he knew his unpopularity with the Jewish people, Herod ordered the execution, upon his death, of prominent chief priests and rulers of Israel so the people wouldn’t celebrate his death. He stands in Scripture for tyrannical power.

Matthew sets forth the royal claims of Jesus of Nazareth as Israel’s Messiah King. He describes the threat Herod felt when he heard the news that Israel now had a Born King. When the wise men entered Jerusalem, they didn’t ask, “Where is the one who will become king of the Jews.” They asked, “Where is he that is born king of the Jews?” As Herod was a usurper, the claim was not lost on him.

It would be incorrect to mollify Herod with suggestions that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. Matthew lays out a clear case for Jesus Christ to be Israel’s eternal king. Jesus came to dethrone tyrants like Herod. The prophets foretold the same.

Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:7)

No surprise: when Herod heard of the birth of one with a legitimate claim to David’s throne, he was troubled. Matthew excels at understatement. Herod immediately started plotting how he might find this baby and kill it. After all, killing babies has always been the practice of evil tyrants.

Matthew establishes Jesus Christ’s royal claim to the throne of Israel, but then immediately shows that He was not Himself of David’s royal seed, for He was the Son of God (Matthew 1:18-25). The Messiah King is the Incarnate God. In the second chapter, Matthew emphasizes the Messiah King’s threat to evil tyrannies – first the tyranny of Herod the Great, but then to another, perhaps more subtle tyranny. His second contrast pits the hireling shepherds of Israel (see John 10) against Jesus.

Herod gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together (Matthew 2:4) — probably the Sanhedrin. It has been pointed out that the chief priests were Sadducees, who didn’t look for the Messiah. The scribes (teachers of the law) were Pharisees who did look for the coming Messiah. These were rival factions in Jewish culture. But they agreed on one thing: they despised Herod.

Perhaps Herod brought them together to keep both groups honest. They didn’t struggle to identify where the Messiah would be born. They knew well the prophecy of Micah the prophet:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2)

The chief priests and scribes acknowledged the authority of the answer. They base their claim – that the Messiah would be found in Bethlehem – on a plain reading of the Old Testament. “For thus it is written by the prophet.” “It is written” is a perfect passive indicative – literally, “it stands written.”

But their answer communicates more than the answer. Notice that they don’t quote Micah 5:2 exactly. Sure, there is a difference between Micah saying “though thou be little” and their quotation of it as “art not the least.” Micah said, “among the thousands of Judah,” and they said, “among the princes of Juda.” Those are differences, but they are easy enough to explain and don’t cause a significant difference.

The crucial difference is the ending. Micah says, “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” They say, “for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.” The quote sounds eerily similar to what the men of Hebron said when they approached David about being their king.

Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel. (2 Samuel 5:2)

A Governor that shall rule; a shepherd that shall feed. By the way, the marginal reading in Matthew 2:6 says that “rule” can mean “feed.”

The chief priests and scribes knew their Old Testament. Micah lived in a day when David’s royal seed had grown vile and debased. Micah prophesied that the day had arrived when David’s royal line would be cut down like a dead tree. Isaiah prophesied that a shoot would come out of the stump of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1). Though Bethlehem was insignificant among the cities of Judah – so small it wasn’t even mentioned when Joshua listed the cities that would make up Judah’s inheritance – today it is famous as the birthplace of the Messiah.

The chief priests and scribes changed “thousands” to “princes” — “thousands” in Micah points to the clans of Judah. Each of those clans had a leader, and now, in Matthew, the leaders of those clans become the focus. And the Messiah would be the ruler Israel longed for.

The Book of Micah demonstrates that Israel’s leaders and rulers were the ones who led Israel astray. They led them astray because the rulers of Israel served themselves. They were like a bunch of little Herods. Ironically, in Christ’s day, God gave Israel a usurper king who oppressed Israel. Meanwhile, the chief priests and scribes in Christ’s day weren’t much different than the self-serving rulers of Micah’s day. Listen to Micah as he lays out the case against Israel’s rulers:

Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practise it, because it is in the power of their hand. And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage. (Micah 2:1-2)

Even of late my people is risen up as an enemy: ye pull off the robe with the garment from them that pass by securely as men averse from war. The women of my people have ye cast out from their pleasant houses; from their children have ye taken away my glory for ever. (Micah 2:8-9)

And I said, Hear, I pray you, O heads of Jacob, and ye princes of the house of Israel; Is it not for you to know judgment? Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones; Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron. (Micah 3:1-3)

Compare that to Jesus’ description of the religious authorities in His day:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Matthew 23:14, 23)

Micah’s prophecy divides neatly between promised judgment and promised rescue. Micah promises that Israel’s current leaders will be destroyed – the house of David will fall. But then, he promises that Israel will not be destroyed because the house of David will rise again. That is the context of Micah 5 – God is about to start all over again. It will be through the house of David, but it won’t be the house of David. And the Messiah won’t be anything like Israel’s self-serving leaders. The Messiah will come for God. He will do the will of God.

Evidently, the rabbis made the connection between 2 Samuel 5, the beginning of David’s reign, and Micah 5, which highlights the resurrection of the house of David. The religious authorities in Christ’s day connected these two, so their reference to the prophet (Matthew 2:5) merged Micah 5:2 and 2 Samuel 5:2. God has stamped this as His inspired Word.

This is the beauty of the answer the chief priests and scribes give Herod – they spoke better than they knew. They were the ones who had the answers but who didn’t lead. They devoured the people instead of feeding them. Jesus would feed the people. They would devour Jesus. But His sacrificed life would be the life of the world. Matthew 2 makes this point: Jesus came to show the world a new way of being king. The old way was to devour the people and use them to build up a kingdom for the tyrant. Jesus is a new kind of king who gives up His life for the lives of those He leads.