|
Chapter 5 | Table
of Contents | Chapter 7
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Alfred Edersheim
1883
Book II
FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN
JORDAN
Chapter 6
THE NATIVITY OF JESUS THE MESSIAH
(St. Matthew 1:25; St. Luke 2:1-20.)
SUCH then was 'the hope of the promise made of God unto the
fathers,' for which the twelve tribes, 'instantly serving (God) night and day,'
longed - with such vividness, that they read it in almost every event and
promise; with such earnestness, that it ever was the burden of their prayers;
with such intensity, that many and long centuries of disappointment have not
quenched it. Its light, comparatively dim in days of sunshine and calm, seemed
to burn brightest in the dark and lonely nights of suffering, as if each gust
that swept over Israel only kindled it into fresh flame.
To the question, whether this hope has ever been realised - or
rather, whether One has appeared Whose claims to the Messiahship have stood the
test of investigation and of time - impartial history can make only one answer.
It points to Bethlehem and to Nazareth. If the claims of Jesus have been
rejected by the Jewish Nation, He has at least, undoubtedly, fulfilled one part
of the Mission prophetically assigned to the Messiah. Whether or not He be the
Lion of the tribe of Judah, to Him, assuredly, has been the gathering of the
nations, and the isles have waited for His law. Passing the narrow bounds of
obscure Judæa, and breaking down the walls of national prejudice and isolation,
He has made the sublimer teaching of the Old Testament the common possession of
the world, and founded a great Brotherhood, of which the God of Israel is the
Father. He alone also has exhibited a life, in which absolutely no fault could
be found; and promulgated a teaching, to which absolutely no exception can be
taken. Admittedly, He was the One perfect Man - the ideal of humanity,
His doctrine the one absolute teaching. The world has known none other, none
equal. And the world has owned it, if not by the testimony of words, yet by the
evidence of facts. Springing from such a people; born, living, and dying in
circumstances, and using means, the most unlikely of such results - the Man of
Nazareth has, by universal consent, been the mightiest Factor in our world's
history: alike politically, socially, intellectually, and morally. If He be not
the Messiah, He has at least thus far done the Messiah's work. If He be not the
Messiah, there has at least been none other, before or after Him. If He be
not the Messiah, the world has not, and never can have, a Messiah.
To Bethlehem as the birthplace of Messiah, not only Old
Testament prediction,1
but the testimony of Rabbinic teaching, unhesitatingly pointed. Yet nothing
could be imagined more directly contrary to Jewish thoughts and feelings - and
hence nothing less likely to suggest itself to Jewish invention2
- than the circumstances which, according to the Gospel-narrative, brought
about the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem. A counting of the people, of
Census; and that Census taken at the bidding of a heathen Emperor, and executed
by one so universally hated as Herod, would represent the ne plus ultra
of all that was most repugnant to Jewish feeling.3
If the account of the circumstances, which brought Joseph and Mary to
Bethlehem, has no basis in fact, but is a legend invented to locate the birth
of the Nazarene in the royal City of David, it must be pronounced most clumsily
devised. There is absolutely nothing to account for its origination - either
from parallel events in the past, or from contemporary expectancy. Why then
connect the birth of their Messiah with what was most repugnant to Israel,
especially if, as the advocates of the legendary hypothesis contend, it did not
occur at a time when any Jewish Census was taken, but ten years previously?
1. Micah v. 2.
2. The advocates of the mythical theory have not answered, not even faced or understood, what to us seems, on their hypothesis, an insuperable difficulty. Granting, that Jewish expectancy would suggest the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, why invent such circumstances to bring Mary to Bethlehem? Keim may be right in saying: 'The belief in the birth at Bethlehem originated very simply' (Leben Jesu i. 2, p. 393); but all the more complicated and inexplicable is the origination of the legend, which accounts for the journey thither of Mary and Joseph.
3. In evidence of these feelings, we have the account of Josephus of the consequences of the taxation of Cyrenius (Ant. xviii. 1. 1. Comp. Acts v. 37).
But if it be impossible rationally to account for any legendary
origin of the narrative of Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem, the
historical grounds, on which its accuracy has been impugned, are equally
insufficient. They resolve themselves into this: that (beyond the
Gospel-narrative) we have no solid evidence that Cyrenius was at that time
occupying the needful official position in the East, to order such a
registration for Herod to carry out. But even this feeble contention is by no
means historically unassailable.4
At any rate, there are two facts, which render any historical mistake by St.
Luke on this point extremely difficult to believe. First, he was evidently
aware of a Census under Cyrenius, ten years later;5
secondly, whatever rendering of St. Luke ii. 2 may be adopted, it will at least
be admitted, that the intercalated sentence about Cyrenius was not necessary
for the narrative, and that the writer must have intended thereby emphatically
to mark a certain event. But an author would not be likely to call special
attention to a fact, of which he had only indistinct knowledge; rather, if it must
be mentioned, would he do so in the most indefinite terms. This presumption in
favour of St. Luke's statement is strengthened by the consideration, that such
an event as the taxing of Judæa must have been so easily ascertainable by him.
4. The arguments on what may be called the orthodox side have, from different points
of view, been so often and well stated - latterly by Wieseler, Huschke, Zumpt, and Steinmeyer - and on the other side almost ad nauseam by negative critics
of every school, that it seems unnecessary to go again over them. The reader will find the whole subject stated by Canon Cook, whose views we substantially adopt, in the 'Speaker's Commentary' (N.T. i. pp. 326-329). The reasoning of Mommsen (Res gestae D. Aug. pp. 175, 176) does not seem to me to affect the view taken in the text.
5. Comp. Acts v. 37.
We are, however, not left to the presumptive reasoning just set
forth. That the Emperor Augustus made registers of the Roman Empire, and of
subject and tributary states, is now generally admitted. This registration -
for the purpose of future taxation - would also embrace Palestine. Even if no
actual order to that effect had been issued during the lifetime of Herod, we
can understand that he would deem it most expedient, both on account of his
relations to the Emperor, and in view of the probable excitement which a
heathen Census would cause in Palestine, to take steps for making a
registration, and that rather according to the Jewish than the Roman manner.
This Census, then, arranged by Augustus, and taken by Herod in his own manner,
was, according to St. Luke, 'first [really] carried out when Cyrenius was
Governor of Syria,' some years after Herod's death and when Judæa had become a
Roman province.6
6. For the textual explanation we again refer to Canon Cook, only we would mark, with Steinmeyer, that the meaning of the expression egeneto, in St. Luke ii. 2, is
determined by the similar use of it in Acts xi. 28, where what was predicted is said to have actually taken place (egeneto)
at the time of Claudius Cæsar.
We are now prepared to follow the course of the
Gospel-narrative. In consequence of 'the decree of Cæsar Augustus,' Herod
directed a general registration to be made after the Jewish, rather than the
Roman, manner. Practically the two would, indeed, in this instance, be very
similar. According to the Roman law, all country-people were to be registered
in their 'own city' - meaning thereby the town to which the village or place,
where they were born, was attached. In so doing, the 'house and lineage' (the nomen
and cognomen) of each were marked.7
According to the Jewish mode of registration, the people would have been
enrolled according to tribes (ty+m), families or clans (twxp#m), and the house of their fathers (twb) tyk). But as the ten tribes
had not returned to Palestine, this could only take place to a very limited extent,8
while it would be easy for each to be registered in 'his own city.' In the case
of Joseph and Mary, whose descent from David was not only known, but where, for
the sake of the unborn Messiah, it was most important that this should be
distinctly noted, it was natural that, in accordance with Jewish law, they
should have gone to Bethlehem. Perhaps also, for many reasons which will
readily suggest themselves, Joseph and Mary might be glad to leave Nazareth,
and seek, if possible, a home in Bethlehem. Indeed, so strong was this feeling,
that it afterwards required special Divine direction to induce Joseph to
relinquish this chosen place of residence, and to return into Galilee.9
In these circumstances, Mary, now the 'wife' of Joseph, though standing to him
only in the actual relationship of 'betrothed,'10
would, of course, accompany her husband to Bethlehem. Irrespective of this,
every feeling and hope in her must have prompted such a course, and there is no
need to discuss whether Roman or Jewish Census-usage required her presence - a
question which, if put, would have to be answered in the negative.
7. Comp. Huschke. Ueber d. z. Zeit d. Geb. J. C. gehalt. Census pp. 119, 120. Most critics have written very confusedly on this point.
8. The reader will now be able to appreciate the value of Keim's objections against such a Census, as involving a 'wahre Volkswanderung' (!), and being 'eine Sache der Unmöglichkeit.'
9. St. Matt ii. 22.
10. St. Luke ii. 5.
The short winter's day was probably closing in,11
as the two travellers from Nazareth, bringing with them the few necessaries of
a poor Eastern household, neared their journey's end. If we think of Jesus as
the Messiah from heaven, the surroundings of outward poverty, so far from
detracting, seem most congruous to His Divine character. Earthly splendor would
here seem like tawdry tinsel, and the utmost simplicity like that clothing of
the lilies, which far surpassed all the glory of Solomon's court. But only in
the East would the most absolute simplicity be possible, and yet neither it,
nor the poverty from which it sprang, necessarily imply even the slightest taint
of social inferiority. The way had been long and weary - at the very least,
three days' journey, whatever route had been taken from Galilee. Most probably
it would be that so commonly followed, from a desire to avoid Samaria, along
the eastern banks of the Jordan, and by the fords of Jericho.12
Although passing through one of the warmest parts of the country, the season of
the year must, even in most favorable circumstances, have greatly increased the
difficulties of such a journey. A sense of rest and peace must, almost
unconsciously, have crept over the travellers when at last they reached the
rich fields that surrounded the ancient 'House of Bread,' and, passing through
the valley which, like an amphitheatre, sweeps up to the twain heights along
which Bethlehem stretches (2,704 feet above the sea), ascended through the
terraced vineyards and gardens. Winter though it was, the green and silvery
foliage of the olive might, even at that season, mingle with the pale pink of
the almond - nature's 'early waker'13
- and with the darker coloring of the opening peach-buds. The chaste beauty and
sweet quiet of the place would recall memories of Boaz, of Jesse, and of David.
All the more would such thoughts suggest themselves, from the contrast between
the past and the present. For, as the travellers reached the heights of
Bethlehem, and, indeed, long before, the most prominent object in view must
have been the great castle which Herod had built, and called after his own
name. Perched on the highest hill south-east of Bethlehem, it was, at the same
time magnificent palace, strongest fortress, and almost courtier-city.14
With a sense of relief the travellers would turn from this, to mark the
undulating outlines of the highland wilderness of Judæa, till the horizon was
bounded by the mountain-ridges of Tekoa. Through the break of the hills
eastward the heavy molten surface of the Sea of Judgement would appear in view;
westward wound the road to Hebron; behind them lay the valleys and hills which
separated Bethlehem from Jerusalem, and concealed the Holy City.
11. This, of course, is only a conjecture; but I call it 'probable,' partly because one
would naturally so arrange a journey of several days, to make its stages as slow and easy as possible, and partly from the circumstance, that, on their arrival, they found the khan full, which would scarcely have been the case had
they reached Bethlehem early in the day.
12. Comp. the account of the roads, inns, &c. in the 'History of the Jewish Nation,'
p. 275; and the chapter on 'Travelling in Palestine,' in 'Sketches of Jewish
Social Life in the Days of Christ.'
13. The almond is called, in Hebrew, rq#, 'the waker,' from the word 'to be awake.' It is quite possible, that many of the earliest spring flowers already made the landscape bright.
14. Jos. Ant. xiv. 13. 9; xv. 9. 4; War. i. 13. 8:21, 10.
But for the present such thoughts would give way to the
pressing necessity of finding shelter and rest. The little town of Bethlehem
was crowded with those who had come from all the outlying district to register
their names. Even if the strangers from far-off Galilee had been personally
acquainted with any one in Bethlehem, who could have shown them hospitality,
they would have found every house fully occupied. The very inn was filled, and
the only available space was, where ordinarily the cattle were stabled.15
Bearing in mind the simple habits of the East, this scarcely implies, what it
would in the West; and perhaps the seclusion and privacy from the noisy,
chattering crowd, which thronged the khan, would be all the more welcome.
Scanty as these particulars are, even thus much is gathered rather by inference
than from the narrative itself. Thus early in this history does the absence of
details, which painfully increases as we proceed, remind us, that the Gospels
were not intended to furnish a biography of Jesus, nor even the materials for
it; but had only this twofold object: that those who read them 'might believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,' and that believing they 'might have
life through His Name.'16
The Christian heart and imagination, indeed, long to be able to localise the
scene of such surpassing importance, and linger with fond reverence over that
Cave, which is now covered by 'the Church of the Nativity.' It may be - nay, it
seems likely - that this, to which the most venerable tradition points, was the
sacred spot of the world's greatest event.17
But certainly we have not. It is better, that it should be so. As to all that
passed in the seclusion of that 'stable' - the circumstances of the 'Nativity,'
even its exact time after the arrival of Mary (brief as it must have been) -
the Gospel-narrative is silent. This only is told, that then and there the
Virgin-Mother 'brought forth her first-born Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling
clothes, and laid Him in a manger.' Beyond this announcement of the bare fact,
Holy Scripture, with indescribable appropriateness and delicacy, draws a veil
over that most sacred mystery. Two impressions only are left on the mind: that
of utmost earthly humility, in the surrounding circumstances; and that of
inward fitness, in the contrast suggested by them. Instinctively, reverently,
we feel that it is well it should have been so. It best befits the birth of the
Christ - if He be what the New Testament declares Him.
15. Dr. Geikie indeed 'feels sure' that the kataluma was not an inn, but a guest-chamber,
because the word is used in that sense in St. Mark xiv. 14, Luke xxii. 11. But
this inference is critically untenable. The Greek word is of very wide
application, and means (as Schleusner puts it) 'omnis locus quieti aptus.' In
the LXX. kataluma is the
equivalent of not less than five Hebrew words, which have widely
different meanings. In the LXX. rendering of Ex. iv. 24 it is used for the
Hebrew Nwlm which certainly cannot mean a guest-chamber, but an inn. No one
could imagine that. If private hospitality had been extended to the
Virgin-Mother, she would have been left in such circumstances in a stable. The
same term occurs in Aramaic form, in Rabbinic writings, as syl+) or
zwlim:ra = zylim:(a kataluma, an inn.
Delitzsch, in his Hebrew N.T., uses the more common Nwlm. Bazaars
and markets were also held in those hostelries; animals killed, and meat sold there; also wine and cider; so that they were a much more public place of resort than might at first be imagined. Comp. Herzfeld. Handelsgesch. p. 325.
16. St. John xx. 31; comp. St. Luke i. 4.
17. Perhaps the best authenticated of all local traditions is that which fixes on this cave as the place of the Nativity. The evidence in its favour is well given by Dr. Farrar
in his 'Life of Christ.' Dean Stanley, however, and others, have questioned it.
On the other hand, the circumstances just noted afford the
strongest indirect evidence of the truth of this narrative. For, if it were the
outcome of Jewish imagination, where is the basis for it in contemporary
expectation? Would Jewish legend have ever presented its Messiah as born in a
stable, to which chance circumstances had consigned His Mother? The whole
current of Jewish opinion would run in the contrary direction. The opponents of
the authenticity of this narrative are bound to face this. Further, it may
safely be asserted, that no Apocryphal or legendary narrative of such a
(legendary) event would have been characterised by such scantiness, or rather
absence, of details. For, the two essential features, alike of legend and of
tradition, are, that they ever seek to surround their heroes with a halo of
glory, and that they attempt to supply details, which are otherwise wanting.
And in both these respects a more sharply-marked contrast could scarcely be
presented, than in the Gospel-narrative.
But as we pass from the sacred gloom of the cave out into the
night, its sky all aglow with starry brightness, its loneliness is peopled, and
its silence made vocal from heaven. There is nothing now to conceal, but much
to reveal, though the manner of it would seem strangely incongruous to Jewish
thinking. And yet Jewish tradition may here prove both illustrative and
helpful. That the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem,18
was a settled conviction. Equally so was the belief, that He was to be revealed
from Migdal Eder, 'the tower of the flock.'19
This Migdal Eder was not the watchtower for the ordinary flocks
which pastured on the barren sheepground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to the
town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah20
leads to the conclusion, that the flocks, which pastured there, were destined
for Temple-sacrifices,21
and, accordingly, that the shepherds, who watched over them, were not ordinary
shepherds. The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism,22
on account of their necessary isolation from religious ordinances, and their
manner of life, which rendered strict legal observance unlikely, if not
absolutely impossible. The same Mishnic passage also leads us to infer, that
these flocks lay out all the year round, since they are spoken of as in
the fields thirty days before the Passover - that is, in the month of February,
when in Palestine the average rainfall is nearly greatest.23
Thus, Jewish tradition in some dim manner apprehended the first revelation of
the Messiah from that Migdal Eder, where shepherds watched the
Temple-flocks all the year round. Of the deep symbolic significance of such a
coincidence, it is needless to speak.
18. In the curious story of His birth, related in the Jer. Talmud (Ber. ii. 3), He is said to have been born in 'the royal castle of Bethlehem;' while in the parallel narrative in the Midr. on Lament. i. 16, ed. W. p. 64 b) the somewhat mysterious expression is used )br( trybb. But we must keep in view the
Rabbinic statement that, even if a castle falls down, it is still called a
castle (Yalkut, vol. ii. p. 60 b).
19. Targum Pseudo-Jon. On Gen. xxxv. 21.
20. Shek. vii. 4.
21. In fact the Mishnah (Baba K. vii. 7) expressly forbids the keeping of flocks throughout the land of Israel, except in the wilderness - and the only flocks otherwise kept, would be those for the Temple-services (Baba K. 80 a).
22. This disposes of an inapt quotation (from Delitzsch) by Dr. Geikie. No one could imagine, that the Talmudic passages in question could apply to such shepherds as these.
23. The mean of 22 seasons in Jerusalem amounted to 4.718 inches in December, 5.479 in January, and 5.207 in February (see a very interesting paper by Dr. Chaplin in Quart. Stat. of Pal. Explor. Fund, January, 1883). For 1876-77 we have these startling figures: mean for December, .490; for January, 1.595; for February, 8.750 - and, similarly, in other years. And so we read: 'Good the year in which
Tebheth (December) is without rain' (Taan. 6 b). Those who have copied Lightfoot's quotations about the flocks not lying out during the winter months ought, at least, to have known that the reference in the Talmudic passages is expressly to the flocks which pastured in 'the wilderness'
(wl) twyrbdm Nh). But even so, the statement, as so many others of the kind, is not
accurate. For, in the Talmud two opinions are expressed. According to one, the 'Midbariyoth,'
or 'animals of the wilderness,' are those which go to the open at the
Passovertime, and return at the first rains (about November); while, on the other hand, Rabbi maintains, and, as it seems, more authoritatively, that the wilderness-flocks remain in the open alike in the hottest days and in the rainy season - i.e. all the year round (Bezah 40 a). Comp. also Tosephta Bezah iv. 6. A somewhat different explanation is given in Jer. Bezah 63 b.
It was, then, on that 'wintry night' of the 25th of December,24
that shepherds watched the flocks destined for sacrificial services, in the
very place consecrated by tradition as that where the Messiah was to be first
revealed. Of a sudden came the long-delayed, unthought-of announcement. Heaven
and earth seemed to mingle, as suddenly an Angel stood before their dazzled
eyes, while the outstreaming glory of the Lord seemed to enwrap them, as in a
mantle of light.25
Surprise, awe, fear would be hushed into calm and expectancy, as from the Angel
they heard, that what they saw boded not judgment, but ushered in to waiting
Israel the great joy of those good tidings which he brought: that the
long-promised Saviour, Messiah, Lord, was born in the City of David, and that
they themselves might go and see, and recognize Him by the humbleness of the
circumstances surrounding His Nativity.
24. There is no adequate reason for questioning the historical accuracy of this date. The
objections generally made rest on grounds, which seem to me historically
untenable. The subject has been fully discussed in an article by Cassel
in Herzog's Real. Ency. xvii. pp. 588-594. But a curious piece of evidence comes to us from a Jewish source. In the addition to the Megillath Taanith (ed. Warsh. p. 20 a), the 9th Tebheth is marked as a fast day, and it is added, that the reason for this is not stated. Now, Jewish chronologists have
fixed on that day as that of Christ's birth, and it is remarkable that, between the years 500 and 816 a.d. the
25th of December fell no less than twelve times on the 9th Tebheth. If the 9th Tebheth, or 25th December, was regarded as the birthday of Christ, we can understand the concealment about it. Comp. Zunz, Ritus d. Synag. Gottesd. p. 126.
25. In illustration we may here quote Shem. R. 2 (ed. W. vol. ii. p. 8 a), where it is said that, wherever Michael appears, there also is the glory of the Shekhinah. In the same section we read, in reference to the appearance in the bush, that, 'at first only one Angel came,' who stood in the burning bush, and
after that the Shekhinah came, and spoke to Moses from out the bush. (It is a curious illustration of Acts ix. 7, that Moses alone is said in Jewish tradition to have seen the vision. but not the men who were with him.) Wetstein
gives an erroneous reference to a Talmudic statement, to the effect that, at the birth of Moses, the room was filled with heavenly light. The statement really occurs in Sotah 12 a; Shem. R. 1; Yalkut i. 51 c. This must be the foundation of the Christian legend, that the cave, in which Christ
was born, was filled with heavenly light. Similarly, the Romish legend about the Virgin Mother not feeling the pangs of maternity is derived from the Jewish legend, which asserts the same of the mother of Moses. The same authority maintains, that the birth of Moses remained unknown for three months, because he was a child of seven months. There are other legends about the sinlessness of
Moses' father, and the maidenhood of his mother (at 103 years), which remind us of Christian traditions.
It was, as if attendant angels had only waited the signal. As,
when the sacrifice was laid on the altar, the Temple-music burst forth in three
sections, each marked by the blast of the priests' silver trumpets, as if each
Psalm were to be a Tris-Hagion;26
so, when the Herald-Angel had spoken, a multitude of heaven's host27
stood forth to hymn the good tidings he had brought. What they sang was but the
reflex of what had been announced. It told in the language of praise the
character, the meaning, the result, of what had taken place. Heaven took up the
strain of 'glory;' earth echoed it as 'peace;' it fell on the ears and hearts
of men as 'good pleasure:'
26. According to tradition, the three blasts symbolically proclaimed the Kingdom of God, the
providence of God, and the final judgment.
27. Curiously enough, the word stratii is
Hebraised in the same connection l# )y+r+s) hl(m. See Yalkut on Ps. xlv. (vol. ii. p. 105 a, about the middle).
Glory to God in the highest -
And upon earth peace -
Among men good pleasure!28
28. I have unhesitatingly retained the reading of the textus receptus. The
arguments in its favor are sufficiently set forth by Canon Cook in his 'Revised Version of the First Three Gospels,' pp. 27, 32.
Only
once before had the words of the Angels' hymn fallen upon mortal's ears, when,
to Isaiah's rapt vision, Heaven's high Temple had opened, and the glory of
Jehovah swept its courts, almost breaking down the trembling posts that bore
its boundary gates. Now the same glory enwrapt the shepherds on Bethlehem's
plains. Then the Angels' hymn had heralded the announcement of the Kingdom
coming; now that of the King come. Then it had been the Tris-Hagion of
prophetic anticipation; now that of Evangelic fulfilment.
The hymn had ceased; the light faded out of the sky; and the
shepherds were alone. But the Angelic message remained with them; and the sign,
which was to guide them to the Infant Christ, lighted their rapid way up the
terraced height to where, at the entering of Bethlehem, the lamp swinging over
the hostelry directed them to the strangers of the house of David, who had come
from Nazareth. Though it seems as if, in the hour of her utmost need, the
Virgin, Mother had not been ministered to by loving hands,29
yet what had happened in the stable must soon have become known in the Khan.
Perhaps friendly women were still passing to and fro on errands of mercy, when
the shepherds reached the 'stable.'30
There they found, perhaps not what they had expected, but as they had been
told. The holy group only consisted of the humble Virgin-Mother, the lowly
carpenter of Nazareth, and the Babe laid in the manger. What further passed we
know not, save that, having seen it for themselves, the shepherds told what had
been spoken to them about this Child, to all around31
- in the 'stable' in the fields, probably also in the Temple, to which they
would bring their flocks, thereby preparing the minds of a Simeon, of an Anna,
and of all them that looked for salvation in Israel.32
29. This appears to me implied in the emphatic statement, that Mary - as I gather, herself - 'wrapped Him in swaddling clothes' (St. Luke ii. 7, 12). Otherwise the remark would seem needless and meaningless.
30. It seems difficult to understand how, on Dr. Geikie's theory, the shepherds could
have found the Infant-Saviour, since, manifestly, they could not during that night have roused every household in Bethlehem, to inquire whether any child had been born among their guests.
31. The term diagnwrizw more than to
'make known abroad.' Wahl renders it 'ultro citroquenarroh;' Schleusner: 'divulgo aliquid ut aliis innotescat, spargo rumorem.'
32. This may have prepared not only those who welcomed Jesus on His presentation in the Temple, but filled many others with expectancy.
And now the hush of wondering expectancy fell once more on all,
who heard what was told by the shepherds - this time not only in the
hill-country of Judæa, but within the wider circle that embraced Bethlehem and
the Holy City. And yet it seemed all so sudden, so strange. That such slender thread,
as the feeble throb of an Infant-life, the salvation of the world should hang -
and no special care watch over its safety, no better shelter be provided it
than a 'stable,' no other cradle than a manger! And still it is ever so. On
what slender thread has the continued life of the Church often seemed to hang;
on what feeble throbbing that of every child of God - with no visible outward
means to ward off danger, no home of comfort, no rest of ease. But, 'Lo,
children are Jehovah's heritage!' - and: 'So giveth He to His beloved in his
sleep!'33
33. The following remarkable extract from the Jerusalem Targum on Ex. xii. 42 may interest the reader: -
'It is a night to be observed and exalted.... Four nights
are there written in the Book of Memorial. Night first: when the Memra of
Jehovah was revealed upon the world for its creation; when the world was
without form and void, and darkness was spread upon the face of the deep, and the Memra of Jehovah illuminated and made it light; and He called it the first night. Night second: when the Memra of Jehovah was revealed unto Abraham between the divided pieces; when Abraham was a hundred years, and Sarah was ninety years, and to confirm thereby that which the Scripture saith - Abraham a hundred years, can he beget? and Sarah, ninety years old, can she bear? Was not
our father Isaac thirty-seven years old at the time he was offered upon the altar? Then the heavens were bowed down and brought low, and Isaac saw their foundations, and his eyes were blinded owing to that sight; and He called it the second night. The
third night: when the Memra of Jehovah was revealed upon the Egyptians, at the dividing of the night; His right hand slew the first-born of the Egyptians, and His right hand spared the first-born of Israel; to fulfil what the Scripture hath said, Israel is My first-born well-beloved son. And He
called it the third night. Night the fourth: when the end of the world will be accomplished, that it might be dissolved, the bands of wickedness destroyed, and the iron yoke broken. Moses came forth from the midst of the desert, and the King Messiah from the midst of Rome. This one shall lead at the head of a
Cloud, and that one shall lead at the head of a Cloud; and the Memra of Jehovah will lead between both, and they two shall come as one (Cachada).' (For explan. see vol. ii. p. 100, note.)
Chapter 5 | Table
of Contents | Chapter 7
research-bpr@philologos.org
|
