[ p. 9 ]
HIS EARLY YEARS
HIS BIRTH
Mt. L 1-17 ; Lk. iii. 23-38. Lk. i. 5-80; Mt. i. 18-23. Lk. ii. 1-38 ; Mt. ii. 1-18.
His birth was necessarily unique. For it was not the generation of a new member of our race : it was the incarnation of an eternal life and its manifestation under human conditions.
In the town of Nazareth, nestling among the uplands of Galilee just where they slope down to the Plain of Esdraelon, Israel’s battle-field of old, there dwelt a maiden named Mary, the Hebrew Miriam. Tradition has it that her parents were named Joachim (“The Lord raiseth up”) and Hannah (“Grace”), and they had at least one other child, a daughter Salome who appears later as the wife of Zebedee, a fisherman by the Lake of Galilee (Jo. xix. 25; Mt. xxvii. 56; Mk. xv. 40). They were godly peasant-folk, and on her attaining, it is said, the age of twelve years they betrothed her to an elderly fellow-townsman named Joseph. Though resident at Nazareth, he was a native of Bethlehem, “the city of David" ; and with a true Israelite’s pride in lineage he traced his descent from the ancient royal house. Not that he was a princely personage ; for the glory of the royal house had long departed, and in those days of national humiliation many a lowly Jew claimed kinship with it. Joseph was a common artisan, a carpenter to trade.
It was in the month of November in the year 6 B.C. [ p. 10 ] when Mary was startled by a heavenly intimation. Of old, when the light of revelation was yet dim, God was wont on occasion to employ two gracious modes of communicating His purposes to the children of men (Cf. Job xxxiii. 14-30). One was the mystery of dreams and the other the visitation of angels.
Since the name signifies “a messenger” an angel might be either an inspired prophet merely or a “ministering spirit,” one those “thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand, a multitude beyond number and reckoning, who stand before the Lord of Spirits,” (Heb. i. 14; Mt. xviii. 10) and speed upon His errands, attending unseen upon the “heirs of salvation.” It was one of these that visited Mary, none other, says St. Luke the poet Evangelist in his Hymn of the Nativity, than Gabriel, one of the “four presences,” the Archangels Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Phanuel, whom the devout imagination of the later Jewish teachers pictured as standing about the Throne of God. His special office, they conceived, was intercession for the children of men. He was ever a gracious visitant, the messenger of mercy ; and here is the felicitous thought of the Evangelist when he makes Gabriel the angel who visited Mary and acquainted her with God’s marvellous purpose. Betrothed but still unwed, she would conceive by the creative power of the Holy Spirit; and the Child whom she should bear would be the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed—the Saviour whom the ancient prophets had foretold and whom Israel had so long expected and never so eagerly as in those calamitous days.
The maiden would tell the story to her parents, [ p. 11 ] and it troubled them. Sure though they were of the divine purpose, they foresaw how it would seem to an incredulous world. It is matter of history what the unbelieving Jews made of the story of the Virgin Birth when at length it was published. They charged Mary with infidelity, and even identified her paramour as a soldier Panthera. The good name of their daughter was in peril, and therefore Joachim and Hannah meanwhile kept the story a close secret even from Joseph and presently conveyed her away to the home of an old kinswoman Elisabeth, the wife of a priest Zechariah, who dwelt far south at a village some four miles west of Jerusalem, which still bears its ancient name of Khirbet el-Jehud, “City of Judah.” There she sojourned for three months, and then she returned home. Her condition was now apparent, and Joseph drew the natural inference. He must repudiate her, but he refrained his indignation ; and that night in a dream he was assured of the truth, and next day he acknowledged Mary as his wife and took her to his home with befitting reverence.
The Virgin Birth is indeed a mystery, but so no less is every birth. “Thou knowest not,” it was written of old, “how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child.” There is impenetrable mystery in “ordinary generation,” (Eccl. xi. 5) and were it not “ordinary,” the marvel of it would be recognised. And it is because it is unique that the manner of our Lord’s birth excites incredulity. Consider the occasion, and its reason will appear. What does the Apostle mean by his antithesis of the First and the Second Adam ? (Rom. V. 14-17; I Cor. xv. 21,22,45-49) The First Adam was the original [ p. 12 ] head of humanity. He was created innocent, and the divine intention was that he should maintain his innocence and by stedfast obedience gather strength and wisdom ; and then by the inscrutable law of heredity he would have transmitted his moral and intellectual gain to his descendants, and would thus have facilitated the progress of the race toward the realisation of its divine ideal. But he failed, and by the same law his sin was their heritage. The life of humanity was polluted at its source and gathered ever larger defilement from generation to generation. And what was the remedy ? The stream, polluted at its source, must be cleansed there. The race must find a new head ; and this was provided by the Incarnation of the Eternal Son of God, the Archetype of Humanity, the Divine Image in which man had been created (Cf. Gen. i. 26,27; Col. iii. 10). He was the Second Adam, the new head of the race; and even as from the First Adam there flowed down the generations a poisoned stream, so from the Second there flows a stream of healing, and “as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 0 In Him the entail of sin was broken and an entail of righteousness established.
But how was this secured by the Virgin Birth ? He had indeed no human father, but had He not a human mother ? and through her did He not share in the damnosa haereditas of original sin ? And was He not thus Himself a sinner, needing redemption ? It was to meet this difficulty that Peter of Lombardy in the twelfth century devised the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, which after long debate was pronounced an article of the Romanist [ p. 13 ] faith in the year 1854. But it is a pure fiction, destitute not only of scriptural sanction but of theological value. For it does not solve the problem : it merely throws it farther back; and surely, if a miracle of immaculate conception be necessary, it were more reasonably assumed of our Lord Himself than of His mother, since He had but a single human parent.
What then is the truth ? Observe what is written : “She was found with child of the Holy Spirit” “That which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Mt. i. 18,20) The significant fact here is that in the original “of” is the distinctive preposition of motherhood ; and what this implies appears when it is remembered that according to the Scriptures the operation of the Holy Spirit is the creative energy of God alike in the physical and in the spiritual domain, alike in generation and in regeneration (Cf. Gen. i. 2; Ps. civ. 30; Is. xxxiv. 15; Rom. xiii. 11; 2 Cor. iii. 18; Eph. iv. 23). Even as the First Adam was a creation of the Holy Spirit, so was the humanity which clothed the Eternal Son in the days of His flesh. It was not generated : it was created ; and the womb of the Virgin was but the nidus where “the Holy Thing begotten in her” (Lk. i. 35) was cherished and nurtured. It was begotten, not of her, but in her of the Floly Spirit; and it derived from her no hereditary taint. It was a fresh creation direct from the Divine Hand.
And thus our Lord was born sinless, as He could not have been had He been born of Mary. His humanity, even as the First Adam’s, was a fresh creation ; and, even as the First Adam, He was a true man, sharing our human weakness and our human [ p. 14 ] conflict. He “was in all points tempted like as we are, apart from sin.” He was the Second Adam, and He renewed the conflict on the primal conditions and triumphed where the First Adam had fallen (Heb. iv. 15).
“O loving wisdom of our God !
When all was sin and shame,
A second Adam to the fight
And to the rescue came.”
“O wisest love ! that flesh and blood.
Which did in Adam fail.
Should strive afresh against their foe,
Should strive and should prevail.”
It was a wonderful and solemn mystery, and it is nothing strange that Joseph and Mary reverently concealed it from an ill-judging world. It was known only to themselves and their trusted intimates, and as the Holy Child grew, Mary observed and treasured in her heart every happening that chimed with her cherished secret (Cf.Lk.ii. 19,51); but the general belief even among the Christians of primitive days was that He was the son of Joseph and Mary by ordinary generation. Hence it is that after the Jewish fashion they took pains to trace His genealogy through Joseph—a futile task if Joseph were not really His father. The secret was unknown even to St. Paul; and indeed he would be the very last to learn it, since as the Apostle of the Gentiles he was in ill odour with the Jewish Christians, who accounted him a traitor to the ancient Faith. Only after Mary had [ p. 15 ] passed “to where beyond these voices there is peace” was it published. The story is first told in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, which appeared shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70 ; and then in the Gospel according to St. Luke some fifteen years later. It is remarkable that in the former it is told from Joseph’s point of view and in the latter from Mary’s ; and the reason is that the Jewish Evangelist had learned it from the circle of Joseph’s intimates, while the Gentile Evangelist, who is distinguished among the sacred writers by his chivalrous sympathy with despised womankind, had learned it from Mary’s friends.
At the first glance it may seem surprising that it is unrecorded in the Fourth Gospel. Certainly St. John knew it; for from the day of the Crucifixion until her death his house was the home of Mary (Cf. Jo. xix. 27), and surely she would confide it to “disciple whom Jesus had loved” and who played a son’s part by her. But indeed it is in no wise surprising ; for his purpose in writing his Gospel was to supplement the narratives of his predecessors, and he never repeats what they have already recorded unless where he would elucidate or correct it. His silence is thus a tacit approval of their stories of the Virgin Birth. And does he indeed make no mention of it ? In the common text of the prologue to his Gospel it is written : “As many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on His name: which were begotten, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Jo. i. 12,13) As it is quoted, however, by several of the early Fathers [ p. 16 ] of the West, especially St. Irenaeus some two centuries earlier than our oldest manuscript, the passage runs thus : “them that believe in the name of Him who was begotten, not of bloods”—the mingled blood of human parents —“nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man (an husband), but of God.” The passage is thus a distinct statement of the Virgin Birth ; and according to the earliest testimony it was so written by the Evangelist.
Full five months had elapsed since Joseph took Mary to his home, and her time was near, when their quietude was disturbed by a public event—the taking of the census which the Emperor Augustus had instituted throughout his wide dominion at regular intervals of fourteen years. The first had been appointed for the year 8 B.C. ; but it had been delayed in Palestine by civil commotion, and was only now taken in the summer of the year 5. Elsewhere the people were registered where they dwelt, but the Jewish custom was that they should be registered by their tribes and families (Cf. 2 Sam. xxiv. 2); and thus it was necessary for Joseph to betake himself to Bethlehem. It was a three days’ journey, and unfit though she was, he took Mary with him. It was not that she must enrol her name in person, since each citizen registered his household ; but rather, it would appear, because, vexed by slanderous tongues, Joseph was minded to quit Nazareth and settle in his native town.
The season was propitious, since it was the month of August; and they travelled gently, Joseph afoot leading the ass on which, it is said, Mary rode. Yet even so the ordeal was too severe, and just as they reached Bethlehem her pangs seized her. There was [ p. 17 ] no time to seek out a lodging, and they betook themselves to that rude hostel, the caravanserai of the town. Unhappily it was already crowded, since they were not the only strangers whom the business of the census had brought to Bethlehem, and, travelling slowly, they had arrived late. Every apartment was tenanted, and there was nothing for it but that Mary should lie down among the cattle in the courtyard. There “she brought forth her Son, her first-born” ; and, swaddling Him in the little garments which she had fashioned in loving anticipation, she cradled Him in a manger.
Eastward and southward from Bethlehem stretched the Wilderness of Judaea, those rugged pastures where of old David had tended the sheep of his father Jesse, and whither every springtime (I Sam. xvii. 28) the Jewish shepherds in after days conducted their flocks and kept them in the open until the month of October, folding them at evenfall and at break of day leading them forth to pasture. On that memorable night a company of shepherds were seated round their camp-fire, guarding the fold, when an angel appeared, “apparelled in celestial light,” and told them what had befallen in the village—the birth of the Promised Saviour; and therewith the starry sky rang with music—the praises of the heavenly host. The vision faded, and the astonished shepherds hastened over the moor and found the mother and child, and with them not Joseph alone but others who had gathered to their aid and who heard with wonderment the shepherds’ tale.
It was fitting that these should be the first to hear the glad tidings. For in those days shepherds bore [ p. 18 ] an evil repute. They were indeed hardy and brave, daily risking their lives in defending their flocks from marauders—savage beasts and roving Bedawin (Cf. Jo. x. 11,12); but violence breeds violence, and a Jewish shepherd was little better than a brigand. And thus it was fitting that a company of rude shepherds should be the first to hear of the birth of the Saviour who “came not to call the righteous but sinners.”
The caravanserai was but a temporary harbour, and on the sixth day, it is said, after the Birth they removed to a house of their own in the village (Cf. Gen. xvii. 12.). Next day but one, according to the sacred ordinance, the Child was circumcised and received the name which He should bear during His earthly sojourn— Jesus, the Greek form of the old Hebrew name Joshua, which signified “The Lord is salvation.” For forty days after she had borne a son a Jewish mother was accounted ceremonially unclean, and “the fulfilment of the days of her purifying” was celebrated by the sacrifice of a lamb or, with the poorer sort, a pair of turtle-doves (Cf. Ac. vii. 45; Heb. iv. 8). Moreover, since the Lord claimed His people’s first-fruits, every first-born both human and animal was His ; and the law was that while a clean beast’s firstling was sacrificed and an unclean beast’s redeemed, a human first-born should “surely be redeemed.” (Cf. Lev. xii.) The price of his redemption was five shekels, and its payment was his “presentation to the Lord.” For neither ordinance was attendance at the Temple necessary ; but Jerusalem was only five miles to the north of Bethlehem, and Joseph and Mary, with the reverence which every devout Jew felt for [ p. 19 ] the Holy City and the Holy Place, repaired thither with the Holy Child.
In those evil days when Jerusalem was crushed by oppression and tom by faction, there were gracious souls in her midst, the Lord’s “hidden ones,” who abode in His fellowship, “looking for the consolation of Israel,” the Advent of the Promised Saviour. One of these was Symeon, an aged saint who cherished a devout assurance that he would live to witness it. Weary of the world, he was longing, like a captive, for the glad consummation which would be the signal for his release; and it happened that he was there, engaged in holy communion, when Mary brought her poor offering of doves. Since Bethlehem was so near Jerusalem, the story of the shepherds had surely reached his expectant ears, and he recognised the Holy Family (Cf. Lk. ii. 17-20). He took the Babe in his arms and blessed God that at length his eyes had seen the promised salvation. Just then another saint appeared on the scene—a venerable prophetess named Hannah. A wife for seven years and a widow for eighty-four, she was now, if like Mary she had been married at the age of twelve, an hundred and three years of age (Cf. ii. 37 R.V.); and she was the very pattern of holy widowhood. Devotion was her continual employment and the Temple her loved resort (Cf. I Tim. v. 5). She heard Symeon’s thanksgiving and took up the refrain of praise. And she told the glad tidings to her devout acquaintances.
Thus it was discovered to chosen representatives of the sinners and the saints of Israel that the Saviour had come. But He was more than the Messiah of the Jews. He was the Redeemer of the World; and [ p. 20 ] He was fittingly manifested also to representatives of heathendom. In those days and for many a long century afterwards it was believed that the stars ruled earthly affairs, and astrologers professed to read in the heavens the destinies of men and nations. It is not a little remarkable that, as astronomical calculations have ascertained, the year 7 B.C. witnessed a planetary phenomenon which recurs at regular intervals of some eight centuries. On May 29 of that year there was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the 20th degree of the constellation Pisces ; on September 29 they were again in conjunction in the 16th degree, and yet again on December 5 in the 15th degree; and then in the year 6 B.C. the planet Mars entered the conjunction. The recurrence of the phenomenon in 1604-5 A.D. was followed, as Kepler (1571-1630) observed, by the appearance of a brilliant star, which shone continuously for some eighteen months, and then vanished.
Chaldsea was the home of astrology, and there three “wise men,” magi, that is, astrologers, observed that phenomenon in 7 B.C. By the rules of their art they interpreted it as portending the birth of a King who should sway the world; and they set forth to greet Him and render Him homage, taking with them, after the ancient fashion, rich gifts as offerings. One took gold, another frankincense, and the third myrrh (Cf. I Ki. x. 2). Where the event would befall they knew not; but, travelling westward and making inquiry, they at length discovered a clue. History records that at that period of moral decadence even the heathen were expecting the dawn of a new era, and, influenced by rumours of Israel’s Messianic Hope, [ p. 21 ] they were looking to the Holy Land for its inauguration. In their progress westward the Magi learned of this expectation, and they bent their steps to Jerusalem. There they arrived in the month of September, 5 B.C., and eagerly inquired: “Where is the newborn King of the Jews ? We saw His star in the East, and we are come to do obeisance to Him.”
The city was startled. The evil reign of Herod the Great was nearing its close amid civil and domestic disaffection. It was less than a year since a prediction had been propagated by the Pharisees that the throne would pass to the house of Pheroras his brother; whence there would arise a mighty and wonderworking King, none other than the Promised Messiah. Its authors had been put to death, but the prediction was remembered; and the question of those eastern strangers excited commotion. Herod took alarm. He would avert the menace to his house by discovering the Child and destroying Him. First he convened the Court of the Sanhedrin and inquired of the Scribes, the official interpreters of the Sacred Law, the prophetic birthplace of the Messiah (Cf. Mic. v. 2). It was Bethlehem, they told him ; and he then summoned the Magi to a private interview, and inquiring the date of the appearance of the star which had heralded the King’s birth, learned that it was just two years ago. This, then, was the earliest limit of the event; and professing that he too desired to pay Him homage, he directed them to Bethlehem and bade them return when they had found the Child, and tell him where He was.
It was late in the day, but the star which had lit their long quest was sparkling in the sky, and they [ p. 22 ] hastened to Bethlehem. There they discovered the holy dwelling and presented their offerings. They had distrusted Herod’s professions, and their talk with Joseph would confirm their suspicions. Their sleep that night was disturbed by ominous dreams, and in the morning they betook themselves homeward without returning to Jerusalem. Joseph too was alarmed by what they had told him, and a dream confirmed his misgivings. In the morning he quitted Bethlehem and fled southward with Mary and the Child. Their destination was Egypt; and it was indeed a fitting asylum. For there was there a large population of Jewish settlers, and among these Joseph would have acquaintances and perhaps kinsfolk and would find a home and a livelihood.
His apprehensions were justified. Herod was infuriated when the Magi never returned. By instituting a search in the village he would have raised an alarm, and his victim might have escaped. And so he would make sure work of the business. After the manner of ancient tyrants, he had in his service a band of speculatores, officers who at his command disposed of any who had incurred his displeasure ; and he despatched his ruffians to Bethlehem with orders to butcher every male child born within the last two years. His mandate was executed ; and though in so small a community the victims would indeed be few, it was a fiendish atrocity, the foulest infamy of that bloody reign.