A 03 - The Birth-place of Jesus
CHAPTER 3. THE BIRTH-PLACE OF JESUS.
ANOTHER indication of the person of the Messiah, as presented in prophecy, is to be found in the place of his nativity. He must not only be descended from certain specified ancestors, and born of a virgin, but his birth must occur in a particular town. A birth, therefore, any where else, even should it be miraculous, would destroy the claims of him who might pretend to be the Messiah. The designation of the birth-place of the Messiah is thus given by the prophet Micah: “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. As in most of the ancient prophecies, the Messiah is not named in this passage; he is, however, so significantly referred to, as to render the name altogether unnecessary. Long before the days of Micah, this remarkable personage had been revealed to the Israelites as some great king, whom God would set over them. He was to be more righteous and wise than other sovereigns, and in his day there was to be great peace and prosperity. Such prophecies fixed, of course, the eyes of all Israel on this predicted and pre-eminent Prince. They turned to him as a bright star in a cheerless night, and even when oppressed and enslaved, looked forward to his day, as to one of deliverance and triumph. When, therefore, one of Israel’s own prophets, as he looks far down the future, speaks of Him, “who is to be Ruler in Israel,” certainly he can be understood to refer to none else, but to that distinguished Sovereign, the Messiah, whom the Lord God was to raise up in the latter day. The reference in this passage evidently cannot be to David. Micah, as both the title and the contents of the book prove, prophesied in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; that is, about two hundred and sixty years after the reign of David. Nor can the reference in this passage be to any of the royal descendants and successors of David. Josiah was the only one of any note among them, who filled the throne after the days of Micah. It is evident, however, that he is not meant; the description does not suit him, nor was he born in Bethlehem, but in Jerusalem. There is no one then to whom this prophecy can be legitimately applied, but to that Great King, the Messiah, whom God, in later times, was to set upon the throne of Israel. The description here given of the character of this extraordinary Sovereign, also limits the application of the passage to the Messiah: “His goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Such language, which can in no case be applied to mere mortals, is precisely such as is applied in many other passages of Scripture to the Messiah. There is a sublimity, a greatness, a sort of prophetic obscurity in language of this kind, which at once indicates the person to whom it is to be referred, and marks out, as with the light of sunbeams, the extraordinary character both of his nature and office. The ancient Jews also uniformly applied this passage to the Messiah. When a number of them were almost persuaded that Jesus was the Christ, others said, “Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” John 7:47. The objection here raised, was to the supposed fact that Jesus was born at Nazareth in Galilee. The very objection however proves that Bethlehem was to be the birth-place of the Messiah.
We have, however, not simply the opinion of the multitude on this subject. The Sanhedrim, the highest court formerly of the Jewish nation, expressed the same sentiment. Herod, alarmed at the visit of certain Eastern Magi, who had come to Jerusalem to inquire after him “who was born king of the Jews,” instituted the inquiry before this celebrated council, “where Christ was to be born?” The answer given was, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for thus it is written by the prophet: “And thou, Bethlehem in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my’ people Israel.” Matthew 2:5; Matthew 2:6 This is decisive. The very text itself is used by the Jewish Rulers and Rabbins, to prove the birth-place of the Messiah.
If then this passage have reference to the Messiah, it is perfectly clear, where that Messiah must be born; not at Jerusalem — not at Nazareth — not at Hebron or Capernaum — but in Bethlehem. Nor would any place by the name of Bethlehem answer the purpose. It must be Bethlehem Ephratah; that is, Bethlehem in the land of Judah, as distinguished from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun. Any other birthplace, therefore, than that of Bethlehem of Judah, would destroy all other evidence of one’s being the Messiah. Where then was Jesus of Nazareth born? And here, we cannot but admire that overruling providence of God, which employs, not only various, but often apparently contradictory means, to effect its purposes. Joseph and Mary had been living at Nazareth, a town in Galilee. It was in this town they had seen their extraordinary visions. It was in this town they had loved, had wedded. Nor had the visiting angel informed them, that Bethlehem must be the birth-place of the predicted child. Nor did Joseph and Mary seem at all to suppose that the birth of their son, occurring at Nazareth, would vitiate his claims to Messiahship.
Probably the passage in Micah had escaped their notice, or they had forgotten it. Of themselves, there is not the least probability, that they would have visited Bethlehem. The distance was considerable, and the condition of Mary unsuited to the fatigues of travel. But He who has ordained the end, has also ordained the means. God never forgets a promise, or overlooks a word he has spoken. Caesar Augustus, ignorant alike of prophecy and of the Messiah, having no knowledge of the Divine decrees, nor any intention to fulfill them — holding, it may be, the whole nation of the Jews in contempt, and believing not a word of all their sacred writings — this distant, and proud Emperor is made to fulfill a prophecy, of whose very existence he was entirely ignorant. Either to gratify his vanity, or to fix a regular rate of taxation, the Emperor issues a decree, “that all the world should be taxed;” that is, enrolled. To accomplish this, it was necessary for each Jew to report himself in his own tribe and town. This edict, so unexpectedly issued, brings Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem, just at the time when Mary was about to be delivered of her extraordinary son! Thus the birth of Jesus, which, under ordinary circumstances would have occurred at Nazareth, was made to happen at Bethlehem, according to the prediction of the prophet Micah, many centuries previously. But what evidence have we that Jesus was really born at Bethlehem? To satisfy ourselves on this point, we must consult the testimony given us by the two evangelists, Matthew and Luke. The statement of the latter is the following: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And all went to be taxed, every one to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) to be taxed, with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country, shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone about them; and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not; for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men. And it came to pass as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord has made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it, wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.” Luke 2:1-18. The narrative of Matthew is the following: “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 are come to worship him. When Herod the King had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them, where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child, and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they had heard the king they departed; and lo, the star which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and. fell down and worshipped him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream, that they should not return to Herod, they departed unto their own country another way.”
Matthew 2:1-12. From these narratives, we infer the following facts concerning the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem. The decree of the Emperor Augustus, was the palpable reason of the visit of Joseph and Mary to that town. Owing probably to the situation of Mary, their arrival was late. The best accommodations, as is usual where great crowds collect, had already been engaged and occupied. Joseph and Mary are, therefore, compelled to take that part of the caravansary, or inn, which, according to Eastern custom, is occupied jointly by men and cattle. The birth occurs probably, the very night of their arrival; at any rate but a short time afterwards. It was the very night of the birth, and while Joseph and Mary were still occupying their humble lodgings, that the shepherds paid to the infant stranger their remarkable visit. Not long after this, Joseph and Mary are removed to a comfortable house. Either the dispersion of this crowd gave them more room, or the visit of the shepherds brought them into higher notice.
Shortly after this removal, the visit of the eastern Magi occurred, who, “when they were come unto the house, saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him.” This again was soon followed by the descent into Egypt, and the bloody work of Herod, in slaughtering all the babes in Bethlehem and its coasts, in order to destroy in the mass, the infant King of the Jews. In reference to the evidence which these narratives afford, that Jesus of Nazareth was born at Bethlehem, I offer the two following remarks. It is in the first place, not at all probable, that the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem is a mere invention of the Evangelists. True, these Evangelists must have known, that had Jesus been born at Nazareth, and not at Bethlehem, this one fact must have invalidated greatly, all their testimony to his Messiahship. Still, however, it was impossible for them to have transferred his birth from Nazareth to Bethlehem, had he not really been born in the latter town. It may be difficult in the earliest ages of society, to determine the birth-place of distinguished men. Thus, seven towns of ancient Greece, contended for the honor of having given birth to Homer. No such difficulty, however, exists in a more polished and literary age.
How impossible would it be, for instance, for any historian of the present age, to establish the birth of Napoleon at Paris, or that of Washington at New York! The undertaking would be ridiculed; and the author who should attempt such an imposition upon the credulity of an enlightened age, would destroy the reputation of both himself and his work in the attempt. Similarly situated were the two biographers of Jesus. They lived in the Augustan age of Roman literature. Jesus too was a man so famed for his doctrines and mighty works, as to attract general attention. How absurd, then, must have been the attempt of these men, to prove that he was born at Bethlehem, had he really been born at Nazareth, or elsewhere! The undertaking would have been hazardous to themselves, and ruinous to their work. Nor can we, in the second place, suppose the Evangelists to have been deceived, as to the true birth-place of Jesus. So did Providence order events, as to give great publicity to his birth at Bethlehem. The decree of Augustus, the visit of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem to be taxed, the testimony of the shepherds, the unusual appearance at that time of the eastern Magi in the town, the subsequent slaughter of the infants — these were all facts of so very public a nature, as to leave no doubt whatever, concerning the true birth-place of this remarkable personage. Indeed, if it be not proved by these things that Jesus was born in Bethlehem-Judah, then can we establish the birth-place of no one whatever. We have the testimony of his own biographers, the testimony of his parents, the testimony of the shepherds, of the Magi, indeed the testimony of the age in which he lived; for no one in all that age has even started the doubt, that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem- Judah. The testimony, therefore, given by the Evangelists to the true birth-place of Jesus is both reasonable and credible. It is such as if given by any other historians, in reference to the birth-place of any other distinguished individual, would not be questioned. We are, therefore, bound to receive it. In receiving it, however, we admit another proof, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. Micah had predicted, ages before, that “the Ruler of Israel” the Messiah, was to come forth of Bethlehem-Judah. The Evangelists show to a demonstration, that Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in that very town. In this particular, therefore, does the history of Jesus, accord with the ancient predictions concerning the Messiah. And if all other parts of his history shall agree as well with those predictions, then may Jew and Gentile, yea, angels and men, unite in the song, “Glory to God in the highest; on earth peace, good will towards men;” for “unto us has been born in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ, the Lord.”