Since there was a baby on the way, of course Mary stayed on at the home of Zacharias and Elisabeth until he was born and, no doubt, until the time of his naming and circumcision. It is impossible to think otherwise.

The birth of a baby is always a time of great rejoicing, and on this occasion it was specially so, for was he not a child of old age, as Isaac had been? Also, it would be surprising if Zacharias and Elisabeth had kept entirely to themselves the burden of Gabriel’s prophecy concerning the child. Their friends “heard that the Lord had magnified his mercy towards her.” Once again the word “mercy”, which has such frequent association with the covenants of promise, is used here as meaning: “God had kept His promise”, the promise of the birth of a son, together with a clear token that he was to help forward the fulfilment of the Covenants.

His Name?

It was natural enough to expect that the baby’s name would be Zacharias, both for family reasons and also to commemorate the old priest’s unique experience in the temple. Besides, what could be more appropriate to a child of old age than a name meaning “Remembered by Jehovah”?

So it was all settled, until Elisabeth startled them, the men as well as the women, by interrupting the usual circumcision prayer: “Blessed be the Lord our God who hath sanctified us by his precepts, and hath commanded us to enter the child into the covenant of Abraham our father” (hence v.73). She insisted: ‘His name must be John’. This created universal surprise, not only that the mother of the baby should assert herself in the presence of the men assembled there, but also because that name did not run in the family — not within living memory.

Reference to Zacharias soon settled the question. That poor old man, deaf and dumb, incommunicado, had been left out of the lively discussion. Now they incoherently tried to put the issue before him, and after a while, helped by Elisabeth no doubt, their meaning went home. With a gesture he signified his need for writing materials. As they all looked on expectantly Zacharias wrote: “John is his name.” Thus the last written word of the O.T.-”curse”-was foil owed at long last by the first written word of the NT. -”John”, the blessing or grace of the Lord. It is perhaps worth noting here, also, that the Old Testament, starting from Eden, and ending with “curse”, is written in Hebrew from right to left. But the New Testament is in Greek from left to right, and ends with Paradise restored.

Even as all present marvelled over this act of Zacharias, the ejaculations of surprise were reduced to an awe-stricken astonishment when the old priest broke his long silence, first by saying the words as well, and then by reciting the circumcision prayer himself. Probably he followed this with a sonorous psalm of praise to God, thanking Him for the encouragement of faith which the birth of the infant John afforded. There is parable here. Without faith (v.20) the man of Law is deaf and dumb. With faith he praises God and celebrates redemption through His Messiah, the fulfilment of the great promises to Abraham and David (allusions to these in v. 69,72,73,78).

A Psalm with Pattern

It is not certain whether Zacharias was led to utter his Benedictus at the circumcision ceremony or in later days to John (v.76,80) when, as a growing boy, he began to show exceptional promise.

But certainly, this psalm has many singular features. It is so intensely Hebraistic in form and phrasing as to encourage belief that it was originally spoken in Hebrew. Also, Bullinger draws attention to its remarkable structure:

This repetition with introversion is an impressive device for emphasizing the salient ideas in the psalm. But is it conceivable that Zacharias planned it this way? Here, surely is a watermark of inspiration. The altogether unacceptable alternative, coined by the critics, is that this psalm is Luke’s composition, representing what he thought Zacharias might have said. This is vetoed by the evident priestly character of the language, so appropriate to Zacharias, so inappropriate to Luke the physician. For example:

• The copious quotations from and allusions to the Book of Psalms.
• The word “serve” (v.74) means “serve as a priest”.
• “Holiness… righteousness” (v. 75).
• “The remission of sins” (v.77).
• “Dayspring” (v.78) means also “Branch”; and without doubt besides the first meaning Zacharias intended reference to the King-Priest prophecies in Zech. 6:12; 3:8; Jer. 23:5 (“visited” v.2).

Would such a man as Luke have composed a psalm with such characteristics as these?

Personal Allusions

The next thing to be observed is the relatively small place given here to personal references. Since John was a child of promise, born in most exceptional circumstances, and since Zacharias himself was a living witness to the miraculous power at work in this family, it would be natural to expect a good deal of stress on these phenomena. But is it there? There is the apostrophe to the week-old child: “Thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord (cp. v.43) to prepare his ways” (v.76). To the English reader this is all.

But there is traceable also a delightful play on the names of this God-centred family: “To perform the mercy promised to our fathers (John means “Mercy or grace of the lord”), and to remember his holy covenant (this is “Zacharias”); the oath which he sware to our father Abraham (Elisabeth means “God sware).” In this lovely fashion the intense personal emotions of the participants are kept subject to the grander theme of redemption which the work of John was to inaugurate.

The Main Ideas

The development of ideas is very simple. First, the “salvation” theme is concisely expressed: “He hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David” (v.68,69), not a horn of destruction and desolation such as the Book of Daniel specialises in. This is explicitly stated to be according to “the holy prophets which have been since the world began” (v.70). The first to be designated “prophet” in the Old Testament was Abraham! (v.73; Gen. 20:7; Ps. 105:15). What an entail John was heir to!

Next, the ultimate blessings of this glorious divine purpose are given at length in a succession of Old Testament scriptures. It is worth while to spend a little time considering these.

“God hath visited and redeemed his people.” This is the language of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Ex. 3:16; 4:31). But now Zacharias looked forward to a mightier deliverance, the work of a greater than Moses. The word “redeemed” might have either of two Hebrew words at the back of it-one which .signifies “delivered”, as by Moses from Egypt, and the other which describes redemption from sin by sacrifice (as in Heb. 9:12). Either is appropriate here.

Redemption

“He hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David.” In the Old Testament the horn is often a symbol of strength. This and mention of the house of David might well set the reader thinking of a Messianic King- El Gibbor. But “the house of David” may mean the house which David purposed to build for God and which God promised to build for him. A careful pondering of that familar prophecy (2 Sam. 7:5,11,13) will make clear that it envisages a temple composed of dedicated people.

Psalm 132 celebrated David’s bringing of the ark to Zion and his great project to erect a temple “exceeding magnifical” on Mount Moriah: “There will I make the horn of David to bud (or, sprout, shoot up)”. This comes in a context which has six separate allusions to the tabernacle. It is understandable that the mind of Zacharias the priest should run on such a theme as this.

What did he mean when he spoke of being “saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us”? These are the words of a man with the discernment to see that all the woes and hardships which had come and were yet to come upon Israel were the inevitable consequences of the nation’s lack of loyalty to God and His law: “But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee” (Dt. 28:15). These things were already in train. Now only the Messiah could save Israel from dire and lamentable trouble. So Zacharias repeated this deep personal conviction (verses 74,75), but this time in the form of a prayer that God would fulfil the wondrous promises made to the Fathers (verses 72,73; Gen. 22:16-18)-a covenant which meant the forgiveness of sins and hence salvation from enemies of every sort.

John and Messiah

The great work of Zacharias’ new-born son-a role in which the old man gloried as he contemplated it-was that of heralding the salvation which Messiah was destined to bring: “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord (cp. v. 17) to prepare his way”. With this quotation of familiar words from Malachi’s prophecy of the Messiah (3:1) Zacharias expressed his understanding that his son would be the spear-head of a great reforming appeal addressed to the wayward nation. Only thus could they be given “knowledge of salvation-by-the-remission-of-their-sins.”

One of Isaiah’s fine Messianic anticipations was now woven into this theme of salvation: “The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shine” (Is. 9:2). But instead of Isaiah’s phrase: “a great light,” this psalm and prophecy has another fine Old Testament expression: “the dayspring from on high”. There is a lovely double meaning here, for this word means, firstly, the dawn (this is Mal. 4:1; the sun of righteousness rising with healing in his wings), and secondly, the Branch. It is the Jeremiah prophecy about the King whose name is “The Lord our Righteousness” (Jer. 23:5) to which Zacharias specially alluded, for that has the word “visited” in its context.

The climactic phrase is: “to guide our feet into the way of peace”. In Jeremiah 23:8 this guidance is to bring Israel back to their own land. But here the words go far beyond the idea of a physical return, for in the Old Testament the dominant association of “peace” is certainly that of peace with God (Mal. 2:6). How happy Zacharias must have been to contemplate the association of this son of his with such a transforming work.

The Effect on the People

However little this inspired utterance was understood by those present, they were put in awe and expectation by what they heard. “And all these sayings were noised abroad”. The birth of John, the sudden dumbness and deafness of Zacharias and his equally sudden recovery, were marvels enough. But his prophetic utterance on this occasion dwarfed all the rest in its impressiveness. So “all these sayings were noised abroad”, for they told of the imminence of Messiah’s coming. Already the nation was being prepared. Many “laid these things up in their hearts” (cp. 2:19,51); and inevitably this miraculously-born son was under public notice from his earliest days: “What manner of child shall this be?”

As the years went by and John grew towards maturity his powers and character gave further ground for expectation: “for also the hand of the Lord was with him.” This is the Old Testament phrase for inspiration. “He was constantly held, or controlled, by the Spirit” (verse 80 should probably be read this way). Under this guidance he forsook his early training as a priest, and went into isolation.

“In the Deserts”

In recent years it has become fashionable to picture John as attached to the ascetic community of Khumran, the home of the Dead Sea scrolls, or with some similar movement. But those who have read with care the catalogue of spiritual futilities which that Essene sect went in for will recognize that a tough, wholesome, virile mind such as John’s would have no truck with that kind of thing.

But it would also be a mistake to think of him as living the entirely solitary life of a hermit. For the work that lay before him he needed a mastery of the Old Testament scriptures, and he needed also a facility in teaching. The lonely life would certainly provide the first of these, but only experience could train him for the other. So it is probably more correct to read the words: “He was in the deserts”, as meaning that he kept away from the centres of population and devoted himself to some small rural community where life was rough and exacting but where unsophisticated faith was to be found and instructed.

Notes: Luke 1:56-80

Certainly the oldest church tradition—for what it is worth-makes December 25th the day of the Lord’s birth. But is it likely that at that time of the year shepherds would be “abiding in the fields” throughout the night with their flocks? There is also the somewhat suspicious circumstance that December 25th is an old pagan feast. All through the autumn months the day gets shorter and shorter, and the sun at its zenith is lower and lower in the sky. This continues right up to December 21. But in ancient times men without means of exact measurement would not be able to detect the renewed lengthening of daylight until some days later. Thus December 25 became an ancient celebration of the return of the sun heralding the seasons of warmth and fruitfulness.

“The customary date of 25 December cannot be traced further back than the fourth century and is almost certainly an example of the church taking over and ‘baptizing’ an old pagan festival-in this case the winter solstice and the return of the sun” (The Path to Glory; Moorman, Bp. of Ripon).

It is not difficult to see how the church justified this date for the celebration of the birth of Christ. When Zacharias had his revelation from Gabriel in the temple, “the whole multitude of the people were praying without”. The phrase implies one of the great feasts when a specially large throng of worshippers assembled in the temple court. This was assumed to be the Day of Atonement (which it could not possibly have been) or one of the days of the Feast of Tabernacles in the third week of the seventh month. As the table given here shews, this leads to a date in December or early January for the birth of Jesus. Then what more convenient than to appropriate what was already an established feast-day and make that the Nativity of the Lord?

John was born six months before Jesus (Lk. 1:26)

This, according to the last column of the table, leads to the fourth month in the Jewish year as the time of the conception of John. Since this comes soon after the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), it seems likely that this was the feast when Zacharias was officiating in the temple. The birth of John would then fall in the first month. As already mentioned (Study 3), according to Cyril of Alexandria the church of that city used to celebrate the birth of John on April 23, a date which harmonizes closely with what has just been suggested.

So whilst there is not much evidence one way or the other, it does seem more likely that Jesus was born about the end of September. And if December 25 was the date of the conception, not of the birth, of Jesus, this would lead to the same conclusion.

It is suggested here that very probably Jesus was born at the Feast of Tabernacles. The Roman census was bound to be extremely unpopular with the Jews. So presumably the requirement that every man should go to the city with which his family was historically associated was an attempt to dress up the census in Jewish garb. This movement about the country would inevitably cause considerable dislocation of normal life and would only be possible (as well as acceptable to the people) at a slack time in the agricultural year when the people were on holiday. For this purpose the Feast of Tabernacles, after the in-gathering of the last of the harvests, or the week immediately after that, would almost certainly be the most suitable. Also, this, far better than late December, would be a good time for travelling. Is John giving a hint about the birth of Jesus when he says: “The Word was born flesh, and tabernacled among us” (1:14)?

When the great promise of God came to David, he must have been sorely perplexed by what seemed to be an inherent contradiction in it: “I will set up thy seed after thee which shall proceed out of thy bowels… I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (2 Sam. 7:12-14). The two sections of Matthew 1 resolve this in a way David could hardly have foreseen. The genealogy established descent from David. The rest of the chapter shews how Messiah is also, quite literally, Son of God.

Mary’s husband-to-be was a poor man. This can be readily inferred from the kind of offering that was made when the baby Jesus was presented before the Lord in the temple (Lk. 2:24; Lev. 12:8). Probably, too, it was a struggle for a livelihood which had taken him, or an earlier generation, to Nazareth, for it may be taken as fairly certain that, if possible, the heirs to the throne of David would remain in Bethlehem, David’s city.

It is not clear how Joseph came to know that Mary was pregnant. One guesses that it was disclosed to him by her mother after her return from the home of Elisabeth-”she was found with child” (v.18). Here was an unpleasant problem to resolve. Joseph was a good man, and not merely “just” in the technical Law-of-Moses sense of being one who faithfully observed all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord. This may be taken as certain, for was he not chosen by God to represent to Jesus in his earliest formative years the meaning of the word “Father”?

He had to make up his mind whether or not he should “put her away”, that is, divorce her, for, unlike a modern engagement, among the Jews this betrothal reckoned as a legal tie between man and woman. “From the moment of betrothal a woman was treated as actually married. The union could not be dissolved except by regular divorce; breach of faithfulness was regarded as adultery, and the property of the woman became virtually that of her betrothed” (Edersheim). It is for this reason that he is referred to as “her husband”, and she as “thy wife” (Mt. 1:19,20). Indeed, it did often happen that without any formal marriage ceremony the two came together as man and wife, the betrothal being regarded as the marriage. This was the way it worked out with Joseph and Mary, as the record proceeds to shew (v. 24).

With great delicacy the record leaves a lot of questions unanswered. When did Joseph learn of Mary’s condition? Did she explain to him? If she did, was he able to believe it? In any case, why was he unwilling to continue their marriage (consider Hosea 3:1-3)?

It would seem that Joseph had decided on what today would be called a separation-a quite remarkable decision, committing him (most probably) to continue unmarried for life, and also bringing to an end his branch of the family of David. This to save Mary from being “a public example”. The alternative would be the quietest form of divorce allowed by the rabbis- before two witnesses only.

Help from Heaven

However, Joseph was not given to precipitate action. He had come to his decision, but was still turning over in his mind how best, for Mary’s good, he should implement it, when there came a revelation from heaven (Gabriel again, surely). And this put the whole thing in a completely different light.

“Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” How reassuring this would be to his troubled mind, for he feared offending his God and he feared public opinion. This latter would be an important consideration, for Joseph would have in mind his position as heir to the throne of David. Hence the angel’s first words: ‘‘Fear not…”

The child to be born was not to be Joseph’s son (contrast Gabriel’s words to Zacharias: “Thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son”); nevertheless he was to be acknowledged as though Joseph’s own: “Thou shalt call his name Jesus.” and thus it came about in later years that the ordinary people knew Jesus as the son of the carpenter in Nazareth (Lk. 2:48; 4:22; Jn.6: 42).

The next words of the angel lifted the soul of Joseph from wretchedness and perplexity to a level of profound spiritual exaltation: “He shall save his people from their sins.” In the text the emphatic pronoun seems to imply: ‘he, and no one else, shall do this’. Time after time in ancient days God had raised up a saviour for Israel (Judges 3:9), but these were men who fought and routed physical enemies and saved the kingdom of the Lord from invasion and oppression. But the Scriptures foretold God’s provision of a greater Saviour: “He shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities” (Ps. 130:8); and “not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles; as he saith in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people” (Rom. 9:24,25). The use of “people” (loos) in these passages points to a New Israel dependent not on circumcision but on Baptism and the Breaking of Bread “for the remission of sins” in Christ (Acts 2:38; Mt.26:28). The use of the pronoun in “Immanuel” confirms this. In the prototype “us” meant the faithful remnant, the true Israel: “Unto us a child is born” (Is. 8:10; 9:6). Now it means the New Israel, including believing Gentiles (Mt. 28:19).

The Immanuel Prophecy

These wonderful truths, very concisely put in Matthew’s record, were no doubt explained at greater length by the angel, it is more than likely that Isaiah’s famous prophecy about the birth of the Messiah was quoted by him. But in any case, on waking, the mind of a devout man like Joseph would quickly recall, with fuller understanding, that “which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” There is so much, both of importance and difficulty, attaching to this Scripture that it would not be amiss to spend some time considering it.

A careful reading of Isaiah 7 makes it fairly evident that the prophecy, like so many other Messianic prophecies, had a primary reference to Isaiah’s own day. Ahaz, king of Judah, was making frantic preparations to stave off an invasion by the confederate kings of Syria and Israel. “If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established”, reproved the prophet, making effective play on the sound of the Hebrew phrases: “No belief, no relief!” Then, as always, deliverance could only be on the basis of one abiding God-honouring principle: Salvation by faith.

So the king was encouraged to ask for a sign concerning the Messiah, the point being that if God renewed His promise of a king who should sit on David’s throne, reigning for ever, no imminent overthrow of the kingdom need be feared.

“Ask in the depth, or in the height above.” There are three different ways of interpreting this enigmatic expression:

• It is an idiom for the Messiah, who is to be of human and divine origin (2 Sam. 7:12,14; Gen. 49:25; Prov. 30:4; Deut. 30:12; 33:13; Is. 45:8; Gen. 27:28; 22:17; Zech. 8:12).
• Ask a sign from Isaiah, a prophet living in “the valley of vision” (Kidron valley) — “the depth”; or ask a sign of divine manifestation in the temple, “the height”.
• Allusion to a spring of water originating in the temple area, close to the place of sacrifice, and flowing out via the Virgin’s Fountain to En Rogel where the kings were crowned.

After his public desecration of the temple of Israel, Ahaz was not prepared to make a public recantation. “I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord”, said he hypocritically. But a sign was given nevertheless: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (7:14).

A good deal of argument has taken place about this Hebrew word almah. Does it mean “virgin”, or merely “a young woman of marriageable age”? All the other occurrences of this word seem to require the former meaning. Also, it is very remarkable that the Septuagint translators, doing their work long after the time of Isaiah and also long before the time of Jesus, chose to translate it by a Greek word which certainly means “virgin”. Over against this is the interesting fact that the versions of the Old Testament in Greek made by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus all read “young woman”. But these translators were all Jews or Jewish proselytes after the time of Christ, so they all had a large doctrinal axe to grind!

It is suggested here that in the first instance Isaiah alluded to the young queen elect of king Ahaz, actually present with him when the words were heard. The child who was born in due time was Hezekiah, who deserved the name “God is with us” more than any other king since David (2 Kgs. 18:7; 2 Chr. 32:8). Hezekiah is almost certainly the basis of the other outstanding Messiah prophecies in Isaiah—with great appropriateness since in so many remarkable details he was a most impressive type of Christ. Most probably, when Isaiah was making his prophecies concerning Hezekiah, he knew that he spoke also about the Messiah.

Here, as happens with so many other prophecies of the Old Testament, the proximate fulfilment matched the words only approximately (the words “virgin” and “Immanuel” especially!), whilst the application to Christ is exact. (In the rest of Isaiah the reverse appears to be the case.)

Variations in the Text

There are certain interesting variations in the different versions of this passage. The Hebrew text has: “she shall call his name Immanuel”, which implies a contravention of the normal Jewish usage that the father decided the name of the child! (see Study 6) This supports the idea that Isaiah’s prophecy intended a reference to a virgin, there being no human father to pronounce the child’s name. At the same time, the true father of this divine child did assign the name in the pronouncements made by the angel separately to Mary and to Joseph, and more publicly later at his baptism.

When Matthew quotes the prophecy he makes a deliberate variation: “and they shall call his name Immanuel.” Fairly evidently the allusion here is to the “us” in the Immanuel name, those who depend on this God-given Saviour for help which can come from no other.

With what gladness do they hail him as Immanuel. Perhaps also Matthew intends his readers to see the mother of the child as a type of the faithful remnant rejoicing in Immanuel, whilst Ahaz is a figure of the faithless nation which has constantly tempted the Lord their God by an unbelief and self-dependence bringing them no lasting peace.

All this, Matthew is also careful to stress, was “in order that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet”. But of course the main intention behind the Virgin Birth was not simply to provide a striking fulfilment of prophecy. Here the great redeeming Purpose of God was taking an impressive step forward. Matthew’s “in order that” is only his way of emphasizing this important truth.

Prompt Obedience

Joseph, faced with the problem of his wife’s pregnancy, had been cautious, considerate, and unhurried. But once he knew the mind of God on this, as revealed by the angel and confirmed by Holy Scripture, in glad relief he lost no time in giving ready obedience: “Being raised from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had bidden” (cp. 2:14,21)-and what a relief this must have been to Mary! Even God provides things honest in the sight of all men! That immediate response by Joseph invites comparison with the prompt obedience of Abraham who “rose up early in the morning” and set out without delay for mount Moriah and the offering up of his only son (Gen. 22:3).

In this experience of Joseph is exemplified the power of Christ (even before he was born) to win men from doubt to faith. John the Baptist, bewildered and uncertain in prison, the two crucified malefactors, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, the twelve (Peter especially) constantly swithering between loyalty and puzzled uncertainty-these are other examples recorded to illustrate to men who will read about him how Christ has the power to lift them out of their chronic weakness of doubt into the satisfying confidence of faith.

The Brothers of Jesus

Matthew reverently adds a further significant fact to what he has already told. Joseph, quietly but unhesitatingly receiving Mary as his wife, “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son.” The problem of the parentage of the other children in the family of Joseph-there were four brothers and at least three sinters (Mt. 13:55,56) has often been discussed. There are two possibilities: either they were the children of Joseph by an earlier marriage, or they were Mary’s children, born after Jesus.

The first of these, conjectured out of a mistaken reverence for Mary, is to be rejected, not because it is the standard Roman Catholic interpretation, but because there is no Bible evidence in support of it. On the other hand several arguments seem to require acceptance of the alternative view.

1. The word “until” in the passage just quoted seems to imply pointedly a normal married life after Jesus was born. However this by itself could hardly be regarded as decisive, for in the Bible “until” does not always carry this implication. But there is also the word “firstborn” which would be altogether pointless if Mary had no other children. (See the strong implication behind “firstborn” in Col. 1:18; Rom. 8:29). The usual rejoinder here is that the Vatican manuscript and several fourth-century fathers omit “firstborn”. This evidence can hardly be regarded as satisfactory, for Codex B is often guilty of unwarranted omissions in its text of the gospels. And these “fathers” all belonged to a period when an excessive reverence for Mary and reprobation of a normal sex life were dominating the church.

2. The Greek imperfect tense in “knew her not” would be quite inappropriate if the Catholic view is correct. It would need to be aorist.

3. If the rest of the family were Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage, then the genealogy of Matthew 1 should end with James, and not with Jesus, for Joseph’s firstborn would be the one who then had the right to the throne of David. ,

4. The Greek text of Matthew 12:46 clearly implies the reading: “his mother-and-brethren.”

5. For those who accept Psalm 69 (and not just a few verses of it), as Messianic, verse 8 there is decisive: “I am become a stranger unto my’ brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.”

It is perhaps worthwhile at this point to consider how carefully and suitably this beginning of Mary’s family was planned by divine wisdom. Suppose, for example, she had been betrothed to no-one or that conception had taken place before her betrothal to Joseph. Then what provocation there would have been! not only for gossip but also for the sanctions of the Law of Moses to operate? Or, if conception had taken place after marriage, then the child would certainly be assumed to be Joseph’s, and no evidence available to the contrary. Again, suppose Mary betrothed to a man not of the line of David, then his putative son Jesus would have no legal right to the throne of David.

Thus, from every angle, there was divine imperative and divine contrivance about the birth of Jesus, the Son of God. “All this was done in order that (the prophecy) might be fulfilled.” “It behoved the Christ” (Lk. 24:46) to fulfil all of this prophecy — a virgin pregnant, a male child, his name, and its meaning.

Notes: Matthew 1:18-25

At about the age of thirty Jesus came to John for baptism. It was the age when a Levite was allowed to begin service in the temple (Nu. 4:3), the age when Joseph began his great work in Egypt (Gen. 41:46), the age when David began to reign (2 Sam. 5:4). So now Jesus made the journey from Nazareth in Galilee specifically for the formal beginning of his public life. (For Bethabara, see Study 19).

John’s Reluctance

At first the Baptist sought to deter Jesus from his intention (cp. Jn. 13: 6), for almost at once he knew Jesus to be a man of far higher holiness than himself: “I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?” How did John know this? In spite of their blood relationship, he and Jesus had grown up apart, as complete strangers. It is not even possible to postulate that they may have met from time to time, for later on John told the Pharisees: “I knew him not’ (Jn. 1: 31).

It would require no time at all for John to recognize the superior quality of Jesus. Those who came to John were not baptized indiscriminately, but only after the Baptist’s interrogation of them had satisfied him as to their sincerity and proper appreciation of what the rite involved (Mt. 3: 7). The apostle Peter makes reference to a similar practice in the early church when he alludes to baptism as the “interrogation of a good understanding” (1 Pet. 3: 21; and note the allusions to a ‘statement of faith’ in v. 18,22). All who came to John made confession of their sins also-all, that is, except Jesus, and this without any hypocrisy. So even before the sign of the Holy Spirit was given John knew that this was the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world. “I have need to be baptized of thee”, he declared very emphatically. The words seem to imply that John had not been baptized as yet-waiting for Messiah to come and baptize him? And now Messiah was here. So it seems not improbable that when the two men went down into the waters of Jordan they baptized each other. More than this, one day Jesus will baptize John in the fire of the holy Spirit to an extent far surpassing anything he experienced in the days of his mortal service.

Why should Jesus be baptized?

John’s discouragement was quietly but firmly set aside: “Suffer it to be so now”, for now the status of Jesus was that of a son of Adam. It was a tacit acceptance of the correctness of John’s attitude, but yet Jesus insisted on the need for this baptism: “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” The commentators are altogether baffled by these words and by the acceptance of baptism by Jesus. One after another they make it a fulfilling of the Law of Moses. But John’s baptism was no part of the Law. In fact, it proclaimed the inadequacy of the Law. And a man of outstanding scholarship like Farrar makes no less than four separate attempts to explain why Jesus should be baptized at all, and misses the mark badly every time.

The word “us”, used by Jesus, supplies the key to a better understanding. It does not refer to Jesus and John, but to Jesus and the rest who were similarly being baptized. This is made certain, if any confirmation is necessary, by Luke’s phrases: “when all the people were baptized”, or, possibly, “during the baptizing of all the people. . . Jesus also”. By this act, then, Jesus associated himself openly with the sinners he came to save. By it he proclaimed the essential one-ness of his nature with theirs. He too needed this baptism, inasmuch as he also was a member of this fallen race needing redemption. It was an acknowledgement that the great truth taught by John: “all flesh is grass”, applied to him also. He needed the benefits of his own sacrifice. Now, as well as at the end of the days of his flesh, he was “numbered with the transgressors” (Is. 53: 12). Perhaps there is more symbolism in Mark’s mention of Jesus coming to John from “Nazareth of Galilee”, for both the town and the district had no reputation at all (Jn. 1: 46; 7: 41; 1 Kgs. 9: 11-13). By this act of baptism Jesus fulfilled all righteousness, for here was the outward symbol of his own death and resurrection. It summed up all his redeeming work.

Every Detail Symbolic

It is not easy to see why the gospels should emphasize that after baptism Jesus went up straightway out of the water. This could surely be taken for granted as a perfectly normal and natural thing. Is the detail mentioned as foreshadowing his own resurrection — an immediate leaving behind of mortality and immediate experience of Holy Spirit power and heavenly blessing?

If this inference can be pressed, then what of the further detail given by Luke that forthwith Jesus was seen to be praying continuously? Does this similarly foreshadow the priestly intercession which became his high responsibility from the time of his resurrection? In that case, it should be possible to infer that the baptismal prayer of Jesus was not primarily for himself as he now embarked on the great work of his life, but for those to whom he would minister the grace of God.

As Jesus emerged from the water, the heavens were opened (Mark’s word means “split”) and a dove came out of the sky and rested on him. It was a very remarkable happening, introduced by Matthew with his characteristic underlining: “Behold!” Some have assumed that all this was a subjective experience, with no actual phenomenon in the heavens, no literal dove, and no audible voice. This is an incorrect inference from Matthew’s words: “there appeared unto him”, for later, John stated explicitly: “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven, and it abode upon him … he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1: 32,33); and Luke’s phrase is: “in bodily shape like a dove.”

The Dove

It seems probable, then, that a dove did actually alight upon Jesus, but the meaning of this was understood only by him and by John. The voice of approval speaking to Jesus was also heard and understood by none except themselves. Bystanders probably heard it as a mighty roll of thunder, as on another later occasion (Jn. 12: 29). This suggests the possibility of a sudden thunderstorm. The heavens were “split” by an intense flash of lightning, the Voice of the Lord spoke in thunder (Ps. 18: 13; 29: 3), and the windows of heaven poured forth their blessing. If disciples were to be baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire-and this happened at Pentecost-is it conceivable that there was no such baptism for Jesus? The servant is not greater than his Master.

The voice from heaven was what Israel at Sinai had frenetically demanded should be reserved for Moses’ experience. They would have none of it. So this voice at Jordan identified Jesus as the promised Prophet like unto Moses (Dt. 18: 15-19).

A prophecy in Malachi which foretells the work of both John and Jesus has this also: “Prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing — and not just enough” (3: 10). The words seem to be appropriate to the baptism of Jesus also, for the apostle John’s comment, with evident allusion to this passage, is: “God gave not the Spirit by measure unto him” — not just enough!

The “bodily form” of a dove as a symbol of the Holy Spirit was probably intended to associate the beginning of the Lord’s public ministry with other Old Testament Scriptures. Psalm 91 was most likely written, in the first instance, with reference to Joshua. Now it had further application to another Joshua. “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. . . He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler” (v.1, 4).

Again the sending forth of first a raven and then a dove from the ark (Gen. 8: 7-12) may have its parallel in the work of John and Jesus for the inauguration of a New Creation (Is. 54: 9). Peter saw the likeness, and associated Noah’s Flood with baptism and the new life in Christ: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (as in leprosy washing; Lev. 14: 9), but the interrogation of a good understanding God-ward, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3: 21).

The Voice from Heaven

In later days the apostles also saw this twofold baptism of Jesus as declaring him to be the Messiah: “That word, I say, ye know. . . how that God anointed (Christ-ed) Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power” (Acts 10: 38). Since the Holy Spirit is the finger of God (Study 75; Mt.12: 28; Lk. 11: 20), by this power with which Jesus was now endowed God was pointing him out as the promised Christ. This was a better anointing than Aaron received (Lev.8: 12).

The voice from heaven, understood only by John and Jesus, said this even more emphatically: “Thou art my Son, the Beloved; in thee I am well pleased.” The opening phrase is the familiar declaration of Psalm 2 vindicating the Christ when human rulers turn “against the Lord and against his anointed” (v.2).

“The Beloved” is the equivalent of John’s favourite phrase “the only-begotten Son”. It is also the description of Isaac, the eloquent prototype of the divinely born Son willing to suffer at Jerusalem (Moriah) at the behest of his Father (Gen. 22: 2). It became also Paul’s deepest expression of appreciation of the redeeming work of Christ: “He hath made us accepted in the Beloved, in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1: 6,7).

The last phrase is doubtless from Isaiah 42: 1: “Behold my Servant, whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him.” Here, in prophecy, is the Messiah who is ultimately to “bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” The words which follow are used by Matthew as an apt description of the humble character of the Suffering Servant of the Lord during his ministry: “He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets…” (Mt. 12: 17-21).

But there is a good deal more meaning locked up in this word “well pleased”. The Greek aorist tense used by Luke and Matthew makes pointed allusion to the act of baptism just completed. The Old Testament antecedents of the word-ratzan, ratzon- describe a sacrifice well-pleasing to God. So the heavenly declaration may also have implied: “My beloved Son by means of whom I shall receive a wholly acceptable sacrifice for the sins of men.” Thus yet again the baptism of Jesus is associated with his death and resurrection. “This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth” (1 Jn. 5: 6; Study 236).

From this day on, Jesus walked in the shadow of the cross.

Notes:

Matthew 3: 13-17

Mark 1: 9-11

Luke 3: 21-23

John 1:32

Meantime away in Galilee yet more important events were taking place in the home of a maiden related to Elisabeth. Mary belonged to the house of David, but in some’’ way the family also had connections with the priesthood. She was betrothed to Joseph, who also was of the house of David, and who may have been her cousin (Study 3). It is usually assumed that at this time Mary was a girl in her teens and that Joseph was much older, but it is doubtful whether the evidence is adequate for these conclusions. There is perhaps reason to believe that Joseph died in the last year of the Lord’s ministry (Jn. 6:42; 19:26).

“Hail, Mary!”

The angel Gabriel now came to Mary, not in the splendour and solemnity of the temple (v. 11), but in her own poor home. But he came with the most wonderful announcement ever made to any woman. It was an annunciation absolutely necessary to save both Mary and Joseph from mystification and misery. “Hail, thou that art highly favoured among women.” The greeting is, literally: “Rejoice”-a sharp contrast with the first word of the angel of the Lord (the same angel?) to another woman: “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception” (Gen. 3:16). Now, at last, through the Seed of the woman the dire effects of the sin in Eden were to be taken away.

“The Lord be with you” was the greeting of the Lord of the harvest to his workers, as Ruth 2:4 plainly shows. Here, in the greeting to Mary, the words surely mean: “God give you a good harvest”. The mind of Elisabeth ran on these lines also. She too said: “Blessed art thou among women”, adding also: “and blessed be the fruit of thy womb.”

Blessed Woman

“Blessed art thou among women” means “You are the most blessed of all women.” The words were first applied to Jael for her desperate (and often badly misunderstood) action in ridding the people of God of their great enemy. Now Mary is to be blessed even more than Jael, for through her Seed the great Adversary is bruised in the head, by “a nail in a sure place”.

Today and through many centuries of darkness Catholics have so badly misread this blessedness of Mary as to make her more blessed than any man, even more than her own Son. And “Hail, Mary, full of grace” has been inflated to mean that she herself is a special source of divine grace to the devout believer. Yet the phrase simply says: “who hast been graced”, with a clear implication that from early days a special divine providence had been exercised over her. “The Lord is with thee” is a fairly close equivalent of Immanuel.

In sharp reaction to this ignorant or perverse extremism there has been a tendency in the ecclesias of Christ to ignore Mary almost entirely. Yet how can this be? What sort of a woman was she that she should be chosen by heaven to mother the Son of God? If no other fact were known about her it would be sufficient testimony, making her worthy of the highest esteem. But more is known, enough to make the picture tolerably complete, and except for one thing it is all superlatively good.

But “when she saw the angel, she was troubled (bewildered, confused) at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this might be.” Mary was a woman who knew her Scriptures well and who also saw deeply into their meaning (Study 5). So, very probably, her mind would fly to other angelic appearances to women-to the mothers of Isaac and Samson, and probably of Moses and Jacob-and always they had to do with the impending birth of a man of God, a man of God’s purpose.

Mary’s Expectation

Almost certainly this was the trend of her quick womanly speculation, for there is reason to believe that, even before any revelation came to her, Mary had already pondered the big possibility that she might become the mother of the Messiah. Certain facts, all known to her, pointed that way. At that time the descendants of David were but few in number, this in a generation which was to see the running out of the great Seventy Weeks prophecy of Daniel 9. And Mary was of the line of David, and apparently without brothers (Jn. 19:26). More than this, she was betrothed to one who stood in direct line of right to the throne. Had there been an independent kingdom of Israel at that time Joseph would have been its reigning monarch. But how likely is it that at this time Mary had thought of the possibility of Messiah being born of a virgin? Would she then understand Isaiah 7:14?

It would seem that she had already prayed earnestly that she might be found worthy to be the mother of the Lord’s Christ. This much may be inferred from the words of the angel: “Thou hast found grace with God.” This is a fairly common Old Testament idiom, occurring usually in the form: “If I may find grace in thine eyes”, or “Let me find grace in thine eyes”. Always its meaning is: “Grant me the favour I am now seeking.” Understood thus, Gabriel’s words are equivalent to: “God has granted your request.”

The observation (which has become almost a dogma with some) that all Jewish women prayed to become the mother of the Messiah is a pious piece of nonsense which ought never to have been put into circulation, for did not everyone know that Messiah was to come of the line of David? So eleven of the twelve tribes were without this hope.

In harmony with this understanding of Mary’s devout aspiration is her rejoinder to the angelic promise: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Her surprise is not that she should be the object of this divine choice, but rather: How can this come about since I am not yet married?

A detailed consideration of Mary’s song of praise (1:46-55; Study 5) reveals that the suggestion just explored is entirely what would be expected in a young women of her exceptional spiritual insight.

Messianic Promise

Gabriel proceeded to explain in detail concerning this son of Mary, just as he had outlined to Zacharias the role of his son. The familiar words are an impressive interweaving of Messianic phrases from the Old Testament and especially from the great covenant God made with David:

“Behold,

thou shalt conceive in thy womb,

and bring forth a son,

and (thou) shalt call his name Jesus.”

This is almost exactly the Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, with the name Jesus substituted for “God with us”. Even the unusual feature of the child being named by his mother (contrast the naming of John, and Jewish usage generally) is retained here from Isaiah. Thus the virgin birth is emphasized. Later on, Gabriel was to quote the same scripture to Joseph to settle doubts in his mind (Mt. 1:23).

Attempts have been made-are indeed commonplace in the modernist commentaries-to water down the force of this prophecy of the virgin birth with the argument that the Hebrew word almah does not mean “virgin” but, more generally, “a girl of marriageable age”. Yet the other six occurrences of the word all read more naturally with the meaning “virgin”. Some of them positively require this meaning. (See also Study 7)

Gabriel went on to quote the great Covenant of Promise made to David (2 Sam. 7:12-16):

“He shall be great,

and shall be called the Son of the Highest;

and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever;

and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”

Of these five phrases the second, third and fifth are readily traceable to God’s promise to David. Then the first should surely be equated with David’s prayer of praise and gratitude: “Wherefore thou art great, O Lord God” (7:22). I n that case, “he shall be great” signifies that the child to be born would share the glory of God! The remaining phrase-”he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever”-probably comes from Ezekiel’s vivid vision of a valley full of dry bones (37:25).

The angel’s words (v. 31,32) were remarkably comprehensive. They described Mary’s son as

1. Truly man.

2. The Saviour from sin (Mt. 1:21).

3. Son of God

4. King of Israel.

The unique birth, the idea of which might well, mystify Mary, was carefully and simply explained: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (1:35). This “overshadowing” is the same action of the Holy Spirit as when “the cloud abode on the (new) tent of the congregation, and the Glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Ex. 40:35, cp. Lk 9:34). Now in the child conceived by Mary was another and better meeting place between God and man.

Unlike Zacharias, Mary asked no sign, but was given as gracious a token as she could have wished. The immediate mention of God’s blessing on Elisabeth told her: ‘Messiah’s herald will soon be born to your kinswoman Elisabeth’, so is it not reasonable to expect Messiah himself before long? and if that birth is a miracle, how much more miraculous should this be? The power of God has no limits, “for (said Gabriel) with Him no spoken word (of what I have just told you: v. 28-36) shall be impossible.”

The Response of Faith

At once Mary recognized the Biblical allusion to the angelic remonstration to Sarah (Gen. 18:14 LXX) when she heard with incredulity the announcement of the impending birth of Isaac. Before ever she could have confirmation of the message (by a visit to Elisabeth), Mary reacted with an unhesitating fulness of faith Sarah did not at first achieve (v.45), and with a humble acceptance of the will of heaven: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord (Ps. 86:16: 116:16); be it unto me according to thy word.” The spirit of this response is marvellously like that of her great ancestor when the Messianic promise was first spoken to him (2 Sam. 7:25,28). There is here also an implication that, had she so chosen, Mary could have refused the role with which God sought to honour her. And some women would have so chosen, shrinking from the difficult situation and the malicious talk which would inevitably have to be endured by an unmarried mother. Mary’s quick mind saw all this immediately, and as quickly accepted it. If reproach was taken away from Elisabeth and, in a different sense, brought upon herself, she was content to have it so, for it was the reproach of the Christ.

Notes: Luke 1:26-38

Why does the story of Gentile wise men honouring Jesus come in Matthew, the most Jewish gospel, when it would seem to be so much more appropriate to the theme of Luke’s gospel? The answer is:

Matthew wrote with his eye on one of the most tricky problems the early church had to face—how to fuse into one the two very different communities of Jewish and Gentile believers. So of course he had to include this superb episode. How better could he commend Gentiles to Jews than by a story such as this?

That they were Gentiles is evident from their ignorance of the Micah prophecy (v.5,6) which all Jewry knew (Jn. 7:42). It is also implied by their use of the expression: “King of the Jews”, for every New Testament occurrence of this phrase comes from a Gentile.

Errors Galore

Probably no part of the Bible narrative is so cluttered up with popular misconceptions as this is. These Magi are represented as being kings, but Matthew does not say so. They are supposed to be three in number, presumably because they presented three gifts, but again Matthew does not say three. Certain of the early fathers guessed that there were twelve of them, but that seems less likely.

They are commonly thought of as following the star all the way from their distant home, as it led them through deserts and forests, over mountains and across rivers. Yet Matthew’s record distinctly says that they saw the star in the east, and again after they left Herod. There is no hint of its continual guidance throughout their journey. Nor was the “star” either star or planet in the normal astronomical sense of the term. Nor is it likely that it guided them to Bethlehem; Mary and Joseph had surely left Bethlehem long before this, for at the time of their coming Jesus was no longer in his cradle but an active young toddler. In any case, would the wise men need a special heavenly guidance to show them the road to Bethlehem?

An Error Corrected

It may be well to settle this last point first, and the rest can be sorted out as examination of the narrative proceeds.

The very fact that dastardly Herod appointed that all the babies under the age of two should be butchered, “according to the time that he had diligently enquired of the wise men” (Mt. 2:16)-this, by itself, is sufficient indication that the Christmas-card pictures of the wise men worshipping the new-born baby, side by side with the shepherds, are sadly in error. Also the record says plainly (v. 11) that the family was in a house, not in a cave or stable or inn. Also, the word used by Matthew here means “a young child, a little boy” by contrast with Luke’s expression (2:12) meaning “a babe in arms”. Lastly, there is the undeniable fact of the sharp poverty of Mary and Joseph, witnessed by their offering for Mary’s cleansing-forty days after Jesus was born-two young pigeons, a special concession to the poorest of the people. Yet nothing is more certain than this, that if such devout people had been able to offer a lamb, they would have done so. It may be inferred, therefore, that the precious gifts including gold, out of the wise men’s “treasures” were not in their possession at this time. Also, after the visit of the wise men would it not be too dangerous for Joseph and Mary to appear in Jerusalem?

From Babylon?

Where did these wise men come from? And how did they know that the appearance of the star signified the birth of a King of the Jews? Answers to these questions are necessarily guess-work.

The most plausible suggestion is that they came from Babylon. In the Old Testament this term Magi is associated with Babylon’ (e.g. Jeremiah 39:3,13). It would be a very natural thing for Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy about Messiah the Prince to be passed on to succeeding generations there (note Dan. 5:11). That period of 490 years was now drawing to its close, as many students of the Scriptures must have known. If, also, that prophecy had come to be associated with another about “a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre out of Israel” (Num. 24:17), there would be here adequate basis for the conviction in these men that the Jews’ Messianic expectations were soon to be fulfilled. The appearance of an altogether unusual celestial phenomenon-the Chaldeans, let it be remembered, were excellent astronomers -would convince them that the time was at hand. There may be a hint of their dependence on Messianic prophecies in the Greek expression for “the east”. The LXX uses the same word to describe Messiah the Branch (Zech. 3:8; 6:12; Jer. 23:5; cp. Lk. 1:78 mg).

The “Star”

So they came to Jerusalem, seeking the King, and perhaps somewhat mystified that the entire nation was not in a state of excitement over the appearance of Messiah’s star. But, of course, it was not a star at all. A good deal of guesswork and a tremendous amount of futile mathematical computation has gone into attempts to establish that this star was a brilliant nova, or the planet Venus, or the conjunction of two, or maybe three, major planets. All such approaches fall down badly over one simple fact: the star “came and stood over where the young child was”. In other words, it guided the wise men to the very spot. But if at the same moment two people ten miles apart both attempt to identify the star which is immediately overhead, they will both pick the same star-this because of the fantastically great distances between the stars and the earth, compared with their negligibly small base line. This consideration by itself dictates the conclusion that, whatever the star was, it hung comparatively low down in the sky, say, as low as the flight of a helicopter-this, at least. Thus all astronomy is ruled out.

The best alternative suggestion is that it was another manifestation of the Shekinah Glory, which had already appeared, more proximately, to the shepherds in the fields of Bethlehem. Here was a primary fulfilment of the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 60: “Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee … the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and fangs to the brightness of thy rising (the word for “east” in Matthew 2 also means “rising”)… they shall bring gold and frankincense, and they shall shew forth the praises of the Lord” (60:1-3,6). This prophecy hints at “myrrh” also, for the Hebrew text of the last phrase sounds like: “his drinking of myrrh shall shew the Lord” although the AV translation is correct. Here, in Isaiah 60, was evidently the Scripture, known to the wise men, which dictated their journey.

If the star of the wise men were the Shekinah Glory (see further note on v.7), it becomes easy to see why there was no excitement in the rest of the populace and no attempt by others to follow the star as the wise men did. On an earlier noteworthy occasion the Glory of the Lord was “a cloud and darkness” to the Egyptians, but “it gave light by night” to Israel (Ex. 14:20).

The same kind of thing could well have happened in Judaea.

Herod the Monster

Herod the Great-”great in energy, in magnificence, and in wickedness”-was much disturbed at the news of the birth of another King of the Jews, and he decided immediately on drastic precautionary measures. This was characteristic of the man, for he was one of the most evil and cruel men who ever lived. He had not always been like this, but in his old age at the slightest breath of suspicion he thought nothing of having even faithful servants and close relatives tortured or butchered. To live anywhere near Herod the Great was to live in peril. And now he was set on the speedy elimination of this latest threat to the security of his throne, trivial though it might seem. For these reasons “all Jerusalem was troubled with him”. The people were immediately fearful about Herod’s reactions to the news. Another holocaust?

His first problem was to find the new-born King. Since the wise men did not know, Herod could only turn to the priests and scribes for their interpretation of the ancient prophecise. The mentality of the man is not easy to understand. Apparently he fully believed that a Messiah had been foretold and that all the details written concerning him would be accurately fulfilled. Yet at the same time he did not appear to doubt his own ability to destroy this divine child before ever the prophecies of his royalty could be fulfilled. Even if the control of heaven should be demonstrated by prophecies of Messiah’s birth being fulfilled to the letter, he-Herod the Great-would see to it that divine omnipotence should not accomplish the rest. “Herod, what aileth thee?” In any case, what difference would it make to Herod if there were a new King of the Jews in a Bethlehem cradle, for Herod, now seventy and rotten with disease, would be dead and gone long before he came to maturity!

The learned men called together by Herod can hardly have been a full assembly of the Sanhedrin, for the king had lately had most of them slaughtered for their refusal to pronounce that Deuteronomy 17:15 did not invalidate his kingship. Regarding this present enquiry the rabbinic scholars were quite definite and emphatic in their opinions: The King of the Jews is to be born in Bethlehem; and, lest there by any doubt about it, (for there was another Bethlehem away north in Zebulun; Josh 19:15), this was to be Bethlehem in Judah, so Micah’s prophecy (5:2) declared explicitly. Of course, the royal Son of David must be born in the city of David.

The Micah quotation, as repeated in Matthew 2:6, is not without its problems:

• Does the Micah context really have anything to do with the birth of Christ? It was written primarily with reference to Hezekiah and his times, but once that fine man is seen as a remarkably detailed type of Christ (“Hezekiah the Great”, by H.A.W.), this difficulty shrinks considerably.
• Why the omission of “Ephratah” (= fruitful)? Its inclusion would surely have been very appropriate?
• “Little among the thousands of Judah” becomes “not least among the princes.” Here is an example of the word for “thousand” being used (by metonymy) for “captain or leader of a thousand or maybe of a family or squad of men” (see Wenham: “The Big Numbers of the Old Testament”). David, it is to be remembered, was the youngest of the sons of Jesse. Was the negative included in the quote to fend off Herod’s scorn? Or to imply that Bethlehem was upgraded by the birth of Messiah?- no longer the least!
• The Hebrew text has “come forth unto me (Jehovah),” implying that Messiah would be Son of God. It is Micah’s counterpart (along with 4: 9,10) to Isaiah’s prophecy of the virgin birth (7: 14).
• “that shall rule (more correctly: shepherd) my people Israel” is a quotation added from 2 Samuel 5:2. It was appropriate enough as a prophecy of the ministry of Jesus, yet to come, and even more of his benign kingdom.

Why were these men of rabbinic scholarship ready to give Herod such precise information? They knew him well enough, and must have realised the purpose of his enquiries. Evidently they were reluctant to talk, for Herod “kept on demanding” (v.4 Gk.) where Messiah’s birthplace might be.

Is it not remarkable that these religious leaders did not betake themselves to Bethlehem as fast as they could go, to greet their new King? Too great a fear of Herod? But perhaps they did go-and failed in their search.

Very probably, also, as commentary on the wise men’s story of the appearance of an unusual star, one of those Bible scholars quoted another prophecy: “There shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab . . . and Edom shall be a possession …” (Num. 24:17,18). Herod was an Edomite, so knowledge of such a prophecy would alarm him all the more and strengthen his resolution to thwart its accomplishment.

Guided – whither?

So, feigning a godly zeal to match that of the wise men, he asked the specific time of the star’s appearing (as though intent on some astrological divination), and he bade them share with him the secret of their discovery when they should return from Bethlehem. Eagerly they set out once again, confident that their search would soon be ended, “Herod … secretly smiling at their diligent devotion, whilst God in heaven laughed at his dissimulation”-so blithely comments Tom Fuller (17th century).

It is only a few miles along a well-travelled road, from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. No guidance whatever was needed. Yet, no sooner were they away from Herod’s palace than they saw the “star” again. The only possible inference is that at this time Jesus was no longer in Bethlehem, and these wise men had to be steered in a completely different direction. Whither? To Hebron? or north to Nazareth?

Worship and Offerings

The Greek text is beautifully emphatic in its description of the gladness of the wise men when they saw the “star” once again: “they rejoiced a great joy exceedingly”. By the aid of the “star” they were guided continuously and unerringly to the very house where Jesus was to be found. Here, rejoicing more than ever, they prostrated themselves before the holy child. It was a different kind of worship from that which regularly goes on in many a family as it takes delight in the winsome ways of its baby. By this time Jesus was probably talking. One wonders what he attempted to say to these impressive visitors.

The Magi laid before him gifts which they had brought. It is usually assumed that these had been decided upon and carefully prepared before they left their homes in the east. But the form of the text-”when they had opened their treasures”-rather suggests that they chose out from the variety of valuable commodities they carried with them those which they deemed to be most suitable—gold, frankincense and myrrh.

It is probably a mistake to seek a separate meaning behind these three gifts. The significance of the three is one and the same, for gold, frankincense and myrrh are all associated with the High Priest-he had on his forehead a golden plate: Holy to the Lord (Ex. 28:36), and in the sanctuary he carried a golden censer where incense burned, frankincense being the main ingredient (Ex. 30:34); also, his high priesthood began with his anointing with the holy oil in which myrrh was an essential element (Ex. 30:23). If this is correct, then, with extraordinary insight, these Gentile worshippers thus made glad acknowledgment that this new King of the Jews was also to be a “priest offer the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4).

Flight

Herod’s evil intentions, whether or not they were read by the wise men, were bound to be frustrated, for it was written concerning this baby Messiah: “He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, and in their hands they shall bear thee up… surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler” (Ps. 91:11,3). However, when these godly men were ready to depart, they prayed to heaven for guidance (so the Greek of v.12 seems to imply), and were bidden ignore Herod and return home without delay. In the LXX version the word translated “they departed” almost always has the idea of flight. In modern slang, “they cleared out”. The same word comes again in verses 13,14,22, with the same idea inherent in it.

It was not sufficient to have frustrated Herod in his immediate design. So warped was the mind of this crafty beastly old man that for Joseph and his family to stay in the country was now quite out of question. Sooner or later Herod’s gestapo would track them down. So another dream bade them flee to Egypt for safety.

It is interesting here to observe how Mary and her little Jesus quite dominate the story, although in its action they are quite passive: “the young child and his mother”-never once “your wife and child”! The phrase recurs five times. Doubtless safety could have been achieved by other means. A legion of angels could have been permanently encamped round the home of these for whom the God of heaven had special love and regard. But this is not His way. As nearly as possible the Son of God was to face life as son of man, and this from his earliest days.

So there was flight into Egypt, in order that before long God might call His Son out of Egypt, as He had called Israel out of Egypt in ancient days. Not a few, including some who should know better, find difficulty in Matthew’s quotation from Hosea 11:1. The passage, they assert, certainly refers to Israel’s deliverance in the time of Moses, and equally certainly has nothing to do with Joseph and his precious charges seeking refuge in Egypt. Such an outlook lacks insight into the subtlety of Bible prophecy. Do men, and especially those who profess a good understanding of the gospel, have to deem their own human standard of judgement more dependable than that of inspired prophets and evangelists?

Another prophecy of similar character, which Matthew might well have quoted is Psalm 80: “Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the Gentiles (the death of Herod!), and planted it (the Branch) . . . the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the Branch that thou modest strong for thyself… Let thy hand be upon the Man of thy right hand, upon the Son of man, whom thou modest strong for thyself” (v.8,15,17).

Israel was a vine which God discarded (Ez.l5:6). Instead, there was Jesus the True Vine (Jn.l5: 1).

He was the beginning of a New Israel, and from time to time the gospels are found hinting at or openly asserting a parallel with the experiences of ancient Israel, first in the life of Jesus and later (in the rest of the New Testament) in the life of the early church. Once this feature is recognized, is there any serious difficulty in Matthew’s quotation from Hosea?

Herod makes sure

Herod, that personification of human pride and cruelty, was robbed of the prey he sought. Within thirty-six hours no trace was to be found of either wise men or Messiah’s family.

It soon dawned on the king that the seekers from the east had let him down; in fact, as he saw it, they had “played tricks with him, made a fool of him” (Gk). This king of the earth had taken counsel against the Lord and against His anointed, but the Lord had him in derision. So other drastic and more comprehensive plans became necessary. The king’s only clue was that supplied by the chief priests-Bethlehem. From what the wise men had said it was a year or more since the strange sign of the Son of Man had been seen in the sky. So, allowing a good margin for error, Herod resolved that every boy in Bethlehem up to the age of two should die. And not only in Bethlehem but in the countryside round it. Had Herod heard the story of the shepherds? What did he care if it meant the fiendish slaughter of (at most) a couple of dozen harmless little boys? Was he not king, to do as he pleased? And were they not mere Jews? Thus, once again, Esau persecuted Jacob. It had happened in former days (Gen. 27:41; 1 Sam. 21:7). The next generation was to continue the tradition (Mk. 6:17; Lk. 13:31; 23:11; Acts 12:7); and the twentieth century is to see it enacted once again, more vilely than ever (Obad. 9-14; Joel 3:19; Ez. 35:5,6; Ps. 83:4,6).

This evil business at Bethlehem is underlined by Matthew with another of his characteristic citations from the Old Testament, which perhaps more than any other has been written off as a palpable misapplication of Scripture. But is that really so?

“In Ramah was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children… “ (from Jer. 31:15). The difficulty has been made worse by an almost universal identification with the wrong Ramah. It is not the Ramah of Samuel, a few miles north-by-west of Jerusalem, but Ramath-Rachel, the burial place of Jacob’s wife, only a mile or so north of Bethlehem.

“Give me children, or else I die”, Rachel had very exaggeratedly lamented to her husband (Gen. 30:1). So God gave her children-and she died, bringing forth “a son of sorrow” who was to become “Son of God’s right hand” (35:18,19).

In Jeremiah’s day it seemed that the nation was being destroyed, but God’s man of faith was carried off to Egypt, his life being given him for a prey, until the day when God called him out of Egypt. Read thus, Matthew’s quote from Jer. 31:15 is perhaps not as freakish as it has been made out to be.

The lamentation and weeping in Bethlehem was heard through the land. But it carried further than that, for, as one writer very aptly puts it, “this was a sin crying to heaven for vengeance.” In his unique style Fuller describes it thus: “Here no pen can express the mothers’ sorrows for their children; whilst one stood amazed, as if she had lost her son and her senses together; another bleeds out sorrow in her eyes, to prevent festering in her heart; a third vents her passions in exclamations, and it gives her some ease, though she could not recall her dead child, to call him tyrant that murdered it. All their mourning going several ways, meet in one common misery.” Fuller goes on to refer to these slaughtered babies as “the infantry of the noble army of martyrs”. Yet this “was a small affair in Herod’s career . . . Incredible?

Anything is credible of the man who murdered his own wife and sons” (Exp. Gk. Test.).

No one was sorry when, a short time later (in B.C. 4 actually, by our current system of reckoning), Herod died in misery, full of diseases and vindictive to the end against everyone. The Jews made the day of his death a permanent feast day. And this was the man who had supplied all the resources for the rebuilding of their temple!

Return from Egypt

The news of his death soon reached Egypt, but it was only when encouraged by a further divine revelation that Joseph determined to return to Judaea. Evidently the intention was to settle in Bethlehem or near to Zacharias and Elisabeth, but then they heard that Augustus Caesar had divided up the country between three of Herod’s sons, and Archelaus, the worst of the whole bunch, was the new ruler of Judaea. Matthew’s word means “reign as king”. But when Archelaus went to Rome seeking confirmation of the title, Caesar demoted him to tetrarch. “It is remarkable how near the Evangelists often seem to be to an inaccuracy, while yet closer inspection shows them to be, in these very points, minutely accurate” (Farrar).

‘Better to be Herod’s pig than his son’, Augustus is reported to have said, making a pun on the two Greek words. The quip was intended as a censure on Herod. But Archelaus was no better. At his first passover he had three thousand Jews massacred in the temple, No wonder, then, that Joseph was scared of what might befall on their return. These Herods had long memories. So God made a concession to his fears. Another dream bade him keep away from Archelaus. Plans were changed, and instead Joseph and his family returned to Nazareth in the territory of Herod Antipas.

Yet another prophecy

Strictly, this precaution was hardly necessary, for had not the angel said to Joseph: “They (who else besides Herod?) are dead which sought the young child’s life”? Archelaus need not be feared. However, the diversion to Nazareth became also the means of fulfilment of another Old Testament prophecy: “He shall be called a Nazarene”-or so Matthew asserts.

But there is no known Scripture which has these words! Was Matthew alluding to an oral tradition which had never been included in the written Word? This is the solution supplied by some, putting emphasis on “that which was spoken by the prophets.” The intention cannot have been to make Jesus into a Nazirite like John the Baptist, for Jesus was not this, except in spirit.

It can be safely argued that the words quoted by Matthew were not known or understood by many, or Nazareth would not have been despised as it was. Therefore it is far more likely that the allusion is to Isaiah 11:1: “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots”. Nazareth means “the city of the Branch”. Evidently Matthew saw in Nazareth as the home town of Jesus the fore-shadowing of a yet greater fulfilment of that prophecy. It is rather remarkable that in September (when Jesus was born?), the sun is in the constellation of Virgo, the first of the signs of the zodiac. From very ancient times the Virgin is represented with a Branch in her hand. One of the chief stars in Virgo was called Al Zimach, i.e. Tsemach, the Branch.

But this thing was spoken by “prophets”-plural! Which prophets? The Hebrew word which makes “Nazareth” also means “preserved” (how marvellously appropriate here to one kept safe from the wrath of Herod!), and it is used in more than one prophecy regarding the Messiah (e.g. Gen. 49:26; Ps. 40:11; Is. 49:8).

So Jesus grew up in Nazareth. But the nation had already made up its mind long ago about that place: “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (Jn. 1:46; cp. 1 Kgs. 9.13). Already it was settled: “There is no beauty in him that we should desire him.” As one ancient commentator puts it, “he was in some degree veiled, as it were, by the name of Nazarene, that faith might not lose its price.”

Notes: Matthew 2:1 –

“Cyrenius was governor of Syria”. Says an old commentator, with evident weariness: “Volumes have been written about this one verse”-and since his day volumes more. The essential facts are these:

The decree from Caesar Augustus “that all the world should be taxed” was really one of a sequence of censuses taken every fourteen years in the Roman provinces. It is known that Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria, but at a date which cannot possibly fit the year of the birth of Jesus. For this reason critics have been very ready to assume Luke’s inaccuracy and a late date for writing of his gospel. But through the researches of Sir William Ramsay the historical dependability of Luke has been substantiated over and over again, so it is surely wise to assume that Luke is correct here also until clear proof to the contrary is available. Actually it has been found that at this particular time (about B.C. 5, according to conventional reckoning) Quirinius did hold some important office in Syria such as might well be described as “Quirinius ruling”.

It is possible that the text should be read as meaning: “This was the first census when Cyrenius was ruling in Syria”, as though implying (what is known to be true) that at a later time there was another census under his governorship-which later census was evidently done Roman style and provoked a bitter rebellion led by Judas the Gaulonite. But on the earlier occasion Herod the Great was wily enough to dress up this political event in a Jewish guise, by holding it at the time of a Jewish feast and by insisting on all registering as members of their own particular tribe of Israel. Almost certainly, according to Exodus 30:11-16, the payment was made of the half-shekel of “atonement money … for the service of the tabernacle”. So the priests in Jerusalem would co-operate with enthusiasm, but for poor men like Joseph it would be a heavy tax on slender resources.

Why Mary also?

So, because of the census, Joseph betook himself to Bethlehem to be enrolled, “because he was of the nouse and lineage of David”. There seems to be a tautology here, for either word would suffice. Was it Luke’s intention to emphasize that not only was Joseph in direct line from David but also that he was legal heir to Mary’s side of the family?

But why was he accompanied by Mary? Since the time of her delivery was near, was it not wiser that she remain at home? Various explanations are available: To save Mary from an environment that would be rife with rumour about her. So that Jesus might be officially registered as belonging to the line of D*avid. Because Mary was an heiress in her own right, and must therefore register. Because Joseph and Mary intended to make a fresh start, settling in Bethlehem or some other place. The reason might be any or none of these. But the basic reason was an angelic constraint on the mind of a great Roman emperor nearly 1500 miles away, leading him to order that this census be organized in this particular way. Robert Roberts writes very well on this (Nazareth Revisted p. 33a).

Because so many people were travelling, the inn on the outskirts of Bethlehem was filled to capacity. This place was “the habitation of Chimham” (the Hebrew word means “a place for strangers”; Jer. 41:17). It was so called because it had been founded by the son of Barzillai (2 Sam. 19:37) when he was at the court of David, to commemorate the hospitality shown by his father to David at the time of Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sam. 17:27-29).

Symbolism

But now there was no shelter for the greater Son of David (cp. Jud. 19:15). It is even doubtful whether the manger in which Jesus was laid was in the yard of the inn. The words of the angel to the shepherds: “Unto you is born this day…” and “Ye shall find the babe…” might well imply that it was in the shepherds’ bothy where the Lamb of God was born. So those seeking to identify the birthplace of Jesus should look for remains of “the tower of Eder”, “the tower of the flock”, somewhere on the (northern) outskirts of Bethlehem (Mic. 4:8; Gen. 35:21). When Joseph and Mary saw the tower, did they recall the Micah prophecy and ask permission to lodge there? The tradition that Jesus was born in a cave seems to have been a precarious inference by the early church from Isaiah’s words: “He shall dwell in a high cave of a strong rock: bread (Bethlehem) shall be given him, and his water shall be sure. Ye shall see a king with glory” (33:16,17 LXX).

It has been a popular idea that, because the text says: “She (Mary) laid him in a manger”, it was a birth free from pain and distress. But Micah’s prophecy (with more than one fulfilment) seems to imply the opposite: “Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no king in thee?… for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail. Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail” (4:9,10). If Matthew can insist that the passage four verses further on (5:2; Mt 2:6) had a fulfilment in the birth of Jesus, then this also, surely.

That first cradle for the infant Son of God was described by the Lord through His prophet: “The ox knoweth his master, the ass his master’s crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider” (Is. 1:3). Perhaps also attention should be directed to the prayer of Habakkuk:

“O Lord … thou shalt be made known between the two living creatures” (3:2 LXX), an allusion to the Glory of the Lord seen between the two ox-form cherubim over the mercy-seat.

These things were not without their symbolic value, as also the fact that Mary “wrapped him in swaddling clothes”. Here, surely, wrapped in its swaddling clothes is the profound and essential truth that Jesus shared the mortal nature of those he came to save, with all its inherent weaknesses and propensities. The contrast with his resurrection, when the tokens of mortality were left behind in the tomb is very pointed (Jn. 20:6). By contrast (Jn. 11:44), when Lazarus rose to a new life of mortality, “he that was dead came forth bound hand and foot with grave clothes.” If Luke did not intend some meaning of this kind in his account of the Lord’s birth, it is difficult to see why he chose to include such details, when so many others of much greater human interest are omitted. “Thick darkness was the swaddling band” of the old creation (Job 38:9), and now the darkness of our human nature was the swaddling band of the New Creation.

The manifestation of rejoicing angels to the shepherds in the fields nearby is a lovely assertion at the very beginning of the story of redemption that the grace of God in Christ is for the meek of the earth. Jacob, Moses and David were all of them shepherds, and these humble men of Bethlehem were heirs to their faith and godliness. Human pomp and circumstance are cut down to size by the choice of these untutored shepherds to be the first to hear the good news of the Lamb of God: “Unto you is born this day…”

Angelic Announcement

At first only one angel was visible to them, and he accompanied by a manifestation of the resplendent Glory of God, a glory such as men may not behold without a deep awestruck misgiving of their own ability to survive such a presence of heavenly majesty. “They were sore afraid”-literally, “they feared a great fear.” But this was no time for fear, only for rejoicing, for the angel brought good tidings-good tidings of great joy.

The birth of a child into any family is an occasion of gladness. In all human experience, from youth to crabbed age, is there any more unanimous sentiment? But the birth of this child, more than any, meant joy and gladness past describing for all who belong to his family. The angel bade them: “Cease your fear of me”, for was he not bringing them goods news for “all

the people”—that is, for all Israel, for all who are the true Israel of God.

Foretold in Scripture

The message was explicit: Messiah is born this night in the city of David. The very circumstances must have brought to the minds of these godly men a Scripture they longed to see fulfilled: “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed … O thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of luda. Behold your God… He shall feed his flock like a shepherd” (Is40:5,9,11).

Also appropriately, the angel gave the good news in terms of another Messianic prophecy which these unlearned and ignorant shepherds must have been familiar with: “The people that walked in darkness have seen a great lignt… Thou hast increased their joy… Unto us a child is born … upon the throne of David…” (Is. 9:2,3,6)-all these phrases have their counterpart in the angel vision and message.

In those days all Israel looked and prayed for the fulfilment of Isaiah’s sublime prophecies of Messiah. The angel declared that the one who should achieve these things was born that night in Bethlehem. Today Judaism declares that Messiah has not been born yet. And conventional Christianity believes that he was born then but has not and will not turn the prophet’s vision into reality. But to those who believe Jesus to be the Messiah and that the prophecies will very soon find their accomplishment, the message is one of greater joy than even the shepherds could experience, for all their angelic vision. For they believed that the new-born King must grow to maturity before manifesting himself to Israel, but the believer today knows that the signs are ripening faster than that.

“A Sign unto you”

Gabriel had appointed signs for Zacharias, for Elisabeth, for Mary (and for Joseph?). Now he gave a sign to the shepherds also: “Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.” The sign was the babe himself, and the remarkable circumstances of his birth (cp. ls. 7:14). Similarly in days to come the sign of the Son of man in heaven is to be the Son of man himself (Mt. 24:30). In those days in Bethlehem and its locality there must have been quite a number of mangers for the foddering of animals. These words of the angel seem to imply a manger in the sheepfold used by these shepherds to whom he spoke. They would have little difficulty in going straight to the place, to wonder and adore.

All Heaven Rejoices

But before they could bestir themselves, there came a yet greater manifestation of heavenly joy and glory. All at once a veil was taken away (cp. 2 Kgs. 6:17), and they beheld the great multitude of angels (who had been there all the time) rejoicing and praising God (Ps. 148:2). Beyond the powers of any temple choir (1 Chr. 15:16 ff) they celebrated the glory of the Almighty. “In the highest, glory to God; on earth peace, (His) goodwill among men.” By far the most important Biblical idea behind the word “peace” is not absence of war between nations or of strife between individuals, but “peace with God”- “The Lord lift up the light of His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.” And “goodwill” looks back to the Hebrew ratzah, ratzbn so very often associated with acceptable sacrifice. Thus “goodwill toward men” means reconciliation through the greatest of all Days of Atonement. The alternative textual reading: “to men of goodwill”, means the same thing: “peace to men who know themselves reconciled to God through Jesus”.

Well might there be angels’ gladness. This was heaven’s D-day, and ten thousand times ten thousand rejoiced, as at the Lord’s resurrection (Lk 24:52; Mt 28:8) and his ascension (Rev. 5:11,12). Their joy and excitement was not to be restrained. And the fields of Bethlehem echoed with the sound of it. That day the Corner-stone of the New Creation was laid, so the Morning Stars sang together, and all the Sons of God shouted for joy (Job 38:7).

Shepherds rejoice also

It was in no spirit of disbelief that the shepherds talked with great eagerness (Gk.) among themselves. These who had been “keeping careful watch” (a strong Hebraism) over their sheep were now ready enough to leave their ninety and nine in order to find for themselves the Lamb of God (v.8,15,17). There is fair evidence (Edersheim) that sheep for temple sacrifices were kept in the vicinity of Bethlehem, so there may be special symbolism in this! All were eager to go (Ps. 132:;6,7). The true text: “the shepherds also said…” seems to imply: ‘The angels have been to Bethlehem to behold. Have they not not told us’ of a manger and swaddling bands? We too must go.’ Nor did they say: ‘To see if this thing has come to pass’, but: “to see this thing which is come to pass.” They had implicit faith in the message.

There was no question of leaving even one of their number to safeguard the flocks, for that night the sheep had guardian angels.

Together the men made haste through the darkness back to their sheepfold. And-God be praised! — it was even as they had been told. On the hay which they themselves used for sleeping rested Mary, tired with travel and travail. And in the manger lay a baby. It has been very truly observed that in every age it is shepherds who watch their flock by night as well as by day who also see the Glory of the Lord and know the help of angels and enter into the presence of Christ.

He looked like any other new-born baby. But the sign was complete: a new-born child, a boy, a firstborn, wrapped in swaddling clothes (for Mary had travelled knowing there would be need of these), the manger for his crib; and on enquiry the family proved to be of the house of David. So they too praised God, and with restrained eagerness told the story of their experience out in the open fields.

Mary, for all her fatigue, heard their tale with quickened attention and gladness. Along with all the other awe-inspiring happenings associated with the birth of her son, these also-especially the message of the angel and the song of the heavenly host-were stored away in her memory and many a time pondered during the years which followed. There was little these rough shepherds could do to help this travel-tired family in their crude bivouac, so they considerately withdrew-and not unwillingly, for what a story they had to tell! During the next few hours they did their utmost to match the glad praise of the angelic choir with their own and to tell to everybody with as much conviction and rejoicing the good tidings that Messiah, the Son of David, was born in Bethlehem. The common version fails completely to bring out how this account of our Lord’s birth is dominated by the angel’s “good tidings of great joy”:

v.15: This saying which is come to pass.

v.17: They made known the saying which was spoken to them.

v.18: Those things which were spoken to them by the shepherds.

v.19: Mary kept all these sayings.

v.20: …as it was spoken unto them.

Notes: Luke 2:1-20

The prologue to John’s gospel has a strange mystifying feature quite without parallel anywhere else. It is broken up into three separate pieces which alternate with three short sections about the work and character of John the Baptist:

Either set of three sections reads consecutively with a smoothness which is immediately apparent.

Why John should give the introduction to his gospel this shape is not easy to fathom, but the fact of it is almost self-evident.

The Lamp and the Light

John was not the Light, not the effulgent Glory of the Living God. He was only a lamp, burning and shining (5:35). There is a strange paradox here, for men use a lamp to illuminate what is in the dark; yet John the lamp was God’s way of lighting the path to the Light of the World. And Israel needed it, because they were a people sitting in darkness. But do men need anyone to bear witness to them concerning Him who is the Light of the World? ‘Surely’, says A. T. Robertson, “men can tell light from darkness!” But he adds the immediate comment: “No, that is precisely what men cannot do.”

So John’s assignment from God was to teach men to believe in Jesus as the true Light, the Shekinah Glory of God, who was to be revealed. He came “that all men through him might believe.” But first they needed to learn not to believe in themselves. Accordingly, an essential part of John’s message was: “All flesh .is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field” (Is. 40:6). This truth they were wondrous slow to learn. Consequently, even though a man of John’s character must inevitably make a tremendous impression on the people, so that they flocked in their thousands to hear him, his message was either not received at all (by the rulers), or was taken up (by the people) only to be let go again.

Even so, there was a lasting impact on some, for, years later in far-off Ephesus, Paul found a handful of believers who held tenaciously (although in some respects imperfectly) to the teaching of John as it had somehow reached them there (Acts 19:1-7).

For such a reason, doubtless, it was necessary for the writer of the gospel to emphasize: “He was not that Light. . .The true Light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world.” This RVm reading of John 1:9 is equally possible with the more familiar reading. It is only a matter of re-punctuating the Greek text.

The Type and the True

This reference to Jesus as “the true Light” uses a word which implies, not the true in contrast to the false, but that which is the reality in contrast to type or shadow. Thus the phrase implies that Jesus was the more profound fulfilment of all that was signified by the appearances of the Shekinah Glory to God’s people in the wilderness.

This entire passage (v.6-18) is so shot through with typical allusions to Moses and Israel and the angel of the covenant in the wilderness that it taxes the powers of the expositor to set out the sequence of ideas in a coherent intelligible fashion. The device of parallel columns might help the reader to trace the allusiveness of John’s writing:

The mission of John the Baptist is introduced with emphasis and exactness: “a man sent from God.” The Greek phrase implies: “from beside God”. Yet no one, except Mormons with their peculiar “personal-pre-existence” doctrine, believes that John came down from heaven. This is a particularly clear and useful instance of the characteristic Johannine idiom which, through being so often disregarded, has led to the Athanasian doctrine of Christ’s personal pre-existence in heaven.

Other examples, which no more prove the pre-existence of Christ than this passage (1:6) proves a pre-existence of John, are these:

1. “I came out from God . . . from the Father” (16:27,28).
2. “I am from him” (7:29).
3. “The only begotten of (from) the Father” (1:14)
4. “Whatsoever things thou hast given me are of thee” (17:7-same construction).
5. “I came out from thee” (17:8-the same again).

All of these, and more, use the same form of words, but orthodox theologians disregard the true meaning of the idiom because they want to.

The writer is nevertheless careful to omit the definite article, as at the end of verse 1 — not para tou theou, but para theou. Thus, in yet another way, he warns his reader away from assuming that the Baptist or his Lord made a personal descent from heaven. Compare Peter’s phrase: “holy men of God (para theou)” (2 Pet. 1:21), an exact parallel to the examples already cited.

John’s function, as repeated again and again in this first chapter, was that of witness to Christ.

His message concerning repentance and baptism has relatively meagre mention. John himself was “not that Light”. Always, in all four gospels, this contrast between John and Jesus is insisted on. The Baptist’s preaching was “in order that all men through him might believe.”

This admirably chosen preposition is given excellent force in the rest of this chapter. Priests and Levites from Jerusalem are bidden look away to one greater than John. And his imperative: “Behold the Lamb of God”, spoken to his own disciples, lost him their loyalty (v.36, 37), as he intended it should (cp. also 1 Cor. 3:5).

But “all men” did not and do not believe. It is simply not true that “he (the true Light) lighteth every man.” There are but few who want or can appreciate the illumination Christ brings. Again there is need to appreciate the force of John’s idiom (and it is not only his), that instead of “all” carrying the usual sense of “all without any exception”, it is not infrequently used to mean “all without distinction, all kinds of men”.

For instance:

1. “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples” (13:35).
2. “I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me” (12:32).
3. “All the people came unto him (in the temple)” (8:2).

So the meaning here (in 1:7,9) is that the gospel is not for Pharisees and scribes only, but for publicans and harlots also; not confined to Israel, but for all manner of Gentiles—barbarian, Scythian, bond and free: “that whosoever believeth in me should not abide in darkness” (12:46) The Light of God’s Shekinah was not meant for Israel only (Is. 49:6).

Yet another problem phrase underlines this basic truth. “He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” It is fashionable nowadays to insist on the RVm reading: “The true Light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world.” But for three reasons this may safely be treated as inferior:

1. The order of the words in the Greek text.
2. John Lighfoot’s demonstration that “every man coming into the world” was a much used rabbinic expression for “every kind of person”.
3. The very emphatic past continuous verb is utterly inappropriate with reference to Jesus (and the next three verses require reference to Jesus).

A triple mention of “the world” (kosmos) now introduces another Johannine idiom. Here, as with “all”, there is no universalism, but instead a very limited meaning: the Jewish world. This can bequickly demonstrated by examples:

1. “Behold, the world is gone out after him”, wailed certain Pharisees after the Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem (12:19). At that time the wide world did not even know that Jesus existed,
2. “Show thyself to the world” (7:4), jeered his brothers as they urged him to get busy with a big appeal at the Feast of Tabernacles.
3. “This is the condemnation (of Jewry), that light is come into the world, and men (Jews) loved darkness rather than light” (3:19).
4. Other examples: Jn. 1:29; 8:26; 15:19; 17:14.

And now yet another idiom: “The world was made by him”-literally: “The kosmos became through him.” In what sense was the Jewish world made through Christ?

There is special need here to appreciate the full efficacy of the redeeming work of Christ—that the forgiveness of sins, even for those who lived and died B.C., is through Christ, and only through him. His sacrifice is as efficacious to cover the sin of Noah, Daniel and Job-yes, and of Adam and Eve-as it is today to wash away the sins of one about to be baptized into his Name.

Consider four very significant passages:

1. ‘Jesus Christ, whom God set forth (RVm: purposed) to be a propitiatory sacrifice through faith in his blood, to declare his (God’s) righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God” (Rom. 3: 25).
2. “And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15).
3. “And many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection…” (Mt. 27:52,53). The evident intention here is to stress that the death and resurrection of Jesus were efficacious to raise from the dead even those who died before he did.
4. Genesis 3:15 is careful to emphasize that the Seed of the woman crushes not just the seed of the serpent but the head of the serpent itself. Right back to its fountain-head sin is overcome through Christ. Even Adam and Eve have their sin forgiven because of their declared faith in him, the promised Seed (3:20,21; 4:1).

It is in this vitally important sense that the world of Israel was made (came into being) through Christ. Apart from him that crucial covenant sacrifice offered at Sinai, when the people were consecrated to their God, had no meaning. The sequence there, in Exodus 24, needs to be considered. Israel was shut out from the presence of God. Bounds were set around the mount where He manifested Himself. Then came the building of an altar and the offering of the covenant-sacrifice. The blood was sprinkled on both altar and people. At the same time all gave their assent to the book of the Covenant. And then, only then, could the representatives of the nation ascend into the mount and eat a meal of fellowship in the very presence of the Glory of God (Ex. 24:4-11). But except there had been some rudimentary understanding of what lay behind the covenant-sacrifice, that shedding of blood would have been of no real value whatever.

Rejected

All this and all similar significant transactions in later days lie behind John’s trenchant phrase: “the world was made by him”. Yet with what mordant sadness does he go on to record: “and the world knew him not.” This is repeated: “He came unto his own—his own Land and Holy City, his own Temple, his own inheritance as Son of Abraham, Son of David, Son of God—and his own people received him not.” How this is underlined by John’s dramatic use of the same word “received”. “And they took Jesus/and led him away” (19:16, cp. also Lk. 20:14,15). They received him, but only to crucify him!

But whilst the nation as a whole turned its back on the Son of God, there were those, a faithful remnant, who did receive him.

Sons of God – New Born

“And whosoever received him (even them that believe and go on believing in his name), to them gave he authority, warrant, sanction to become sons of God” (v.12)

Gentiles, called by the gospel, especially needed this authentication of their new status as sons of God. Jews were confident that they already had this status, yet in truth they needed the same authorization.

The ‘Name” to be believed in makes a profitable investigation, worthy of the attention of any Bible student. Is it the Divine Name declared at Sinai (Ex. 34:6), the fulness of which is expressed in the Son of God? Or is it his name Jesus Christ, the Saviour from sin, and the promised King? Or is it his name Son of God which calls men to become sons of God? (cp. Is. 56:5). Whichever it is, the ideas inevitably overlap.

These who are sons of God through believing necessarily experience a New Birth. No man born and living in a completely natural way can be a son of God. He must be born “not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (v.13). The first and third expressions in this triad allude to the mother and father in a normal begettal, and they are united by “the will of the flesh”, which applies to both.

Attempts have been made to use these words as a proof-text of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, which is not otherwise taught explicitly in John’s gospel. It is true that a very few manuscripts and some of the earliest of the Fathers read: “which was born”, with reference to Jesus. But the mass of evidence the other way is not to be set aside. Yet is is easy to see how this changed reading came about. The early church had the wit to see that what is true of the redeemed must also be true of the Redeemer. Almost certainly John had this in mind when he wrote the words. So, less directly, it is valid to see an implication of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in these words. Later (3:3,4) the apostle was to record, with evident satisfaction, the Lord’s personal teaching how a man is to be born again—from above, and not by the will of the flesh (cp. also 1 Pet. 1:23).

The Word born “flesh”

The hint which John has just given concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus is accompanied by a needful corrective of extreme or mistaken views concerning his nature. His was “the glory from the only begotten of the Father”, truly; nevertheless the Word was born “flesh”, that is (according to the very common usage of the New Testament) with ordinary human nature, sharing the fallen nature of Adam with all its propensities to evil, yet-the marvel of it!-always living a God-ward life: “the Word was with God”! Here was God manifest in flesh (and not stone; Ex. 34:4), so that the prophet seeing this before, and marvelling at it, could exclaim: “Behold, your God!” (Is. 40:5-9).

This Word of God “tabernacled” among us. Once again, like the True Light, the figure is that of Israel in the wilderness: “we beheld his Glory. . .full of grace and truth”. Here John’s hendiadys is equivalent to “true grace”; and since in so many places “grace” is the inspired Scripture’s way of alluding to undeserved forgiveness from God (Study 12) the allusion may be traced with confidence to the Shekinah Glory of God shining forth from above the Mercy Seat in the Tabernacle and thus signifying the forgiveness which God extended to His people on their Day of Atonement. Typically this was enacted in a Tabernacle which shared the punishment of God’s people in the wilderness. Its outward appearance was goat’s hair, a fitting symbol of the unattractive character of human nature. In the spiritual reality the heavenly Glory found expression in one who was born flesh. There was no beauty that they should desire him. Yet in him, and only in him, was the true forgiveness possible. He was “full of grace and truth”.

The Glory of the Lord

The apostle’s commentary on this message of John uses language appropriate to the same idea. Indeed apart from allusion to the Shekinah Glory it is difficult to interpret without falling into unhelpful vagueness: “And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace” (v.16). When, almost a year after the crossing of the Red Sea, the Tabernacle was completed and consecrated, “the glory of the Lord fil/edthe tabernacle” (Ex. 40:34,36,38). It is this word “filled” which the apostle picked up in order to expound it out of his own personal experience. Jesus had shown himself to be the Sanctuary of God filled with the Holy Spirit; and just as the priests were unable to enter the Tabernacle until the glory lifted from within to above it, so also the ensuing ministry of the apostles (note that plural pronoun “we”) could not take up where Jesus left off until the ascension of the Lord and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

“Grace for Grace”

Similarly, the vague mysterious expression “grace for (that is, instead of) grace” now falls into place, the two main ideas associated with “grace” in the NT. are the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Study 12). Both of these meanings make very good sense in this place. In Christ there is true forgiveness of sins, as against that which is typically foreshadowed through the sacrifices of the Tabernacle. Also, over against the Glory of God in the Tabernacle and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on Moses’ seventy helpers (Num 11:24ff), there is the glorifying or Jesus offer his resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Moses and Christ

The emphasis on Christ as the fulfilment of all that the Mosiac system was intended to teach is now stated more explicitly: “The law was given (a Hebraism for “appointed”) through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Here, as already suggested, “grace and truth” may be a hendiadys for “true grace”, that is “true forgiveness of sins”, in contrast to the typical teaching about this through the sacrifices under the Law (cp. “in spirit and in truth”; 4:23).

Alternatively, “grace and truth” may be the New Testament equivalent of the familiar Old Testament phrase “mercy and truth” which in every one of its occurrences refers to the covenants made by God with Abraham and with David. In that case the meaning is: “The law was revealed to Moses, but-greater than-that-Jesus Christ has brought the fulfilment of the Promises.”

This contrast is now summed up in a powerful allusion to Moses’ experience of seeing a veiled manifestation of the Glory of God whilst he was hidden in a cleft of the rock (Ex. 33:22). “No man hath seen (and goes on seeing) God at any time”, not even Moses/ for the theophany he beheld was specifically limited (v.22, 23). When the covenant was made at Sinai a theophany was not only heard but also seen (Ex. 24:10,11); but that was only transitory. But Jesus, the only begotten Son (contrast v.12), at the time of John’s writing had ascended into “the bosom of the Father.” John, the beloved disciple, had himself lain in Jesus’ bosom! (Jn. 13:23). Therefore who better qualified than he to “declare” Jesus? And Jesus being permanently so much more intimate with the Father than Moses ever was, what was the magnitude of the revelation of God which he could “declare”? (Mt. 11:27). The idea makes a wonderful climax to the build-up of allusions in this prologue.

Men used to talk (and still do) about the subtle philosophical ideas woven into this opening section of John’s gospel. All that is so much unmitigated rubbish. The first qualification for a proper understanding of this preliminary enunciation of the theme of the fourth gospel is an intimate knowledge of the Old Testament. It cannot be too strongly stressed that a sound appreciation of John’s gospel depends, most of all, on a clear recognition of the way in which, from start to finish, it sets Moses and Christ side by side, both for the sake of contrast and also to put beyond all argument that Jesus is greater than Moses; he is the fulfilment of all that Moses stood for.

In the last few years before the apostles passed off the scene one of the most serious problems they had to cope with was created by the intensive “counter-reformation” mounted by Judaism against Christianity (see: “The Jewish Plot”, by H.A.W.) It lured (or browbeat) many Jewish believers back to Moses and the synagogue. John’s gospel and epistles such as Colossians and Hebrews were written with the express purpose of stemming that drift. Hence John’s enunciation of the main theme of his gospel.

Notes: John 1:6-18

Zacharias the priest and his wife Elisabeth lived in a city in the hill-country of Judaea. Their home is usually identified as being Hebron (Josh. 21:11), the burial place of the patriarchs, some twenty miles south of Jerusalem, but another possible identification of their home (the reasons for which will emerge later) is Ramah, the home-town of the prophet Samuel, only a few miles north-west of Jerusalem.

Their pious lives are described by Luke with unrestrained enthusiasm, although normally he is very sparing of his encomiums: “They were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” It was as though their lives were one long temple service. Luke’s phrasing echoes the words of Almighty God to childless Abraham: “Walk before me, and be thou perfect (LXX: blameless)” (Gen. 17:1).

By an impressive paradox, through these two the Law at its best was to produce one whose chief mission in life was to point away from the Law. John, the son of a priest, never served as a priest.

Paradoxically, too, these who by their piety seemed to deserve the richest blessings of the Law were denied children, its most commonplace endowment.

Elisabeth bore the name of Aaron’s own wife (Ex. 6:23) who was sister of the prince of Judah. Similarly in this much later generation there must have been a direct link with the royal family in the tribe of Judah, for Elisabeth and Mary were closely related. Perhaps Elisabeth’s mother, of the line of David, had married into a priestly family, as the first Elisabeth had done.

Naturally their childlessness was a cause of much grief of mind to this godly couple. They had prayed, doubtless with sustained fervour, that God would give them a son, as He had marvellously blessed Abraham and Sarah, but it seemed that the heavens were as brass. Their prayers ceased, and they resigned themselves to a lonely old age; like Abraham and Sarah they were now both “old…. well-stricken in days” (sww. Gen. 18:11 LXX).

Priestly Ambition

But there was no flagging in their dutiful service to God. At last the day came when Zacharias’ other great ambition was realised. In the time of which Luke writes the number of priests available for temple service had multiplied considerably (to more than 20,000, it is said) so that even though a different priest was selected each day for the high honour of going into the Holy Place to burn incense before the Lord at the time of the morning and evening sacrifice, some priests went all their days without this signal privilege ever coming their way.

The procedure followed was this. Each of the twenty-four courses of priests did a week’s service in the temple twice a year, but for the great feasts a much larger number of them were on duty. Each day lots were drawn for the three serving priests to enter the Holy Place. One was to remove all traces of the previous day’s incense-burning. Another was to carry in red-hot coals from the altar of burnt-offering and put them on the incense altar before the Veil. The third then followed alone to do the actual burning of incense, to offer a prayer, and then come forth and pronounce the priestly blessing on the worshippers in the court without.

The deep satisfaction of Zacharias when, late in life, this high privilege fell to him may be imagined. For many years he had longed for this opportunity, the consummation of all his pious devotion to the service of God. He had probably pondered the fact that his priestly course, that of Abiah, was the eighth, and that it was followed by the course of Jesus, and that in turn by the course of Shechaniah (= the dwelling or spiritual temple of the Lord; 1 Chr. 24:10,11).

It was all the more satisfying that this honour came at the time of one of the great feasts. This is implied by the description: “And the whole multitude of the people were without at the time of incense” (1:10). But which feast? The assumption that this was the Day of Atonement, if correct, would point to the end of December for the birth of Jesus. But Cyril of Alexandria (bishop: A.D. 312-344) says that his church observed April 23 as the date of the birth of John the Baptist. This would mean that the feast just mentioned was Pentecost, when the giving of the Law at Sinai was celebrated. The occasion would then chime in perfectly with Zacharias’s zeal for “all the commandments and ordinances”. Also, it is known that the course of Abiah was on duty at about that time of the year. And this would mean that the birth of Jesus took place in October, about the time of the Feast of Tabernacles.

With what holy fervour and awe did Zacharias fulfil his sacred task! How likely it is that, as he went about his solemn duty, he breathed a prayer for the coming of Messiah and for the redemption of Israel.

Gabriel and Answer to Prayer

No sooner was the incense sprinkled on the hot coals in his censer than there appeared a

glorious angel of the Lord, as though coming from the Holy of Holies, from the Lord’s right hand. Zacharias was mystified and very fearful. Did his mind go to the vision revealed to Amos when that prophet saw an angel of the Lord standing beside the altar with a fearful message of judgement upon Israel? (9:1-10).

But no! Not that meaning, for this was Gabriel, the angel of answered prayer. So Daniel’s experience had proved: “When I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought (by prayer?) for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man (Heb: geber)…Gabri-el, make this man to understand the vision” (8:15,16).

And again: “Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel…. touched me about the time of the evening oblation…. At the beginning of thy supplication (Gabriel said) the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee” (9:21,23).

And again: “Fear not, Daniel (cp. Lk. 1:13): for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words” (10:12). And so also with Mary, as will be shown in Study 4, and with Jesus (Lk. 22:43,44) and Cornelius (Acts 10:30,31) – and Jeremiah? (32:16,18 – El Cibbor).

A little consideration would surely have brought reassurance to Zacharias, for the angel before him stood at the right side of the altar of incense, and always in Scripture God’s right hand is the side of acceptance and blessing.

A Gracious Message

The first words of Gabriel set all anxiety at rest: “Fear not, Zacharias! for thy prayer was heard.” This Greek aorist might suggest reference to an earlier prayer done and finished with some time before – the prayer for a son of his own. That was a prayer filed but not forgotten (cp. Acts 10:4). Now came the amazing answer. As the birth of Isaac became a sign to Abraham that the promise was at last beginning to be fulfilled, so also now. “Thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou (v.60) shalt call his name John (the grace or gift or forgiveness of Jehovah)”. More than this, he would be a son to be proud of: “thou shalt have joy and gladness”. His work would be such as the true people of God give thanks for: “many shall rejoice at his birth.”

The character of this child’s mission was now expounded with an enthusiasm which the angel could not disguise: “He shall be great in the sight of the lord” (cp v. 32; Mt.11:11) – is there any other in Scripture besides the Messiah to whom such language is applied? The greatness would not be what the world calls greatness, but a personal dedication to God and a converting mission in Israel (according to Old Testament prophecy) to prepare Israel for the manifestation of their Messiah.

The Nazirite vow was designed to consecrate a man specially to God’s service by re-enacting in him certain outstanding characteristics of the High Priest. 1. No wine or strong drink. (Lev. 10:8-11). 2. No contact with the dead (Lev. 21:1,5). 3. Wearing the crown (nezer) of his God (unshorn hair; Ex. 28:36-38).

But why should this son of promise be a Nazirite? Because he, the son of an ordinary priest, was to be greater than any high priest.

Also, this turns out to be only one of a number of resemblances to the prophet Samuel:

1. “The Lord grant thee thy petition”, said Eli to Hannah; cp. Gabriel’s words to Zacharias (1:13).
2. “Joy and gladness” regarding John (1:14) echoes 1 Samuel2:1: “exult….rejoice”,
3. Samuel and John were both born at Ramah.
4. The name John is now accounted for — it is really Johanan, the name Hannah with the divine Name prefixed.
5. A time of “no vision published abroad” (3:1) has its counterpart in a priest who can neither hear the Word of the Lord nor impart it (1:64).
6. So of course Samuel the Nazirite (1:11) is followed by John the Nazirite (1:15; and consider Jer. 23:9; Acts2: 13-17).

Prophet of Repentance

Nevertheless an even greater work lay before John — to bring Israel to repentance. This commission was expressed in terms of Malachi’s unique enigmatic idiom: “He shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers (the disobedient to the wisdom of the just)” (Mal.4i6). The guesses at precise interpretation of these words have been many and varied. Here are a few:

• Changing the hearts of the fathers to be as childlike as children, and to turn the hearts of the children to admire and emulate the faith of the Fathers.
• Persuading Jews to accept Gentiles in fellowship, and Gentiles to learn the Hope of Israel.
• Teaching Jews the truth of their own ancient Scriptures (put both ways round for emphasis); cp. “the disobedient to the wisdom of the just.”
• Teaching all classes that they must together turn to God (contrast Lk 12:51-53).

This great work, the main idea of which is clear enough, was to make the child a herald of the Messiah. As Elijah ran before the chariot of the king (1 Kgs 18:46), so John would “go before him (Messiah) in the spirit and power of Elias” — not with miraculous power such as Elijah exercised, for “John did no miracle” (Jn.10: 41), but with a power of divine inspiration in his message such as no one would be disposed to question. Tishbite means “the converter”. John was to be Elijah even as Jesus will one day be David. (Ez. 37:24,25).

Although that Malachi prophecy still awaits full-filment (Mt.17: 11 — future tense), it also had reference to the mission of the son of Zacharias.

In due time John’s stern authoritative message swept through the nation like a prairie fire. With reference to this Jesus himself used the figure of a house swept and tidied, ready for its new occupant (Lk. 11:24-26). But when the rightful Owner came to his own, his own received him not. So the last state of that house became worse than the first, and consequently, in the words of Malachi, the Land was smitten with a ban (RVm), a ban which lasted for nearly two milleniums.

But this is hindsight. The work of this child of promise lay before him, outlined in memorable words in the mind of his father. And there was also the promise that he should not lack the power to succeed: “he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” (1:15) — not an immature infant pouring forth words of precocious heavenly wisdom in his mother’s kitchen (commonsense is sufficient safeguard against any such extravagance); but, as Jeremiah was sanctified before he came forth from the womb (1:5), and as Paul was separated from birth (Gal. 1:15) to be a revealer of Christ, even though a blasphemer first, so also from his foetal quickening (v. 41) this infant John was to be marked out, educated and equipped by God for his great task of preparing the way of the Lord by preparing a people.

Incredulity

What could satisfy the spiritual aspirations of a good father more than this? Zacharias should have been incoherent with gladness and deep deep satisfaction. But there is no man in whom faith does not have its limitations. So he hesitated, and then put a request at once natural, reprehensible, and superfluous:

“Whereby shall I know this? For….” These were the very words used by Abraham when bidden believe himself the father of a seed as numerous as the stars (Gen. 15:8); and they were almost the words of Mary when Gabriel came to her with a like but even better message (v. 34). But there must have been a world of difference in the spirit of Zacharios’s “Yes but —” Did he argue back with the angel, the brevity and conciseness of the record doing him a kindness here? How else is one to explain Gabriel’s sudden switch to curtness, and the summary affliction which descended on the old priest? Evidently much more was said than is included in Luke’s narrative here, for “the people. . . marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple;” yet verses 12-20 need not have taken up more than two minutes.

Gabriel’s austere application of discipline is not without its present eloquent summary of what was to befall the nation. As Zacharias disbelieved the message about John, so they in turn disbelieved the coming of the Messiah. So a divinely judicial dumbness and deafness (v. 62) in all spiritual things descended on them. Since then they have been unable to bring any spiritual blessing to the rest of the world, and this will so continue until the day when they recognise the gracious gift and forgiveness of God in the One whom formerly they disbelieved.

Examples of gospel symbolism and parable similar to this recur constantly right through the gospel, so that the student is bidden to ask himself: Did Luke see these heavenly patterns in the traditions he gathered, and did he write them accordingly? Or is this a better evidence than any other of an over-ruling Guidance at work to demonstrate that God is in history and that God’s history repeats itself?

The angel’s rebuke was couched in terms marvellously apt for one who was certainly a devout student of the Holy Scriptures: “I am Gabriel that stand in the presence of God. . . thou shalt be dumb and not able to speak. . .because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in due season.” Were the words alluded to those which Gabriel spoke concerning Elisabeth, or those which he had spoken to Daniel centuries earlier — the seventy “weeks” prophecy (9:24-27) which words were now to be fulfilled “unto their measured time”?

Whilst this protracted encounter was in progress, the great crowd of worshippers in the court of the temple grew uneasy and restless. What could have befallen the priest? The instructions to priests on duty were that they must always be as expeditious as was seemly when in the Holy Place. So the minds of all were prepared for something abnormal. Had he been struck dead as one unworthy of his office?

It was soon evident, when at last the priest appeared, that he had had some awe-inspiring experience. Unable to say a word, he had to have recourse to signs and gestures. The guess was quickly made that he had seen a vision.

Did any of the people ruminate on the untoward fact that this day the Law and the Temple were unable to impart a blessing on them? “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached.”

Elisabeth

It is an eloquent tribute to the punctilious dutiful spirit of Zacharias that although now both deaf and dumb (1:62), and therefore for most purposes useless in temple service (Lev. 21:17), he still continued in Jerusalem, doubtless finding other simple duties within his competence, and doubtless writing down a detailed account of what had transpired in the Holy Place. Only when “the days of his ministration were accomplished” did he return home.

And as the angel had foretold, so it came to pass.

The aged Elisabeth quietly rejoiced, marvelling at her impending motherhood: “Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days when he looked upon me, to take away my reproach among men.” Not inappropriately she quoted the words of Rachel who would fain have the Lord add another son (Gen. 30:23); but in this case Elisabeth looked to the birth of Jesus.

But Isaiah also was in her devout thinking: “Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud (and she did; Lk. 1:42), thou that didst not travail with child… thou shalt not remember (=Zacharias) the reproach of thy widowhood any more” (Is. 54:1,4).

To ensure her son’s true Nazirite-ness Elisabeth “hid herself” from all social contact, possibly by taking on some temple duties (cp. Lk. 2:36); this with the intention, like that of the mother of Samson (Jd. 13:5-17), of preserving her baby from any kind of defilement. This went on right up to the time of the birth of the child. Luke mentions the first five months, as covering by faith the initial period, for until “the babe leapt in her womb” (1:41) she had no certain means of knowing herself to be pregnant.

Notes: Luke 1:5-25

Luke’s most classical Greek (v. 1-4) is followed by the most Hebraistic of all his writing. So perhaps v. 1-4 was meant as a kind of accompanying letter to his gospel – as 1 Jn was an accompanying letter to John’s gospel.

The formal naming of the baby Jesus took place at the time of his circumcision on the eighth day (Lk. 2:21). Until that time Mary probably called him her Immanuel. But now “his name also was called Jesus” (v.21; Gk text). It would not have been amiss, in a way, if the baby’s name had been Joseph, “after the name of his ‘father’”, for what more complete type of the Messiah is to be found in the Old Testament? Yet, in another way, this would have been anything but suitable, for it would have very misleadingly suggested to the world that Mary’s child was the son of her husband. The Bible mentions only four who were named by divine instruction before birth: Ishmael (a type of unbelieving Jewry; Jn. 8:33-42), Isaac (a type of Christ), John the Baptist, and Jesus.

This circumcision-performed, most likely, by Zacharias at his home-declared Jesus a son of Abraham: “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every male child among you shall be circumcised” (Gen. 17:10). Mede’s seventeenth century comment on this is worth quoting: “In circumcision was signified the taking away of the superfluity of sin in and through him who was yet in the loins of his ancestors. Hence Galatians 5:2: ‘If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing’. Why? Because he that received circumcision did as much as affirm that Christ is not yet come.” And of course this was still true when Jesus was circumcised, for until his resurrection the full truth of the Lord’s work of redemption was not evident to men. But in his eighth day “thus early did he suffer pain for our sakes”(Farrar).

From this eighth day and for the rest of his days it was testified to Jesus that “every man that is circumcised … is a debtor to do the whole law” (Gal. 5:3); and this Jesus did. Thus, “made of a woman, made under the law, he redeemed them that were under the law”, that any man bearing the mark of the law might “receive the adoption of sons” (Gal. 4:4,5).

Son of man

This circumcision also declared that this child of Mary, although of such a holy birth, nevertheless shared the nature of all other sons of Abraham. Any doctrine, which makes Jesus of a more pure, higher nature by birth than other men, makes this rite, applied to him, meaningless, and the record of it sadly misleading.

The same is true regarding Mary’s purification, which duly took place, according to the law of Leviticus 12, in the temple court at Jerusalem (v.22). Indeed, according to the overwhelming evidence of the manuscripts, this is specially underlined by Luke’s phrase: “the days of their purification” (RV). Here was Moses’ unflagging reminder of the “taint” about all human nature, inherited by Mary and shared by Jesus. Yet Rome talks about the “immaculate conception” of Mary, and all Christendom makes Jesus different in his essential nature from those to whom he brings redemption.

Mary’s time of uncleanness lasted for forty days, during which time she was not to go out of doors. But it is difficult to believe that she spent all that time where her baby was born. Presumably, as soon as possible, she and Joseph travelled to the home of Zacharias and Elisabeth, and spent the time there.

High Priest designate

Rather remarkably, when Luke purports to quote what is “written in the law of the Lord” about this (2:23), he includes a phrase: “shall be called holy to the Lord”, which is not found in any of the places where the Law speaks of the consecration of the firstborn. Yet this is an expression repeatedly used about the high-priest: Lev. 21:6-8; Ex. 28:36,38. Thus Luke hints at the truth which the gospel was to disclose, that through this child, later to become God’s High Priest, is a means of cleansing and redemption from all the defilement which is human nature.

Since the days of Moses the service of Levites was accepted in lieu of the firstborn (Num. 3:12,13). But since Golgotha, Levites can only find acceptance because of the Firstborn and the way in which he was (so very differently!) “brought to Jerusalem to be presented before the Lord.”

The kind of sacrifice made on Mary’s behalf tells much about this family into which Jesus was born. The offering of “a pair of (migrant) turtle doves, or two young pigeons” was the concession which the Law made to extreme poverty, where the restricted means of the family simply did not allow of the more usual offering of a lamb and a pigeon (Lev. 12:6).

Persons as devout as Mary and Joseph would obviously have brought the better offering, had they been able. So it may be safely assumed that the home in which Jesus grew up knew nothing of wealth, nor even of moderate middle-class respectability, but only a constant wearying struggle against poverty.

When Jesus was “presented unto the Lord”, would the standard redemption payment of five shekels (Num. 18:16; twenty days’ wages:Mt 20:2) be insisted on in the case of people so poor? Ginsberg is surely in error when he says that the payment was thirty shekels.

Simeon

In the temple court they were met by a venerable old man who seemed to be awaiting them. This pious witness to the Truth of God lived only in the hope of seeing the realisation of the glorious promises of God to His chosen people. He “waited for the consolation of Israel.”

One suggestion (lacking complete proof) asserts that he was not only of the line of David (and therefore related to Joseph and Mary) but also son of the famous Rabbi Hillel and the father of the Gamaliel who made such a clever tongue-in-cheek defence of the apostles when the wrath of the chief priests had been stirred up against them (Acts 5:34-40). Yet that Simeon is known to have been President of the Sanhedrin in A.D. 7, some twelve years or so later. So the usual assumption of great age at this time would have to be discarded. His prayer: “Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace …”, was probably a conscious imitation of Jacob’s when he again set eyes on Joseph (Gen. 46:30) -and that patriarch lived another seventeen years after that (47:28). It is rather remarkable that there is no mention of Simeon-ben-Hillel in the Mishna. Could that be because he is mentioned in Luke’s gospel?

If this identification is correct, then Simeon probably lived to be amazed by the remarkable promise of the boy Jesus in the temple just after his bar-mitzvah.

To this devout Simeon a divine revelation (s.w. Mt 2:12) had been given that he would live to see the Messiah. The divine constraint brought him in expectation into the temple court at this very time, so that he knew for certain that God’s purpose specially concerned the humble family presenting their offerings.

The Consolation of Israel

With bright-eyed gladness he took the child from his mother, and broke into a hymn of praise and thanksgiving: “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all the peoples (i .e. the tribes of I srael)” (2:29-31).

Old Testament Expectations

This was not only the rejoicing of aged Jacob, but also, by the eye of faith, the fulfilment of a prophetic psalm (Isaiah’s?) which foretold the grand accomplishment of all that God had promised to the Fathers: “The Lord hath made known his salvation … he hath remembered his mercy and his truth (i.e. his Covenants of Promise) towards the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God” (Ps. 98:2,3).

Only profound insight into the purpose of God, harnessed by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, could have led Simeon to associate the tiny baby in his arms with the fulness of God’s redemption: “A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.” The order of the phrases here is to be noted-first, the enlightenment of the Gentiles, after that the manifestation of God’s Shekinah Glory in Israel. The literal expression used by Simeon, “the unveiling of the nations”, may have been used with direct allusion to “the veil that is spread over all nations”, the removal of which Isaiah foretold, when “death is swallowed up in victory” (25:8). Or it may imply the unveiling of God’s hidden purpose (mystery) that Gentiles should share with Israel the salvation He provides.

There are also remarkable contacts, both verbally and in idea, with other fine passages in Isaiah. Every phrase in Isaiah 52:7-9 seems to have special relevance:

A careful reading of Isaiah 49, with the aged Simeon and Anna in mind, reveals many verbal resemblances and similarities in idea:

Note also the references to babies (v.1,15,20-23;) and “preserve thee” (v.8 Heb. nazar; cp. Nazareth).

It is easy now to understand why Simeon ejaculated: “Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy spoken word.” He was alluding to the spoken word through the prophet (Is. 49:1).

Also, it was surely with reference to the Immanuel prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 and his own belief in the Virgin Birth that Simeon declared: “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign that shall be spoken against.” Yet how very apt these words are! Just as faithless Ahaz rejected the sign in his day, so also the nation of Israel with Jesus. It was only in mockery that they sought “a sign from heaven”, Instead they were given one out of “the depth”-the sign of the prophet Jonah. And through him-the baby now in Simeon’s arms-there will yet come a sharp discrimination between ‘those who “fall” (the Greek word suggests a corpse) and those who “rise again” (this is the usual word for resurrection).

It called for faith, truly, to believe that men’s attitude to this tiny infant was one day to settle the eternal destiny of every individual. “For judgment he was come into this world”-”that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed” (cp. Mat. 3:2).

Mary’s Great Test

Even his own mother was to be no exception to this searching test: “Yea, a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also.” The word “also” is important here, for it implies a sword in the soul of Jesus as well. This came to pass in a literal fashion in the piercing of his side on the cross. Figuratively its effect is to be seen in the tremendous spiritual tension which built up in Jesus as the end drew near: “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? shall I say, Father, save me from this hour? but for this cause came I unto this hour.”

Mary too, in lesser degree, must face the same test. It is customary to seek the fulfilment of Simeon’s prophecy regarding her in the pangs of wretchedness and helpless sorrow which assailed her soul as she stood with the other women at the foot of the cross, sharing with her firstborn all the agonies of crucifixion.

This is appropriate enough. But there was another occasion when a much worse misery overwhelmed her. Mark 3:21 tells how the family of Jesus “sought to lay hold on him” because they were convinced that he was “beside himself.” Evidently Mary allowed herself to be overborne by this ghastly misjudgement: “Then came his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him” (v.31). They wished to take him home and keep him under restraint. It is only this which can explain the brusque reply of Jesus: “Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren.”

Could there possibly have been any more bitter moment in the life of Mary than this when she was publicly thrust away by the son whose every word and slightest action had been the centre of all her waking thoughts for the past thirty years? Truly, on that day a sword pierced her soul as at no other time. Happily faith came again (one wonders just how? was John the one responsible for coaxing her back to faith in her son as Lord and Christ?), and she was with him at the end, sorrowing but now believing.

Anna

The little group consisting of Simeon, Joseph, and Mary with the baby in her arms were doubtless the centre of much attention in the temple court. But interest grew all the more when they were joined by the aged Anna, a well-known figure to multitudes, for she had lived a life of consecrated service and piety in the temple for about sixty years, so that without seeking it she had acquired a national reputation as an outstanding member of the minority in Israel who not only wished for but also devoutly prayed for the early redemption of the nation from its spiritual and political bondage. Paul refers to her as the outstanding example of one who is “a widow indeed … making prayers night and day” (1 Tim. 5:5).

Amongst the numerous throng in the temple court those who especially looked for the redemption of Jerusalem gathered round Anna as she continued the fervent praise and thanksgiving which had just been heard from the lips of Simeon.

The description of Anna as a prophetess may mean that she was a singer in the temple choir and not one who regularly gave utterance to inspired messages from God. Otherwise it is difficult to understand why none of her prophecies have been preserved. On the other hand there is evidence that the praising of God in psalms and hymns was also spoken of as prophecy (see Notes). Luke’s record about Anna seems to imply the same idea here, for after her “giving thanks unto the Lord” (2:38), she “spake of him to all them that looked for the redemption of Jerusalem.” If this suggestion is correct, it may readily be imagined what a sensation there would be in the temple area when this fine old lady lifted up her voice in an ecstatic melodious psalm of praise. Well might Luke take care to mention that Anna belonged to the tribe of Asher, for Asher means “happy”, and Anna is the only member of that tribe to make any contribution to Bible history.

Phanuel – Peniel

Yet there is so much similarity between the characters and forward-looking spirituality of Simeon and Anna that one is left wondering why the account of both is included. Does the explanation lie in the significant detail that she was the daughter of Phanuel? This is probably the New Testament form of Peniel, the place where Jacob wrestled with the angel through the night and till the morning, ultimately overcoming through his wrestling in prayer: “(, will not let thee go, except thou bless me … I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved” (Gen. 32:26,30).

Luke hints at Anna’s recapitulation of Jacob’s experiences-her “supplication night and day”; and beholding the baby Jesus she saw God face to face and by that very encounter knew her life to be preserved.

Joseph and Mary were already sufficiently conscious of the high responsibility committed to them in the care of the Son of God, but these experiences in the temple court must have sent them away in awe and wonder that they should have been chosen for such privileges as to make them almost objects of envy by people of the spiritual calibre of Simeon and Anna. Although they were the meek of the earth, their status in the sight of heaven could hardly be higher.

Notes: Luke 2:21-39