CHAPTER I:
THE GOSPEL OF THE DIVINE AND HUMAN ORIGINS OF JESUS
HOME | Contents | Good Tidings | 3.Annunciation of the birth of John | 4.Annunciation to Mary | 5.Mary's visit to Elizabeth | 6.birth of John. He withdraws to the desert. | 7.Joseph | 20.genealogy of Jesus | 8.birth of Jesus | 9-10.legal observances | 11.the Magi. Flight to Egypt | 12.return to Nazareth |14.Jesus in His Father's House | Jesus at Nazareth.
The good tidings.
GOSPEL means good tidings.
In the beginning the good tidings were those
announced by Jesus,
and by John before Him, in the words:
The kingdom of God is at hand.
When His disciples understood that these good tidings had become
a reality in the person of Jesus,
in His death and resurrection for man's salvation,
the meaning of the word
gospel became more definite:
the good tidings signified the doctrine of Jesus,
the doctrine taught by
Him and about Him,
which the Apostles were publishing abroad
and calling on
Jews first,
and then Gentiles, to accept.
Hence St. Paul, who was perhaps the first to use the word,
speaks of
preaching 'the gospel,'
meaning by that
the salvation which is in Jesus,
in virtue of His Passion, for those who believe in Him.
The other Apostles,
who had been witnesses of our Saviour's life as He actually lived it,
and St. Peter most of all, dwelt on the different details of that life,
on His words and His miracles, and on all that was comprised under the gospel.
We have already seen that, as planned by St. Peter, it began with the baptism
of John
and ended with the Resurrection and Ascension.
This was also the meaning
of the term for Peter's disciple, St. Mark.
To make the gospel begin further back might well seem to them unnecessary.
The facts relating to our Saviour's infancy had not become known to the world,
nor had the
growth of faith in the mind of the disciples been in any way due to those
facts.
During that period Jesus went by the name of Joseph's son from Nazareth.
Seemingly, these facts could be left out of account by one who wished
simply to get a good idea of the impression Jesus' words and deeds produced
on the Jews, and to carry his thoughts back to
those early days so as to experience for himself the effect of those words
and deeds.
The attempt has even been made to regard these facts of the Infancy
not as things which played a part in the genesis of the disciples' faith,
but as inferences drawn later on from Christian belief after that belief
had been formed by the Saviour's public ministry alone.
But the truth is
that Christians have never admitted any doubt upon the point;
nor is there
any doubt, though we do not know precisely when these facts came to the knowledge
of the Apostles.
Accordingly, when St. Matthew,
in order to help converted
Jews and to resist the attacks of unbelieving Jews,
designed to furnish solid
proof that Jesus was really the Messiah,
he judged it opportune to go right
back to his origin.
He proved by a genealogy that He was really a descendant
of David;
he showed that the manner of His birth,
that is to say a supernatural
conception such as befitted one who was the Son of God,
had been foretold
by the Scriptures,
which had also foretold His birth at Bethlehem and His
life at Nazareth.
Then St. Luke, coming after St. Mark, decided that he would include in his
gospel an orderly account of the events of the Infancy.
It is only during these
last few years that we have come fully to understand how these events really
form part of the gospel, nay, are the gospel itself if we take the word in
its earlier Christian sense.
That is to say, with our fuller knowledge of the
world of his time,
we realize how very opportune Luke's narrative must have
been.
The noun 'gospel' (εὐαγγέλιον) he never uses;
but twice in his
story of the Infancy he has the verb 'to evangelize' (to announce the good
tidings);
and we now know that it was precisely here that the usage of the
time made it a peculiarly appropriate word.
A custom had grown up in the East of giving to sovereigns the title of Saviour
or God-Saviour,
and by that very fact an all-important significance was attached
to their birth;
for if a sovereign was entitled to be called a god
it could only be because
of his divine origin,
and this divine origin was consecrated and made manifest
to all men by means of his birth.
[ Cf. Le prétendu messianisme de Virgile;
Revue Biblique,
1922, pp. 570 ff.]
Already as early as the year 238 BC.,
the
birth of King Ptolemy had been described as the day on which all mankind began
to receive many benefits.
In the case of Antiochus of Commagene (from 69 to
about 34 BC.) his birth and coronation were said to be divine epiphanies or,
as we say, manifestations.
It was about the same time that Virgil was making
known to the world that a ruler was to appear who should restore the golden
age, the beginnings of which were to be found in a childhood that was miraculous.
Finally, in the year 9 BC., Paulus Fabius Maximus, proconsul of Roman Asia,
made a proposal to the people of his
province that they should count the birthday of Augustus as their New Year's
Day.
In his proclamation he said:
'It is a question whether we receive more pleasure or more profit from the birthday of the most divine Caesar,
for it is a day that might well be compared to the beginning of everything -
if not the beginning of all being,
at all events the source of all our benefit.
For this day has restored all that was in decay and all that had fallen into misfortune;
a new appearance has been put upon the entire world,
which would have perished but for the birth of Caesar who is the blessing of all men.'
Note that it is
precisely the birthday of Caesar Augustus which gives to the world the beginning
of good tidings, or εὐαγγέλια (gospels) as the Greek puts it.
And
when a prince succeeded to the throne, his accession was looked on as a second
and further announcement of good tidings:
thus, when Nero came to the imperial throne in the year 54, he was proclaimed
to the world as the hope of all prosperity and the good genius of the universe.
[Inscription of Oxyrhyncus,
VII, 1021: discovered in 1910.]
Is it St. Luke's intention, then, to imitate the official protocol?
Perhaps;
but if he does so it is with a tremendous difference.
It was rather his
intention to accept the challenge thrown down by these proud monarchs
or by their flattering courtiers
when he claimed the title of Saviour for a
child born in a crib,
a Child who at that time had few to pay Him homage.
And events have proved that Luke was in theright,
for it is from the
birth-day of Jesus that we count this new era,
the Christian era,
which,
by contrast with that unknown time when the world first came into being,
is like a new creation.
Men have not begun to count time, as the proconsul desired,
from the birth-day of Augustus, who did no more than restore a social order
that has long since passed away.
The gospel, therefore, in the strictest sense of that word, luglil to
commence with the supernatural conception of
Jesus.
It was by His public mission that He proved His dignity as Son of God;
but
it was at the moment of His Incarnation that the Son of God became the Saviour
who dwelt amongst us.
Wherefore, St. John, who goes into no detail about the
childhood of Jesus, has been careful to point out His divine origin right from
the opening of the fourth gospel.
The gospel of the Infancy may not have furnished the Jews who listened to
Jesus with any motive for belief;
nevertheless it provides for us a marvellous light and is a source of delight
for all devout and contemplative souls.
The very beauty of that mysterious
harmony which exists between God's preparation of His design and its execution
is itself a motive of faith.
It might be said that the Infancy Narrative teaches
nothing more than that Jesus is both Son of God and truly man:
but is that
nothing?
Indeed we might almost say that, in His infancy, He is more truly
man than at any time during the remainder of His life:
that is why Marcion,
who would believe only in a heavenly Christ, held the crib and the swaddling
clothes in horror.
But we mean that He is more human because He is weaker,
a mere Child in His Mother's arms, dependent on her and fed at her breast.
He works no miracles, for miracles are meant to serve as confirmations of doctrine,
and the time for teaching has not yet arrived.
Indeed the supernatural is here
altogether concealed except for the angelic apparitions, and these are only
necessary for the purpose of making known the good tidings to a little chosen
group.
Mary has to be informed so that she may give her consent:
Joseph has
to play his part in God's designs:
a few shepherds, who stand for the whole
of Israel, have to receive the news that a Saviour is born to them.
Therefore St. Luke,
convinced as he is of the supreme importance of these
facts,
begins at once to appeal to those testimonies
which, as he guarantees
to Theophilus, are trustworthy.
He makes two reserved, but quite clear allusions
in the course of his narrative [Luke
ii.19, 51.]
which
give the reader to understand
that the Mother of Jesus herself is the source
from which the disciples learnt the most intimate secrets of those humble beginnings,
which St. Luke has not been afraid to link up with the most important events
of the time.
top
Annunciation of the Forerunner's birth (3).
'There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea.'
The scene opens in
Judaea,
that is to say in the territory of the ancient tribe of Juda,
one of the twelve sons of the patriarch Jacob or Israel, as he was called by
God.
This tribe, along with the neighbouring tribe of Benjamin, had received
signal honour from God by the fact that He had chosen Jerusalem for
the place of His Temple, where He had established His presence in their
midst.
The remnant of
Juda had returned from the Babylonian captivity to found a new people
which from that time had remained faithful to the worship of the one
true God.
Some of the descendants of the other tribes had chosen to cast in
their lot
with this 'holy seed,' as Isaias calls it [Isaias vi.13.],
but they had now lost their tribal individuality in helping to form one new
nation along with Juda.
In the years
during which the successors of Alexander the Great had ruled in Palestine,
this chosen remnant had proved strong enough to withstand all the seductions
of Greek culture.
For a time they had been shaken, but they rallied their
forces with such effect that even the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes
had done no more than merely strengthen them in their faith.
The descendants of the Machabees then became rulers in Israel:
but, as the Machabees were of the Levitical race and were high priests
before they were kings,
it might be said with truth that the nation had only God as its king.
The pomp of royalty, however, along with the political intercourse carried
on with the idolatrous sovereigns of other countries, had given a worldly
appearance to these Hasmonean princes, as the Machabean dynasty was called.
The most zealous upholders of religious reform were a group of Israelites
known as Hasidim or Pietists, who afterwards developed into the sect
called Pharisees or 'the saparated ones.'
These held themselves aloof from
the new dynasty established by the Machabees on the ground that the genuine
sceptre of Israel, preserved by God in order that the glory of David and Solomon
might be restored to his people, was to be kept for David's line alone.
They
looked for a son of David,
a king who was to be anointed with the sacred oil, one whom they called in
Hebrew the Messiah, foretold by prophets and psalmists as he who should deliver
Israel and make her victorious over her enemies.
National hopes were raised to the point of fanaticism when it came to pass
that the throne of David was occupied by a dynasty that was not even Jewish
in origin.
During the reign of Hyrcanus, that very feeble descendant of the
Machabees, the real power in the kingdom had been usurped by Antipater,
a sort of mayor of the palace for the king;
it was said that he was a descendant
of Edom, Israel's ancient brother and enemy.
His son Herod,
whose name, meaning
'the son of heroes,' was Greek like that of his father,
had thrown aside all
pretence by completely supplanting his former masters.
This man had skilfully
curried favour with the Romans during their civil wars preceding the accession
of Augustus to the purple, by always showing himself ready to pay homage to
the victor, were he but yesterday an enemy.
In this way he had eventually won
the permanent favour of Augustus after the latter had been left sole master
of the Roman world.
But while he paid court to his imperial master,
Herod was
at the same time anxious to keep himself in power through the favour of his
own subjects.
With this end in view he had rebuilt the Temple of Jerusalem
in more splendid fashion.
At that time, more than ever before, was the Temple in the Holy City a religious
centre for the whole of Israel;
it possessed its own lawful priesthood,
and
their sacred rites were well attended by worshippers coming from every quarter
of the land,
more especially on occasion of the three great religious pilgrimages,
namely at the Pasch,
at Pentecost,
and at the feast of Tabernacles or Tents.
Each day sacrifice was duly offered;
the smoke of victims ascended to heaven
even on behalf of Caesar himself.
But this mark of respect for the Jewish religion
shown by Augustus seemed to cast a shadow over the religious fervour of the
people.
The future was dark.
Herod had had his day:
he was worn out and aged.
And his sons, though they inherited his tyrannical disposition, had not inherited
his genius.
To whom would the Jewish kingdom fall?
It was a prize for which
the Romans were themselves lying in wait.
However, it is just when things
seem most hopeless that God shows Himself a Saviour.
People were praying fervently for the salvation of Israel and imploring that
the Messiah might come;
especially did they make this prayer at the moment
towards evening each day when the daily sacrifice of the lamb was offered.
During the offering of that sacrifice one of the priests went into the Holy
Place in order to burn incense before the Lord.
We must bear in mind that the Temple was not like a Christian church,
that
is, a house shared by God and the faithful.
It was an immense enclosure divided
into courts, the largest of which was open to all, whether Jews or Gentiles.
Within were other courts cut off by a barrier beyond which none but Israelites
were allowed to go.
In the court reserved for the priests stood the Sanctuary,
a small building containing the Holy of Holies which was reserved for God alone,
preceded by a chamber called the Holy Place,
whither the priests entered in
order to perform their mysterious offices.
While the smoke of the sacrifice
was going up from the altar of holocausts outside in the open air,
the priests
renewed the loaves of proposition,
lit up the seven-branched candlestick
and
offered incense in the Holy Place.
When the smoke from the altar of incense
was perceived going up towards God
the Levites chanted to the accompaniment
of musical instruments,
while the people in the courts offered up their prayers
in union with the priest who was offering the incense.
Prayers were said aloud
for the good estate of prince and people,
and in their hearts those who were
the more fervent added an earnest supplication for the redemption of Israel
by the Messiah.
The day on which the gospel opens the priest who offered the sacrifice of
incense was named Zachary.
He had a wife named Elizabeth.
Both were very old,
and they were childless.
It seemed strange that they were deprived of this
blessing, seeing that they walked blamelessly before God according to his 'commandments
and observances.'
Possibly a secret hope still inspired Zachary's prayer while
he besought the Lord to have mercy on all the people.
Then an angel appeared to him standing at the right of the altar of incense
which occupied the place between the loaves of proposition and the candlestick.
The name Gabriel indicates that he had the appearance of a man, since Gabriel
means 'the man of God ';
that is to say, a heavenly being in human form.
Zachary was amazed even to the
point of distress,
a prey to that dread felt by all Israelites at the approach
of a superior being who is man only in appearance.
The angel, however, bade
him 'Fear not!' -
a command we are destined to hear often on the lips of
Jesus;
for now God's message no longer takes the form of a thread:
it is
good tidings.
And Zachary is not merely to be allowed to share knowledge
of the secret:
he is to play a part in its joyful realization,
for his wife
is to bear a son whom he shall call John,
in Hebrew Johanan, which means
'Jaho (the God of Israel) has shown favour.'
So great should this child be
that, even before the day of his circumcision,
the day on which new-born
babes took their place among the people of God,
he should be filled with
the Holy Ghost while yet in his mother's womb.
His birth would therefore
be a day of joy.
By his abstention from wine and all intoxicating drink John
was to show that he was consecrated to the Lord.
And when the time came,
the Holy Ghost would use him as His instrument,
even as He had used the prophets
and those heroes of old who had delivered the people.
John would go forward
in the spirit and power of Elias,
the most renowned of those who of old were
known as the Sons of the Spirit.
Such had been the character of all the former
prophets,
but John was to be distinguished from all the rest by reason of
his special work:
he was to prepare for the Lord a perfect people.
Nor was
his mission to end with him,
and although the angel makes no definite promise
on this point,
for he is not commissioned completely to draw aside the veil
of the future,
nevertheless we are left to conclude that John is merely the
forerunner of another.
Zachary must have read the prophecy of Malachias,
who had foretold how the Lord should come to His Temple preceded by a messenger:
'Behold I send My messenger,
and he shall prepare the way before My face;
and presently there shall come to His Temple
the Lord whom you seek
and the Angel of the covenant whom you desire.'
[Malachias iii.1.]
In the belief of the rabbis,
this meant that the office of forerunner was to be entrusted to Elias,
who
was to come down again from heaven whither he had been borne in a fiery chariot.
Zachary was given reason to hope that this Elias would be no other than his
own son John,
who was to be animated with the spirit of Elias.
And who was
the Angel of the Covenant if not the Messiah?
So grand a destiny as that, to be the father of the new Elias, might well make the old priest thrill with joy; but dare he really believe that he was to have a son now that he was so old?
The angel saw how the mind of Zachary was overshadowed by doubt.
'Whereby shall I know this?'
the man asked,
and certainly there was no objection to his asking for a sign;
to the question he joined a sad remark which betrayed his distrust:
'For I am an old man,
and my wife is advanced in years.'
Assuredly, his fault was
but slight, and, indeed, the angel did not find in it a reason for taking
back God's promise.
As, however, it showed that he was somewhat hesitating
in welcoming these good tidings,
the angel condemned Zachary to remain dumb
till the child should be born.
In the meantime, the people outside in the Temple courts were wondering
that the priest stayed so long within the sanctuary.
And when he came
out and tried to explain what had happened,
he found that in truth he
was powerless to speak.
This was quite enough to convince the people
that he had seen a heavenly vision, though what it was they could not
find out.
After the days of his priestly ministry were ended
Zachary went back to
his home in the hill-country of Judaea, and as soon as his wife Elizabeth realized
that she had conceived a child she kept to the house in order to prevent
comments on the part of her neighbours.
It was not yet the time for
the good tidings to be published abroad:
first of all, the news had
to be given to Mary.
top
The Annunciation to Mary (4).
The angel Gabriel's appearance in the Temple was one of the last
occasions on which God there manifested His favour.
Before many years were
past that holy place was destined to be filled with doleful sounds of
destruction and the crash of burning buildings.
But as yet its magnificent
aspect bore the stamp of ancient majesty,
in the midst of wliich fell
that final oracle from on high announcing the coming of God's last herald.
The scene now changes to Nazareth.
There everything
that is to take place is not merely more divine than what we have already witnessed:
it is wholly divine,
for God Himself appears on the scene.
But, at the same
time, all takes place in a much simpler fashion than heretofore,
for simplicity
is the condition that befits the advent of the Incarnate Word to mankind
whom He comes to serve.
There is no mention of Nazareth in the Old Testament,
nor is it named by Josephus
or in the pages of the Talmud.
An enchanting description of the village is
usually to be found in lives of Christ:
and, indeed, it is to-day one of the
prettiest places in Palestine,
with its trim houses perched on the slopes of
a lofty hill
which overlooks the church marking the site of the Annunciation.
But we should sadly deceive ourselves were we to transpose this pretty picture
to the time of Herod.
The question of the history of Nazareth, indeed, presents
us with a difficult problem,
and it is only very recently that information
has been forthcoming which permits us to form an exact idea of how the little
town has sprung up.
As we write, the Franciscan Fathers are in the act of rebuilding
the friary which is attached to the sacred site of the Annunciation.
When Brother
John, the very able director of the work, began to lay the foundations,
he
thought at first that he would be able to utilize the natural rock, which to
all appearances was solid.
But, on closer examination, it was found that the
rock was hollow underneath,
there being a series of artificial caves on three
different levels, one above the other.
The consequence was that he has had
to support his building on pillars of reinforced concrete about thirty feet
in depth.
He believes that these caves, in which no traces of bones or pottery
were discovered, must have served as store-rooms for grain, hidden away in
a safe place either in a fortress or in some place easy of defence against
an enemy:
the grain being thus stored so that the inhabitants of the locality
might have food in the event of war.
The sacred site of the Annunciation, lower down the hill than the modern village,
must therefore formerly have been the stronghold of ancient Nazareth.
We find
the same to have happened in the case of the Sion of old Jerusalem:
first it was the citadel,
then it became the lower town when the hill above
was occupied by houses and fortified by the massive constructions of the Temple.
We conclude, then, that the ancient village of Nazareth was built upon a slight
eminence, hardly worthy to be called a hill, which is almost indistinguishable
from the hill which rises above it to the west, though it stands well above
the valley that falls away lo the east.
To the north, this slight eminence
extends as far as the spring which goes by the name of the Virgin's Fountain.
Such, it seems to us, was the situation of Nazareth in the time of Herod.
If so, then we must look for the brow of the hill from which the Nazarenes
tried to throw Jesus [Luke iv.29.],
not at the top of the hill above the present village,
but at a much lower spot,
namely, at the point where the citadel of ancient
Nazareth was built overlooking the valley towards the east.
In the immediate vicinity of the mediaeval basilica built on the site of
the Annunciation, Fr. Prosper Viaud, O.S.F. [Cf. his Nazareth
et ses deux églises de I'Annonciation et de Saint-Joseph.], has
discovered caves adapted so as to serve for human dwelling.
Of such a kind seems to have been the house
of Mary which was converted into the crypt of the church built above it, and
such was doubtless the common type of dwelling in ancient Nazareth.
As a matter
of fact dwellings of this kind can still be found in the streets of the modern
village, though one would hardly suspect their existence judging from the more
modern frontages which conceal them.
It seems certain that Nazareth did not
escape from this very humble condition until Christian times, and only then
because it attracted attention as the scene of the Annunciation.
To-day the
modern village is climbing higher up the hill and spreading over the eastern
hill also, thus forming a sort of amphitheatre overlooking the plain of Esdraelon,
which stretches out into the distance as far as the eye can see.
It was probably, therefore, in a dwelling of the meanest kind that the Angel
Gabriel found her to whom he had come to bring a message of far more august
a character than that which he had lately delivered within the gold-plated
walls of the Temple at Jerusalem.
She was called Mary,
in Hebrew Mariam,
a
name at that time fairly common.
On account of its similarity of form with
mara ('master ' or 'lord'), a word of the Aramaic language then used by
the Jews of Palestine, the name Mariam was probably interpreted as meaning
Lady or Mistress;
it is still the Catholic custom to refer to the Mother of
Jesus as
'Our Lady.'
She was a virgin and was betrothed to Joseph,
a man belonging
to the house or family of David.
She too appears to have been of the same
lineage,
as we are led to understand by St. Luke.[i.32, 69.]
But at the same time she
was, as we know, a relative of Elizabeth,
who, like her husband Zachary,
was of the tribe of Levi.
It was not uncommon to find marriage taking place
between the members of one tribe and those of another:
hence it seems that
Elizabeth owed her descent to a union contracted at some unknown date in
the past between a daughter of the tribe of Juda and a son of the tribe of
Levi.
This was the second time within six months that the Angel Gabriel had been
charged with a message from God:
but the whole character of his interview
with Mary shows that the content of the present message was of far greater
import than that of the message to Zachary.
Zachary had been troubled and afraid
at seeing the angel.
The angel had delivered his message without first addressing
any greeting to Zachary.
But, in the case of Mary, the angel seeks her out in her own home
[The text says so explicitly,
though the tradition of the Orthodox Greek Church,
based on the apocryphal gospels,
puts the Annunciation at the Virgin's Well.]
and greets her thus:
'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee'
[Whatever word is used by men to greet their fellows in an honourable fashion,
the meaning is always the same.
The Jews wished peace;
the Greeks joy;
in Latin and French it is health;
we wish each other a good day.]
- words that ever since have been so often repeated by the faithful.
This was as much as to tell her that she enjoyed the favour of the Almighty
in the fullest degree possible.
It was only then that Mary was troubled,
and
the sole cause of her trouble was amazement at such a high-sounding title as
'full of grace.'
She was not afraid, however, even though the angel bids her
fear not,
for the object of his coming was to bring her a grace from God
of
even more remarkable a character than the graces she had already received.
She was to bear a Son whom she should call Jesus, in Hebrew Jeshua,
which means: 'Jaho (the God of Israel) is a saviour.'
This Son was to be great:
He should be regarded as the Son of the Most High.
He was also to be a Son of David,
called by God to sit upon the throne of His
father:
not, however, merely to reign for a few short years,
but for ever,
because His reign was to last unto all eternity.
Thus was it made known to Mary that she had been chosen by God to be the mother
of the Messiah:
for, exalted as was the title Son of the Most High, it was
not necessary to read into it anything more than an indication of the great
honour bestowed on the Messiah by the fact that he was to be the adopted
son of God.
What seems chiefly to have struck Mary in the words of the angel
was the announcement that the Messiah to be born other was to be a son of
David.
Ought she to conclude from this that he was to be the son of Joseph
her betrothed, who himself belonged to the house of David? Following the
dictates of ordinary human discernment -
what we like to call the principles
of common sense -
we should reply without hesitation:
Why not?
Would not
that be the natural thing to expect?
But, on the other hand, far back
in the days of eternity God had disposed the order of things in a very different
fashion;
according to that order, the Son of God was to have no other father than
God the Father.
As for Mary herself,
she was astonished by the angel's words and asked:
'How shall this be,
because I know not man?'
We have to admit that this was a surprising question to ask;
so much,
indeed, does it appear out of place that many biblical critics want to strike
it out of the text altogether.
But it is clear that if we were to do this we
should lliereby completely lose what St. Luke chiefly intends to convey in
this passage:
it would be like taking away the diamond and leaving only the
setting.
An author like Luke,
possessing such a delicate touch and skilled
in the art of expressing delicate shades of meaning,
could never have placed
on the lips of this Virgin full of grace anything that savoured of excessive
nazvete,
could never have allowed her to interpose mere commonplace truisms
in the midst of such a divine communication.
Hence, what Mary wished to say
was that she was, as the angel well knew, a virgin and intended to remain
so:
according to the interpretation of the theologians,
she had made a vow
of virginity
and was determined to keep it.
Nevertheless, she was far from
presuming to oppose her own will to the will of God which He had just
begun to reveal to her.
Thus, on her lips 'I know not man,' means 'I desire
not to know.'
She did not say 'I will never know,' having no desire to thwart
the designs of God.
Hence, she awaits the outcome of her question.
But if this was the case, object those who cannot rise above the mere commonplace,
why had she allowed herself to be betrothed to Joseph?
To this we might
answer that,
owing to the will of her parents she would be left with no choice
in the matter;
and, more urgent still than the wishes of her parents,
there
was the tyranny of established custom to be reckoned with:
voluntary celibacy
was not approved of in a daughter of Israel.
[The natives of Palestine say even to this day: 'Either
marriage or the grave.']
Had she ventured to refuse,
the consequence would have been endless strife between herself and all her
kinsfolk,
to whose mind her resistance would have seemed altogether unreasonable.
Hence she had been betrothed.
But her betrothed was Joseph,
and the subsequent
train of events gives us good ground for surmising what is the explanation
of the fact that she was able to reconcile a vow of virginity with the intention
of marrying.
It may very well be conjectured that Joseph was of the same
mind as herself in the matter,
surely not an unreasonable conclusion when
we remember that these sentiments were shared by so many of their contemporaries:
we mean those Jews who are called the Essenes.
Joined thus in marriage with
this just man,
chaste as herself,
Mary might be confident of being left in
tranquillity and peace
to lead a life wholly devoted to God by two souls capable
of understanding and loving one another in God.
The angel, therefore, said nothing to dissuade her from the intention of
marrying Joseph,
seeing that it was a marriage admirably fitted to further
God's plan;
he merely gave her to understand that her purpose of virginity
was still more suitable to God's designs
by telling her that the birth of the
Messiah was to be the work of none but God and herself:
'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee:
and therefore, the Child to be born shall be holy and shall be called the Son of God.'
In these words full light is thrown upon the matter,
such light, at least,
as shines upon the mind from a mystery surpassing the powers of reason.
The
Child to be born is to have no father but God.
Assuredly, it was not the divine
operation in Mary's womb that was to make Him the Son of God,
seeing that He
was that already by His eternal generation from the Father,
and there was to
be no other person in the Messiah than the
person of the Son of God.
But it can be said that this divine operation in
Mary's womb,
by which a human nature came into being without the intervention
of any other human instrumentality than that of Mary,
was to be the cause
of the Child's unparalleled holiness;
and, furthermore, it was the reason
why He should be given that title to which He has an eternal right, the title
of Son of God.
As theologians admit,
the union of the Son of God with a human nature was
not incompatible with His being born in the normal way;
but how supremely
fitting it was that He should address none but God with the august name of
Father!
Nothing serves to throw greater light on the truth of the two natures
united in one person.
And what greater honour could be bestowed on Mary than
this,
that she alone with the Father could say: 'My Son Jesus!'
In this
fashion was consecrated that life of perfect chastity which has borne so much
fruit for mankind in the form of spiritual blessings.
It was now left for Mary to give her consent to this mystery.
In seeking
for information she had not been the victim of doubt, like Zachary.
Still,
the angel gives her, too, a sign consisting in a miracle of an order very much
inferior to that of her virginal conception.
God's omnipotence was indicated
by the fact that Elizabeth, her kinswoman, had conceived a son in her old age,
this being the sixth month of the barren woman's pregnancy.
Upon this, Mary bowed her head and surrendered herself to the will of God,
thereby granting the consent which God had deigned to ask of her:
'Behold the handmaid of the Lord:
be it done unto me according to Thy word.'
From that moment the mystery of
the Incarnation took place in her womb:
the salvation of mankind had begun.
On the instant the good tidings were known in heaven,
and little by little
they were to be spread upon earth.
top
Mary's Visit to Elizabeth (5).
The news of Elizabeth suggested to Mary's mind the idea of paying a visit
to her kinswoman.
In giving her this news, the angel Gabriel had included
nothing of what he had told Zachary about the future career of the child Elizabeth
was to bear.
But Mary must have guessed that this twofold intervention on the
part of God was concerned with the same object.
The strong desire she felt
to visit Elizabeth was by no means due to doubt about the truth of the sign
given her by the angel, for she believed him with absolute faith;
but
she wished to assure her kinswoman of lier sympathy, and perhaps to talk with
her about the destiny of the two children.
Thus enlightened by God and inspired
by charity she set out to congratulate Elizabeth and to render what assistance
she could to this woman who for so many years had been barren, and who now
was trying to keep her secret as long as possible.
Availing herself of the opportunity provided by some company of travellers
journeying to Jerusalem, perhaps for the Pasch, Mary set out for the hill-country
of Juda.
By using the Hebrew name Juda instead of Judaea, St. Luke intimates
that the town to which she was going was in the territory belonging to the
ancient kingdom of Juda, which touched Jerusalem at its most northerly frontier.
He does not mention the name of the town, or rather village;
but a tradition
already current in the fifth century points to the village of Ain-Karim, an
Arabic name signifying 'the plentiful spring,' which has been substituted
for the ancient Hebrew name of Karem. [Josue xv.59 in the
Greek but not in the Hebrew.]
The tradition has continued unbroken
up to our own day, and the village always keeps the feast of St. John with
great solemnity.
[The site of the Visitation lies a short distance to the
west of the fine spring which gives the village its name.
There exist monumental ruins dating from the Middle Ages, and the recent excavations
of the Franciscan Fathers have uncovered many important traces of Byzantine construction.]
Four days' journey from Nazareth would have been sufficient to bring Mary to
this village.
When she entered the house of her friend, Elizabeth was the first
to meet her,
and Mary greeted her with a kinswoman's affection,
at the same
time paying that deference to the aged woman which was becoming on the part
of a young maiden.
By the charm of her smile she showed Elizabeth that she
was already aware of what had happened.
Then was accomplished what the angel
had foretold to Zachary,
namely, that his son should be filled with the Holy
Ghost even before his birth:
the infant leaped in his mother's womb.
This
might be taken as a dim presentiment of the approach of Him whose advent among
men John was destined to
announce.
His mother, too, was filled with the Spirit of God so that she was
fully enlightened concerning the dignity of the Messiah's Mother.
Then she,
in her turn, greeted Mary, exclaiming in holy rapture:
'Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb!
And whence is this to me that the Mother of my Lord should come unto me?
For as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant leaped in my womb for joy.
Blessed is she that hath believed that those things shall come to pass which were told her from the Lord!'
Mary1 replied in the verses of the hymn we
call the Magnificat,
the words of which are enshrined in the memory of every
Christian.
[Harnack, following the example of Loisy, attributes the
Magnificat to Elizabeth instead of to Mary.
According to their interpretation, after Elizabeth lias spoken a few words of
congratulation to Mary, she goes on to thank God at greater length for what He
has done for herself.
But it was certainly not liuke's intention thus to give greater prominence to
Elizabeth than to Mary.
And even if we had not the authority of the manuscripts and the tradition of
the Fathers to guide us in the matter, there would still remain the certain fact
that Luke puts the Magnificat here as a reply to the congratulations of Elizabeth.]
It is not unknown, even in our own days, for uncultured Arab women to give
expression to their joy by composing a song on the spur of the moment.
Such
a thing was witnessed not so long ago at Madaba, on an occasion when the Christian
villagers beat off an attack made upon them by the neighbouring Bedouin tribe
of the Sehour. [Cf. Science Catholique, October
15, 1890, p. 679.]
The same was customary in ancient Israel, and we find a traditional
theme for such songs composed on outstanding occasions like victory in battle,
birth, and marriage.
Moreover, the very expressions used in these chants were
handed down from one prophetess to another;
thus Mary is evidently inspired
by the canticle of Anna [I Kings ii.1ff.], the mother
of Samuel, who, hailing her son's birth as the salvation of Israel, then proceeds
to sing of a king's anointing, that is to say of a Messiah.
In the eyes of Anna, this was merely a manifestation
of God's power as well as of that Divine Wisdom by which the vain thoughts
of the proud are brought to nought.
We recognize that Anna's canticle was perfectly suitable to the occasion;
but, at the same time, we have to admit that, even from its opening words,
it completely transcends the mere circumstance provided by the fact that one
who
has been barren now becomes a mother.
In noble fashion she sings of the God
of Israel's victory:
the bow of the mighty is broken:
Jahweh killeth and
maketh alive:
He shall judge the ends of the earth.
It is due only to that
note of triumph, to the messianic expectation which raises the mind and lieart
of the prophetess to such future heights, that Mary was able to find ideas
suitable to her own case in the canticle of Anna.
The distinctive mark of
the Magnificat consists in this:
that although the expressions of Anna are
not too strong to describe what had been wrought in Mary,
yet Mary does not
find them strong enough to express the humility of one who desires to magnify
the Lord.
She acknowledges her low estate in order that His may be all the
glory;
but at the same time she confesses that all generations shall call
her blessed in her reply to Elizabeth's congratulations.
Thus, while Anna's
song could have been put into the mouth of a hero, that of Mary is suitable
for none but the Mother of Jesus.
As God has had regard to her in His kindness,
so will He deal with all the lowly who acknowledge their helplessness;
but
the mighty and those laden with riches, whose hearts are uplifted with pride,
shall be brought low and sent away empty.
And while Anna's gaze is already
fixed upon God's triumph over the very ends of the earth,
Mary concentrates
all her praise upon the great work of mercy promised by God to Abraham and
to his seed for ever.
Nothing, then, in this canticle of Mary is out of place, not even that part
of it in which she pays to the prerogatives of the Lord the honour that is
their due.
It is not merely a question here of an enthusiastic disciple of
Jesus who is writing under the influence of His miracles and His resurrection:
what we see in the Magnificat is the modest joy of a daughter of David, a
child of Abraham,
who looks back along the course of the centuries to the promise
given by God to the ancient patriarch,
and who realizes that it has been fulfilled
in herself.
Already her maternal brow shines with the promised halo that shall
be hers owing to the salutation with which all generations are to greet her
in their prayers.
That prediction of her blessedness has indeed been fulfilled
by all generations who have saluted her as Mother of God.
Mary remained with her cousin about three months, but she departed before the
birth of Elizabeth's child.
The charitable object for which she had come was now fulfilled and her further
presence was no longer fitting.
[Cf. Naplouse,
by Jaussen, O.P., p. 105.]
Moreover, being so far from home, she had
much more reason than Elizabeth to avoid provoking indiscreet curiosity of
others with regard to herself.
top
Birth of the Precursor. He withdraws to the desert (6).
When the time came Elizabeth had a son.
The news went round, all the more
quickly on account of the way in which she had remained so long hidden at home;
for Mary's presence had saved Elizabeth from the need of going out to provide
for the wants of the household.
There was general rejoicing among her friends
and kinsfolk.
On the eighth day they came to circumcise him.
That was the day fixed by
the law,
and the command was so explicit
that the rabbis even permitted the
slight work involved in the rite of circumcision
on the Sabbath.
By the fact
of circumcision a Jewish child was given admittance to spiritual communion
with Israel:
it served as a sort of deed of contract between him and God and
initiated him into the divine worship.
It was likewise the occasion for bestowing
on him a name,
and this appeared all the more fitting in that the name he received
generally expressed praise of God or gratitude for divine benefits, even for
such an ordinary event as the birth of a child.
It is rather strange that, on the present occasion, the neighbours who came
in to offer advice on the subject proposed to call him Zachary, for people
more generally preferred to give a son his grandfather's rather than his father's
name so as to avoid all confusion.
But they doubtless thought that, as Zachary
was so old, the likelihood of such confusion would not be of very long standing.
They allowed themselves all the more liberty in the matter because the person
chiefly interested in the affair was dumb:
hence no one troubled to ask for
his opinion.
Here, however, Elizabeth interposed:
she had her rights in the
matter, seeing that she was the mother of the child.
Indeed, in the days of
the patriarchs of old,
had it not been Rachel, Lia, and the other wives of
Jacob who had chosen their children's names?
Elizabeth flatly asserted that
the child's name was to be John.
But the busybodies refused to yield: 'None
of thy family is called by such a name.'
Eventually they decided to consult
the father, speaking by the aid of gestures, thus making us think that he was
deaf as well as dumb.
The priest knew how to write:
perhaps he had used this
means in order to enlighten Elizabeth.
Asking for one of those wooden tablets
covered with wax which were written on with the pointed instrument called a
style, he wrote simply the words: 'John is his name.'
The matter was now settled
and there was no more to be said.
By this act of faith and obedience Zachary's
tongue was loosed and he spoke, blessing God with more feeling than all the
rest.
So his silence was broken at last!
What questions he had to answer!
What
had made him dumb?
What had he seen in the Temple,
and what had the angel
foretold of this miraculous child?
Curiosity once satisfied about the past,
they began to ask with still greater eagerness about the future,
their questionings
full of a note of hope:
'What an one, think ye, shall this child be,
seeing
that the hand of the Lord is so evidently upon him?'
Zachary gives expression to all their joys and hopes in the song we call
the Benedictus,
the canticle appointed by the Church to be recited daily in
the divine office of Lauds,
originally destined to be chanted at the moment
when the dawn was breaking.
The happy man had been told of Mary's hopes.
Her
presence alone, indeed, had been for him a light,
and the birth of John joined
with the confidences shared with him by his overjoyed wife had increased that
light.
Therefore, identifying himself with the spirit which was to animate
his son,
and imitating the humility with which Elizabeth had put her own good
fortune in the background before the higher dignity of Mary,
Zachary turns
his thoughts first of all to the salvation that has already appeared in the
house of David:
he knew from the promises made to the prophets of old and
from the covenant and the oath sworn by God to Abraham that it was in the house
of David where salvation was to begin.
In common with all the children of Israel,
he trusts that God will grant them deliverance from their enemies who hate
them:
but now, in his eyes, the granting of such peace only means providing the most
favourable conditions for serving God in righteousness and holiness.
Thus he makes Mary's thoughts his own,
and it is only after blessing God
for the advent of her Son
that Zachary at last turns to the little child
whom God has given him,
the boy who is destined to be the Prophet of the
Most High:
nay, more than a prophet,
for this is he who is to prepare the ways of the
Lord.
God's paths are the paths of the Messiah:
John must go before Him who shall not merely be God's ambassador,
but who shall
act as God Himself.
Here the hopes of national deliverance for Israel disappear
before a new light which seems to show that the only real enemy is sin against
God.
Thus it will be John's office to preach salvation through the remission
of sin granted by the merciful heart of God, who shall make a star arise in
the heavens to shine upon mankind;
for all men, even in the land of Israel,
are seated in great darkness, as though awaiting the dawn of day to set out
on their journey.
The Messiah will show them the right way,
the way of peace
in which they shall find salvation.
So the canticle ends as it begins:
the Son of David appears in the character
of a Divine Being:
John is no more than his precursor.
The child grew up while awaiting the day of his manifestation to Israel,
and the power of the Spirit took hold of him more and more.
It was this power
which drove him out into the desert to prepare for his mission.
The few words
in which St. Luke describes this action of the Holy Spirit upon John do not
satisfy those who desire ever to mingle human influence with divine.
Some,
for instance, imagine that in his youth John was initiated into the doctrines
and practices of the Essenes, who lived a life of voluntary exile in community
upon the shores of the Dead Sea.
They did not break with Judaism, but yet they
were somewhat infected with Greek thought.
Their doctrines were like a revival
of Pythagoreanism.
They were very insistent on the superiority of soul over
body and of spirit over matter:
hence they looked on death as the soul's deliverance
and were unwilling to beget children and thus he the occasion of a soul's falling
into a body.
John is supposed to have been trained in such a mental discipline,
and in the asceticism and continual rites of purification practised by the
Essenes.
[W e shall return to this point when we deal with John's
baptism, p. 64.]
But, as we shall see, the Baptist's whole life was a protest against such an
intrusion of pagan philosophy into Judaism;
for the spirit that animated him was the spirit of the Law, though his special
office as the last of the prophets was the guiding of souls to One greater
than himself.
top
Joseph takes upon himself the legal paternity of Jesus (7).
When Mary, on her return to Nazareth, reached the great plain of Esdraelon
and looked up at the little village perched on the hill-side, her thoughts
must have turned to Joseph, the man to whom she was betrothed.
So far, it seems,
she had not taken him into her confidence concerning what had happened, for
she was sure that she could rely on his delicate reserve as well as on his
trust in her.
But, most of all, she put her reliance on God, trusting in Him
to arrange everything for the best.
It was not possible for her to leave Joseph,
for that would have involved exposing herself to the risk of scandalous gossip;
besides, she had no right to do so even had she wished:
such a thing would
not have been allowed by existing Jewish custom.
Since the time of Our Lord,
marriage has been for us a sacrament
which binds two persons together indissolubly
from the moment when they enter into the matrimonial contract.
Until that moment
a man has no rights over his future wife;
and even should there have been a formal engagement,
the parties retain the
right to dissolve it.
But things were far different among the Jews.
When a girl was given to a
man by her father,
she from that moment came under his authority.
All that
remained to be done in order to bring the marriage to completion was that he
should take the girl under his own roof.
He might take possession of her as
wife in the house of his father-in-law if he wished, provided this was done
in an official manner.
But if a girl, during the time that elapsed between
her betrothal and the completion of the marriage, were to be guilty of sin
with another, she was considered as a true adulteress and the Law authorized
her future husband to denounce her as such.
The penalty laid down by the Law
was death. [Deuteronomy xxii.23 ff.]
There was no strict obligation upon him of thus denouncing her,
but should he neglect to do so his failure might easily be taken as a proof
of disgraceful connivance in her sin.
The day came at last when it was evident to Joseph that his betrothed wife
was with child.
It would not have been unnatural if he had experienced an instinctive
feeling of surprise and indignation:
but even if such feelings arose, they
had no influence upon him.
For, if he refuses to expose Mary to public obloquy,
it is by no means from a feeling of leniency to one whom he considers to be
guilty:
it is, on the contrary, as the gospel declares:
'because he was a just man.'
Now no one who is just condemns another before he has received definite proofs
of guilt;
in the present case there was no proof at all. It might be objected
that all the appearances were against Mary;
but, in spite of appearances,
Joseph had definite proof of her virtue and serenity,
of the manifest innocence
of one who was such a pure creature,
and his love of her made him certain that
he could not be deceived.
Do we not follow his example when we wish to defend
one whom we confidently love against widespread rumours that have been stirred
up about their character?
We find explanations in things that we know nothing
about, even in the most unlikely things.
Had Joseph not believed in the possibility
of some miraculous explanation of the situation,
it is hardly likely that he
would have showed himself so docile to the admonition he received in a dream.
In the midst of all his anxiety, it seemed to him that the wisest thing he
could do was to restore to Mary her freedom, but in such a way as to prevent
the possibility of anyone thinking that she had been guilty of any crime.
[Let it not be imagined that this is merely a pious explanation
which owes its origin to an increasing veneration of the Mother of Jesus.
It is St. Jerome's own explanation, and none of the Fathers was so versed in
the Scriptures as he.
'How could Joseph be called just,' he asks, 'if he conceals his wife's crime?
The truth is that his silence is a witness of Mary's innocence:
for Joseph, knowing her chastity and at the same time astonished at what lias
taken place,
conceals by his silence the mystery which had not been made known to him.'
Those critics who are so fond of looking everywhere for stories of virgin birth
(parthenogenesis, as it is called) ought to be the first to admit that the thought
of such a thing would come to the mind of Joseph.]
But before he had reached his final decision an angel of the Lord appeared
to him in a dream.
By addressing him as son of David, the angel suggests to
his mind that the Child in
question is no other than the Messiah:
Joseph is to appear before the world
as His father by accepting Mary as his wife, and so hand on to the Child
his rights as a Son of the house of David.
Hence the angel says :
'Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife'
- that is, to add the final legal sanction to the betrothal with Mary -
'for that which is conceived in her is the work of the Holy Ghost.'
In these few words
the first evangelist, St. Matthew, describes what we
have already seen set forth at greater length by St. Luke
[Not that St. Luke merely amplifies St. Matthew's theme;
he relates gospel of the Infancy from quite another point of view.]
St. Matthew has
his own way of announcing the good tidings
which are given this time,
not
to Mary, but to Joseph
who is made guardian of the promises given in the
Scriptures:
Mary thy wife
'shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus'
- a suitable name, since it means a saviour,
'for He shall save His people from their sins.'
Matthew, like Luke, is conscious of the
high dignity of these chosen souls, Mary and Joseph.
It will take the Apostles
a long time to understand the true mission of the Messiah:
but Joseph, like
Zachary before him, is informed that the Messiah is the deliverer from sin.
Matthew has the custom of confirming his facts by alluding to the prophecies
of the Old Testament, and here we find the first example of it..
He reminds
us of the Emmanuel prophecy in Isaias,
where there is a very clear reference
to the Infant-God:
'Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a Son,
and they shall call His name Emmanuel,
which, being interpreted, is God-with-us.'
A clear prophecy, we repeat, even though a veiled one, for it is only the
historical and chronological circumstances in which the prophecy was uttered
that make it veiled.
But prophecy is independent of time:
it is like an
aeroplane which soars above the whole country-side so that all places are
seen at once and in the same picture.
Once the foretold event has taken place
and thrown light on the prediction, then all the past circumstances surrounding
the utterance of the prophecy disappear like mist before the rays of the
sun;
the mind cannot help being struck by the correspondence between the
words of the prophecy and the event, especially as this is of so tremendous
a nature that no one would ever have dared even to imagine it.
With what
a
sweet power of conviction do these words of Isaias concerning Emmanuel come
to our souls on Christmas night!
'For a child is born to us,
a son is given to us;
The sovereignty is upon his shoulder,
and he shall be given the name of
Wonderful-Counsellor,
Mighty-God, Eternal Father,
Prince of peace;
For the increase of sovereignty,
and for peace without end
On the throne of David
and in his kingdom ;
To establish it and to strengthen it
in right and in justice
From henceforth and for ever.
The zeal of Jahweh of Hosts shall accomplish it.'
[Isaias ix.6ff. (Condamin's translation).]
It may be objected that the
name of Jesus does not appear among the other names of the prophecy.
But the
New Testament is not a mere imitation which depends entirely on the Old.
On
the contrary it is the New Testament which is the reality:
the Old Testament
is but the figure of the New.
Waking from his sleep and showing by his trust in Mary that he is worthy
of being her confidant, Joseph takes his wife to himself; and when she has
brought forth her Son he gives Him the name of Jesus.
Thus did it come to pass
that Joseph introduced Jesus to the world as a descendant of David.
top
The Genealogy of Jesus (20).
There is no question about Joseph's being a descendant of David.
Both St.
Luke and St. Matthew are in agreement on this point, nor does it appear that
it was ever denied during the lifetime of Our Lord.
No one could accept Him
as the Messiah without believing that He was a son of David, and this He was
through Joseph, whom everyone looked on as His father.
St. Matthew starts his gospel with the book of the genealogy
of Jesus;
and since it was in Him that the promise made to Abraham was fulfilled,
the evangelist sees fit to carry back the line to that father of the other
patriarchs, Isaac and Jacob.
In following the list of names given by the
Holy Scriptures the name of David was readied in fourteen generations.
Between
David and Jechonias, who lived at the time of the Babylonian captivity,
Matthew
again found fourteen generations in the list of kings by omitting the names
of Ochozias, Joas, and Amasias;
but as there is no doubt that he was perfectly
aware of the existence of these three,
it is evident that he had no intention
of giving a complete genealogy.
He again gives fourteen generations from
Salathiel to Joseph,
and we have no means of testing whether this list is
complete or not;
nor have we any proof that Matthew wishes it to be taken
as complete.
It is quite possible that he chooses to give fourteen only,
because the Hebrew letters making up David's name also represent the Hebrew
numerals
which, when added together, make a total of fourteen.
However, our
lack of certainty concerning the number of generations between Jesus and
Abraham takes nothing away from the value of the genealogy.
In the days of the early Church the kinsmen of Jesus were still known as
the sons of David, a fact which, according to the historian Hegesippus, caused
a certain amount of alarm to the emperor Domitian.
But on enquiry, he came
to the conclusion that there was nothing to fear from them and allowed them
to go undisturbed.
[Eusebius, Historia Eccles.,
Ill, 20, i-6.]
We still have to answer the objection, however, that if St. Matthew's genealogy
is correct and was accepted by everybody, why did St. Luke think it necessary
to draw up another tracing the descent of Jesus from David through Nathan instead
of through Solomon?
Some commentators have tried to find an explanation by
saying that St. Luke does not give the genealogy of Joseph, but that of Mary;
but this does violence to the fact that the third evangelist, like the first,
ends his list with the name of Joseph, though at the same time declaring that
Joseph is only the supposed or adoptive father of Jesus.
Patristic tradition
is equally explicit about Luke's genealogy being that of Joseph.
As a matter of fact, there was no demand for any genealogy but that of Joseph;
nor would anyone at that time make any objection if both genealogies were traced
through adopted sons instead of natural sons, or if either evangelist forsook
the direct line in order to trace descent through a collateral line.
In the
common estimation that would not make them cease to be true genealogies.
It was a question of the inheritance of rights, and rights can be transmitted
from brother to brother as well as from father to son.
Thus, for example,
according to the principles of Semitic descent, Henry IV, king of France,
would be counted as the son of his predecessor Henry III (though he was not),
merely because his right of succession had been recognized by Henry III;
the main thing was that they were both descendants of St. Louis.
It may be
for a similar reason that Joseph appears with a different father in each
genealogy.
Indeed, as early as the beginning of the third century, Julius
Africanus explained the divergence by making it due to the Jewish legal institution
which prescribed that if a man married his brother's widow and had a son
by her, that son would be able to count his mother's former husband as his
legal father. [See ch. v. § 241.]
Whether this supposition be true or not we are unable to decide,
but we are none the worse off for that.
What would have interested us more
would have been any evidence of Mary's descent, seeing that Jesus received
the blood of David into his veins from her alone.
But there is no material
at hand for the construction of the genealogy of Mary.
As St. Luke realizes, the question of the Davidic descent of Jesus was of
importance mainly for Jews.
But as He is not only the Jewish Messiah
but also
the Saviour of the whole world,
Luke traces his descent to the ancestors of
David;
he goes back even as far as Adam,
the father of the human race who came from
God,
not indeed as his son but as his creature.
In this way he sets forth Jesus
as a new starting-point in the history of mankind,
making the day of Redemption
a day which corresponds with the day of Creation.
top
Jesus is born at Bethlehem (8).
Mary and Joseph were thus inseparably united in the bonds of matrimony.
Soon
after circumstances arose which led them to take the road leading to Bethlehem,
for it was there, as the prophets had foretold, [Cf. p.
44.] that Jesus was to be
born.
Actually, the prophets do not precisely say so:
they merely declare
that the Messiah is to come forth from Bethlehem, the town from which David
had sprung.
And, as Jesus was the Son of David, it could well be said that
He also had sprung from Bethlehem.
However, it was customary to interpret
the prophecy of Micheas in a stricter sense,
and, indeed, the fact that Jesus
was born at Bethlehem gives to the words of Micheas a much more striking
fulfilment.
The higher critics here make the objection that it is nothing but the desire
of seeing this prophecy fulfilled which has led certain people to imagine that
Jesus must have been born at Bethlehem.
Renan sets down with the utmost audacity,
as though there were no question about the matter, that 'Jesus was born at
Nazareth.'
[He has the effrontery to cite the evangelists
as proof of this, taking not the slightest notice of what they say to the contrary.]
He treats all that St. Luke writes of the enrolment which gave
occasion for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem as though it were a piece of
pure imagination.
Those, however, who make claims to scholarship must now admit that the truth
of St. Luke's story has been confirmed by information gradually collected from
newly-discovered documents.
The evangelist tells us that the Emperor Augustus
ordered an enrolment or census to be made throughout the whole of the Roman
Empire, commonly referred to at that time as ' the inhabited earth.'
Even Palestine
was included in this order for the registration of persons and property, despite
the fact that it was still under the rule of Herod.
Hence we find Joseph and
Mary making their way to Bethlehem.
Quirinius, or Cyrinus as he is called, who was the imperial legate in Syria,
was in some way concerned in this enrolment, though it is not yet clear what
precise connection he had with it.
We have suggested that Luke ii.2 ought
to be translated as follows:
'This enrolling was previous to that which took place during the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria.'
If the words of
St. Luke be thus understood, then no difficulty arises from the fact that,
as far as we know from other sources, only one census was held by that very
important personage;
this was in the year AD. 6-7,
on the occasion when Judaea
was incorporated in the Roman province of Syria,
though it was left under the
rule of its own immediate governor who was called the procurator of Judaea.
This enrolment, which marked the handing over of Judaea to the domination of
idolatrous rulers, was the cause of a terrible religious insurrection:
hence
it was well remembered.
It looks as if Luke, out of a desire to avoid all confusion,
draws a distinction between the general enrolment of the whole Empire and this
particular enrolment which took place at the incorporation of Judaea in the
Empire.
Some, however, prefer to think that, as Quirinius was twice governor of Syria,
he held the first census during his first term of office as legate.
But it
is difficult to determine the date of this census,
and still more difficult
to identify it with that spoken of by St. Luke.
But, whatever be suggested as the explanation, it ought to be admitted that
a mere difficulty of chronology, or rather a lack of certainty concerning one
particular point of fact, gives no justification to historians for doubting
the truth of the fact, particularly when it is one that has every appearance
of likelihood.
Now there is no doubt whatever that Augustus had a census made
throughout the Empire;
and if he was desirous of including the kingdom of
Herod in that census, seeing that he was shortly to annex that kingdom to the
Empire, we cannot believe that he would refrain from doing so out of any regard
for that old and discredited tyrant.
A recently-discovered papyrus roll has furnished us with most exact information
concerning the manner in which such a registration of persons and property
was carried out in the Roman provinces.
Persons were registered by houses,
that is to say by families and clans, and for that purpose everyone was ordered
to go and be enrolled in the place of his family's origin.
Thus, Gaius Vibius
Maximus, the prefect of Egypt, gave orders that, with a view to the enrolment
by families which he was about to make, all who were for any reason whatsoever
absent from their paternal place of origin should return in order to be inscribed
according to the usual form. [Papyrus of London,
III, p. 125.]
This was in the year AD. 103. It may well be
expected that the same formalities were observed one hundred years earlier,
when ancient customs had still less chance of having been replaced by Roman
law.
In Egypt, it was only the priests who were called upon to ahow their ancestral
rights drawn up in correct genealogical form.
But among Semitic peoples even
families of the most
humble rank of society prided themselves on knowledge of their ancestral descent.
Even to this day, every Maronite who has emigrated from his home in Syria,
whether to Jerusalem or even as far as the United States,
knows perfectly
well to what clan he belongs
and to what village in the Lebanon he would
have to return for enrolment should that be required.
Joseph, then, as a descendant of David, had to go to Bethlehem.
It is not
hard to understand why he took Mary with him:
he could scarcely have been
willing to leave her at home alone.
It is not out of question, indeed, that
perhaps they had some idea of staying for a time at Bethlehem, since both of
them had been informed that Jesus was He who should restore the throne of David.
In this manner, therefore, was a prophecy fulfilled through the instrumentality
of an order issued by the master of the Roman Empire, as a consequence of which
this humble pair set out for Bethlehem.
'What do ye,
ye rulers of the world?'
asks Bossuet.
'... But God has far different designs,
which you carry out,
even though they do not enter into your minds.'
Thus, now that we have satisfied the demands of the most meticulous critics, we can give ourselves up in peace to the beautiful story of St. Luke, a story filling us with joy, delighting the hearts of children and of mothers even more.
Joseph and Mary, then, have taken the way which leads from Nazareth to Jerusalem
and on to Bethlehem.
It was a very long journey for one in Mary's condition,
for, unless we accept the stories of the apocryphal gospels, we must needs
conclude that she experienced some discomfort.
At this time the Romans had
not yet constructed their wonderful roads;
still, on such roads as there were,
the journey might be made by carriage or, more comfortably still, in a litter.
But the humble couple were far too poor to afford such luxurious means of travel.
Arrived at Bethlehem they sought for lodging, but without success, in one of
those big hostelries known in the East to-day as khans where men and beasts
settle themselves down side by side as best they can.
Great numbers of people
must have been brought to Bethlehem to the registration office which had been
established there.
At last Mary and Joseph found shelter, though it was of
the humblest description, in one of the surrounding caves sometimes utilized
as dwelling-place for man and stable for beasts.
It is possible that they were
there for several days while Joseph awaited his turn to be registered;
at any rate, there it was that Mary brought forth her firstborn Son.
When St.
Luke uses this expression of the birth of Jesus, he knows quite well that none
of the Christians of his time will misunderstand it.
On no occasion does he
refer to brethren and sisters of Jesus.
This first-born Son was an only child
as everybody knew.
But St. Luke, writing according to a pre-conceived plan,
is simply preparing the way for what he has to say later concerning the offering
of the first-born in the Temple.
In this stable-dwelling there was, as might be expected, a manger, fashioned
after the shape of a boat in the usual manner, made to hold the barley with
which beasts of burden were fed;
Mary used it as a cradle in which to lay
the Infant whom she herself had wrapped in swaddling bands.
His birth no more
than His conception had in no wise injured her virginal state:
He was brought
forth in some marvellous fashion such as the dignity of God, as well as that
of the divinely chosen Mother, demanded.
The traditional site of the crib, for which we have a longstanding tradition,
[Cf. Bethléem, by Vincent and Abel, O.P.] is
a little to the east and below the ancient village which stood at the highest
point of the slope covered by the modern Bethlehem.
The path descending still
further towards the east soon passes the limits of the cultivated fields.
Bethlehem,
even more than Jerusalem, was built at the edge of the desert.
To this day
it is the place to which the nomad tribes of the desert resort to buy corn
and sell their weaving and cheeses.
It is not surprising, therefore, to find
that there were shepherds guarding their flocks quite near to the place where
Jesus was born.
In winter, especially at the end of December,
the time at which
liturgical tradition has fixed the date of the Nativity,
the flocks belonging
to the villagers would in all probability be housed in sheds of some sort for
the night;
but the true shepherds of the desert had no such shelters at their
disposal,
nor would they need them,
for down towards the Dead Sea the temperature
is much milder than up at Bethlehem.
A group of these nomads -
they did not belong
to Bethlehem -
were that night keeping guard over their flocks,
talking with
one another, no doubt, to while away the time.
Suddenly an angel appears in their midst while the darkness around them is
blotted out by a shining light.
Its brilliance frightens them, for it is
evidently not a natural light.
Then the angel speaks: 'Fear not ! '
This angel also has come to bring
good tidings, a gospel of great joy, as he calls it.
It is evident, then, that
the gospel he brings is primarily a message from heaven to earth.
It is a revelation
made to Israel, and that which is revealed gives cause for great joy.
It is
this;
that a Saviour has just been born in David's city,
and this Saviour
is both the Messiah and the Lord to whom all homage is due.
Let them go and
see for themselves that they are not the victims of illusion;
they shall find
a Child in a manger,
not left naked and abandoned as they might expect to find
a child who had been put in such an odd cradle,
but properly clothed in swaddling
bands.
Then, as though to indicate that heaven too shared this great joy with men,
a multitude of the heavenly host of angels appeared also, singing the praises
of the God of Israel,
He whose pleasure it was to be called Jahweh of the heavenly
hosts;
and now the day had come when He was to be acknowledged as the one
God of all the world:
'Glory to God in the highest,
And peace on earth to men of good will.'
Thus do the angels declare that God is glorified
when He grants pardon to
men of good will,
that is to those who show themselves ready
to welcome Him
who comes to save them and give them peace.
Such is the gospel as it was announced
to these simple men
who, in their desert life, had preserved the ancient type
of life lived by Abraham
when he came as a nomad from Chaldaea,
his tent the
only place on earth at the time
where the true God was worshipped.
While in
the cities of Palestine
Jews could only avoid the defilement of contact with
Gentiles
by observing a moral isolation into which there crept a large measure
of pride,
these shepherds of the desert who lived on little,
whose standard
of morality was strict
and whose solitary life accustomed them to the thought
of God's all-pervading presence,
proved docile to this voice from heaven.
They
said one to another:
'Let us go over to Bethlehem
and see that which the Lord hath showed us.'
Coming in haste, they saw the sign given by God:
in
their turn they spread the good tidings and went back to their flocks.
But it is in Mary's heart,
where all God's plans were gathered into one,
that we must seek the most faithful echo of all these words and the deepest
understanding of all these
events.
top
The legal observances (9-10).
It was now for the promised Saviour,
who had thus been announced to Israel,
to come forward as the heir of the promise once made to Abraham and sanctioned
by the religious rite of circumcision.
Abraham had begun this rite and the
Mosaic Law had preserved it.
As the mother and the adoptive father of Jesus
had received no divine instructions to the contrary,
no other course was open
to them as pious Israelites but to conform to this law.
Therefore the Child
was circumcised on the eighth day
and received the name of Jesus
according
to the directions given by the angel to Mary and Joseph.
[Luke and Matthew thus complete one another.]
Mary might well have considered herself dispensed from that other law which
prescribed that a recent mother should present herself in the Temple in order
to undergo a sort of legal purification;
at the same time she was required
to offer a yearling lamb for a holocaust, along with a young pigeon or dove
as a sacrifice for sin.
Poor women were permitted to substitute a pair of pigeons
or doves. [Leviticus xii.6-8.]
The law prescribed, moreover, that all the first-born, whether of
man or beast, were the property of the Lord. [Numbers xviii.15.]
The price for the redemption
of a boy was five sides.
It was not commanded in so many words that he must
be presented in the Temple, but no pious mother would wish to omit this opportunity
of obtaining for him the blessing of the Most-High.
Thus, at any rate, did
Mary and Joseph understand this command of the Lord;
for if there was an obligation
of consecrating to Him every first-born son,
then why not offer to Him this
Child sprung from David who was to be acknowledged as the Son of God?
Their arrival in the Temple courts, though attended with so little ceremony,
was nevertheless an event of sublime importance,
for then was fulfilled the
prophecy of Malachias
which foretold how the Lord would enter his Temple for
the first time.
It was fitting, therefore, that He should be greeted by one
of the representatives of the prophets,
those men of the Spirit as they are
called.
It was Simeon who filled this role.
He is described as a just man,
full of the fear of the Lord,
with all his thoughts set on the redemption
of Israel.
The Holy Ghost was upon him, says St. Luke,
showing thereby that
under the Old Law there was a certain anticipation, in the case of some of
the just, of that outpouring of the Spirit which was to be characteristic
of the New Covenant.
The Spirit had made known to him that he should not
see death until he had seen the Messiah of the Lord;
and the Spirit which
guided him in all things led him that day into the Temple at the time when
the parents of Jesus were there.
It was thought by the more enlightened among the pagans that at the moment
of death, when the soul was about to break the chains which bound it to the
body, it entered deeper into the knowledge of divine things.
That hope was
here realized by the grace of the Spirit.
Simeon saw further than Zachary whose
vision was bounded by the frontiers of Israel.
Taking the Child into his arms,
this true heir of Isaias salutes Him who is to bring salvation to all peoples;
for, though He is the glory of Israel, He is at the same time the light of
the Gentiles.
Yet this light was not destined to penetrate all the darkness.
From that moment the first-born Child of Mary was made holy to God, in the
full force of that expression of the Mosaic Law.
It is the same expression
that is used by Jesus on the eve of His Passion when He says:
'I sanctify Myself on their behalf
in order that they too may be truly sanctified.'
[John xvii.19.]
Now the
manner of consecrating a person or thing to the holy God was by sacrifice.
But the first-born of men could not be immolated like animals:
hence Jesus
was bought back from God at the price of five sides on the day of His presentation.
Nevertheless, the day of immolation awaits Him in the future,
and the aged
Simeon had a foreboding of this.
He saw it as the final result of that opposition
to Jesus which was destined to bring Him to His death,
a death, however, that
was to be the source of life to so many others.
The Child lay sleeping quietly
in His Mother's arms after the manner of infants:
hence it is into the heart
of Mary that Simeon sends an arrow of sorrow by addressing to her this prediction:
'Behold He is set for the fall and for the rise of many in Israel,
to be exposed also to contradiction;
and thy own soul a sword shall pierce.'
This was the first deep affliction of the Mother, thus the first lo be stricken even while she awaits the day when she shall be made a partner in her Son's Passion.
Ever since the days of Mary, the sister of Moses,
daughters of Israel had
been from time to time endowed with the spirit of prophecy.
On this occasion
one of these joined herself with Simeon in rendering glory to God.
She was
a widow named Anna, born of Phanuel, a man of the tribe of Aser, who had reached
her eighty-fourth year;
her husband had died and left her a widow within seven
years of their marriage,
and now she spent her time in the Temple worshipping
God by her fasts and prayers.
To all who looked for the deliverance of Israel
she cried out that the Saviour was now born.
These oracles which fall from
the lips of this aged pair while they stoop over the little Child sound like
a voice coming from the Tabernacle of old.
Perhaps they both understood that
Jesus Himself was the true temple in which it pleased God henceforth to dwell.
top
The adoration of the Magi and flight into Egypt (11).
After narrating the consecration of Jesus to the Lord,
St. Luke leads the
Holy Family to Nazareth whence Mary and Joseph have come.
But St. Matthew suggests
that it was between the presentation of Jesus in the Temple and the return
to Nazareth that certain other events occurred, and no historian would consider
himself authorized to pass them by in silence merely because St. Luke has omitted
all mention of them.
Our chief difficulty, however, is to explain why Joseph,
whose home was at Nazareth, took Mary and Jesus back to Bethlehem after the
ceremony in the Temple just described.
There is no evidence to provide us with
a positive solution to this problem.
It may be suggested that Joseph was waiting
for a favourable opportunity of returning to Nazareth,
or perhaps his turn
to be enrolled had not yet come.
Possibly he had made friends with somebody
who had offered him hospitality,
or renewed acquaintance with some distant
relative with whom the
census had brought him into touch.
However, even if Mary and Joseph were still
obliged to make the cave do duty for a home, they were at any rate not much
worse off there than they would have been in the home at Nazareth.
Whatever
may have been the case, we are left to suppose from St. Matthew's narrative,
which habitually omits details in its treatment of the facts, that the Holy
Family was still at Bethlehem when the Magi arrived;
and it is impossible
to suppose that this visit occurred before the Presentation in the Temple,
even if we make allowance for a stay of a few days only in Egypt.
After the
massacre of the Holy Innocents Joseph could not very well have taken the
Child to Jerusalem without exposing Him to the very danger from which he
had been ordered to save Him, as St. Matthew explicitly states.
Who were the Magi?
The early Christians, especially in the West, thought
they were priests of the Persian religion, and that is what the word properly
signified.
But it was also used to denote astronomers, or rather astrologers:
for, apart
from the great school of astronomy at Alexandria, the orientals of the ancient
world had no further interest in studying the stars and planets than to discover
the destiny of children born under their influence.
It was probably on account
of the ill-fame of the magi-astrologers that the Christians were more inclined
to see Persian priests in the Magi of the gospel.
But Persia cannot be said
to lie precisely to the east of Palestine, and it is precisely from the east
that the Magi are reported to have come.
St. Justin in the second century and
St. Epiphanius in the fourth, both of whom were natives of Palestine, tell
us that the Magi came from the country on the other side of the Dead Sea, which
was all included under the general name of Arabia:
and the very gifts they bring lead us to the same conclusion.
It was the gifts
of the Magi which made Tertullian think that they were kings, for the psalmist
[Psalm Ixxi.] had foretold that the kings of Arabia
and Saba should bring gifts to the Messiah.
Popular tradition has endowed them with a splendid retinue of followers,
and has even found names for them:
Melchior representing the Semitic peoples,
Caspar for the other white races,
and Balthasar for the negroes.
But as far as the evidence of the gospel goes, we are merely authorized
to picture to ourselves certain men of grave demeanour who strive to read
the future from the stars, their thoughts full of the expectation of
some mighty king for whom the Jews were then looking.
At that time Jewish
hopes would be well known in Arabia where the Jews were so numerous.
Possibly
they often spoke of that prophecy of Balaam, himself a native of Arabia since
he was a prophet of Moab, who had foretold how a star should arise out of Jacob
and a sceptre should spring up from Israel. [Numbers xxiv.17.]
Ever since the days of that seer,
who was a contemporary of Moses, the Israelites had clung tenaciously to these
vague hopes concerning the coming of some mighty royal personage, and their
hopes were known throughout the ancient world.
In the popular mind the rising
of a new star was always associated with the coming of a king, the first being
merely a portent of the second event.
Now the Magi had seen a new star arise
in the east, probably a comet.
Everybody would take it for certain that it
was the presage of some glorious reign that was about to take place ;
[Justin, History,
XXXVII, 2; Servius on the Aeneid, X, 272.]
the
Magi thought of the future king of the Jews about whom these Jews had narrated
such marvels.
With the idea that He was already born, they set out for Jerusalem,
the holy city of the Jews;
and there, making no secret of their intention
to pay Him their homage, they asked to be shown the place of His birth, for
they knew nothing of the state of affairs in Jerusalem, having no idea especially
of the ferocious jealousy of Herod which made him suspect even his own
children.
The Magi seem to be under the impression that their
question about the place of the new king's birth could be answered by anybody
and everybody;
but, contrary to their expectations, it is met with astonishment
on all sides and stirs up the agitation which is the general accompaniment
of unexpected tidings.
The news is brought to the ears of Herod by his agents,
to the surprise of the aged tyrant, who had never seriously considered the
possibility of such a rival for his throne.
It had not been his custom to ask
advice of the Sanhedrin, for he had restricted its power to the mere administration
of justice;
but on this occasion he called together those of its members who
were learned in the prophecies, such as the priests and the rabbis, and asked
to be informed where was the place in which it was foretold that the Messiah
should be born.
It was the figure of the Messiah that was haunting him.
This question of Herod introduced a problem which was still the occasion of
much doubt and dispute among the rabbis, but we must pay homage to these masters
in Israel for the way in which they managed to answer it on this occasion.
It was known by all that the Messiah had to be a son of David, but at the same
time it was the belief of many that great mystery would surround His appearance
upon the earth. It was said that He would at first remain hidden, then suddenly
make a magnificent appearance heralded by the prophet Elias, who was to come
back to earth in order to invest Him with messianic dignity by pouring on His
head the kingly unction, for Messiah meant the Lord's anointed.
[Cf. Le Messianisme, by Lagrange, p. 221 ff.]
As He was
to be the Son of David,
He would be connected with Bethlehem by the fact of
his descent,
but it was not so certain that Bethlehem was to be the place of
His birth.
There was, however, one text in the prophet Micheas which seemed
precise enough on the point, and the scribes quoted it to Herod without any
hesitation.
The Hebrew text runs as follows:
'But thou, Bethlehem of Ephrata,
Little in rank amidst the clans of Juda,
Out of thee shall come to me (a prince)
Who shall be ruler in Israel
And his going forth (shall date) from the time of antiquity,
From the days that are long passed.
He shall deliver them, therefore, even till the time
When she that travaileth shall bring forth.'
[Micheas v.2-3 (Van Hoonacker's translation).]
In citing this text they put their finger on the one prophecy contained in the Bible concerning this subject. St. Matthew's manner of summarizing the quotation is such as to give us to understand that from this time forth Bethlehem shall not be so insignificant as it has been in the past.
Herod was reassured by the reply, for who among the men at Bethlehem of an
age to be king could give him cause for suspicion?
Nevertheless he showed
sufficient interest to ask the Magi to tell him the exact time at which they
had first seen the star, and he found that the hero they sought could be no
more than a baby.
It must have seemed to him
to be all very fantastic, and if he had attached the slightest vuluu to these
strangers' theories he would certainly have unit a few horsemen on their
track, and within an hour or two have learnt all there was to know.
But he
felt that he could rely on his own well-tried knowledge of the political
situation.
His sons were at hand, such at least of them as he had not already
put to death,
looking forward to the time when they should succeed him:
Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip.
No doubt Augustus felt inclined to incorporate
Palestine in the Empire,
but if he left a king there at all it would surely
be none but a prince of Herod's house.
It did not befit a consummate politician
like Herod to take this astrological and prophetical business seriously.
With an air of good humour which made no pretence at concealing a touch of
mocking irony he bids them:
'Go and diligently enquire after the Child,
and when you have found Him,
bring me word again that I also may come and adore Him.'
He could hardly have pictured himself in such a posture as that,
and those who knew him may well have thought that the jest would end in bloodshed.
The Magi set off and within two hours they were at Bethlehem.
Great was their
joy when the star which they had seen in the East now appeared towards the
south and came to a standstill over the place where the Child lay.
[This is exactly what happened at Jerusalem, January 10,
1910,
when Halley's comet passed from East to West.
Everyone was able to observe how its light dispersed as it passed over to the
West
where, after a day or two, it began to shine again.
Many of the peasants slept out of doors that night, fearing lest they might be
crushed to death.
This comet passed through the solar system on October 9 in the year 12 BC.]
The comet,
if comet it was, did duty for a guide, and the terms in which St. Matthew describes
its movements indicate that such was the role appointed to it by Divine Providence.
His narrative leaves us to fill in for ourselves the details of how the Magi
went about their search for the Child;
for, just as the shepherds, though
they had been enlightened by the angels, found it necessary to make enquiries
in order to prove the reality of the sign they had received,
so we may suppose
that the Magi asked where they could find the new-born Child.
[Those who prefer it may suppose that the star shone after
the fashion of a searchlight.]
Having found
the mean stable which served the Holy Family for a house,
they saw the Child
with his mother Mary;
then, prostrating
themselves before Him,
they offered the gifts which they had brought in their
saddle-bags for the little king,
gold, frankincense, and the fragrant resin
called myrrh.
In the course of time these gifts liave become symbolic:
incense
for God, gold for the King, myrrh for Christ's burial.
The good-hearted Magi,
however, had brought such gifts from their own country as other countries
were in the habit of seeking there;
but this spontaneous goodwill was the
occasion of these gifts being raised to the level of symbolic offering full
of a most impressive meaning.
It was not permitted by God that they should fall victims of their own simplicity;
He commanded them in a dream to return home by another way.
And we may very
easily suppose that, having come by the normal route through Jericho, they
went back by tracks to the south of the Dead Sea.
But there was still greater
danger for the Child, and it was not yet the hour for Him to begin His sufferings
or to show His miraculous power.
Therefore an angel of the Lord warned Joseph,
during sleep as before, commanding him to hasten into Egypt with the Child
and His Mother on the ground that Herod would seek to destroy the Child.
Joseph
obeyed forthwith.
It was a source of pride for the Christians of Egypt that the Holy Family
had visited their land, and various places to-day claim the honour of having
given them shelter.
A fanciful picture that appeals to modern piety is that
of Mary sleeping between the arms of the Sphinx with the Child in her lap,
while Joseph sits watching by her side listening to the voices of the desert.
But none of the old traditions on this subject is worthy of credence.
As a
matter of fact Joseph had only to cross the southern frontier of Judeea into
Egypt in order to find safety, and he need have done no more than that for
St. Matthew to read into this flight and sojourn in Egypt, followed by the
return to the Holy Land, a likeness between Jesus the Son of God and Israel
the adopted son of God:
for Israel too had been brought out of Egypt, as Moses
relates at length, and as the prophet Osee recalls by his words:
'Out of Egypt have I called my son.' [Osee xi.1.]
In the meantime was Herod still thinking of the
Magi?
His attendants reminded
him that they had not returned as he bade them, so he made enquiries and found
that they
had gone off regardless of his orders.
It looked as though he had been made
a fool of by these simpletons of star-gazers, and he fell into one of those
paroxysms of fury which have made his very name an object of detestation.
Augustus used to say that he would rather be Herod's pig than his son,
[A play upon the Greek words hys, a pig, and hyios,
a son (cf. Macrobius, Saturn., II, LV, 11).]
for
Herod refused to eat pork while he slew his own offspring.
The tyrant had
inserted barbarous provisions in his will which were meant to ensure that
some tears, at least,
should be shed when he died. [Josephus, Antiquities,
XVII, vi, 5.]
Now it is no uncommon thing to find incredulity succeeded by superstitious
terror, as seems to have been the case with Herod.
Was his throne altogether
safe from the possibility of some bold attempt?
To secure that end the slaughter
of some twenty infants or so would count for little with him.
So, the Magi
being out of reach, he wrought his vengeance on those who, judging by what
he had learnt, might possibly be his rivals for the throne;
thus he ordered
a massacre of the new-born infants in Bethlehem and its neighbourhood,
and,
in order to be on the safe side,
he slew all the children up to two years of
age.
This was a thing of small significance for the mind of Herod who,
already
feeling himself stricken by the hand of death,
was preparing to seek relief
from his unbearable sufferings by visiting the hot springs at Callirrhoe on
the shores of the Dead Sea. [Ibid.]
But what a sorrow it was for the poor mothers!
To the mind of St. Matthew this
was like the grief of the whole nation.
It recalled to his mind the groans
and lamentations that were heard when the people of Ephraim were carried into
exile.
Ephraim was descended from Rachel through her son Joseph;
hence, when the tribe was carried off, it seemed as though it was Rachel herself
who was heard lamenting over her children and refusing all consolation because
they were no
more. [Jeremias xxxi.15.]
What adds emphasis to St. Matthew's comparison of
these two incidents is the fact that Rachel the mother of Kphraim was buried
near Bethlehem, according to the voice of tradition.
Thus, as she slept in
the abode of death among tlie patriarchs, she might well be thought to feel
a mother's pity for the innocent victims of Bethlehem.
And the
Church in her turn shares Rachel's feelings by the way in which she associates
her with the sorrowing mothers through the suppression of the Alleluia and
the use of purple vestments on the feast of Holy Innocents.
In this way there
is a perpetual souvenir ofJeremias' lament.
top
The return to Nazareth (12-13).
Matt. ii.19-23; Luke ii.39-40.
The death of Herod took place, according to the historian Josephus,
a few
days before the Pasch of the year 4 BC., which was the year of Rome 750.
Dionysius
Exiguus, a monk of the sixth century, was in error when he gave the year of
Rome 754 as the date of Jesus' birth, for Jesus was certainly born before the
death of Herod.
But we gather from the date given by St. Luke for the beginning
of John the Baptist's preaching that Our Lord could not have been born earlier
than the year of Rome 750:
hence His birth must have taken place a few weeks,
or at the most, a few months before Herod's death.
It follows, therefore, that
the sojourn of the Holy Family in Egypt could not have lasted long;
for, as
soon as Herod was dead, an angel bade Joseph in a dream to return to the land
of Israel.
Herod had at first designated Antipas as his successor:
but only a day or two before his death
he changed his mind and gave Judaea
and Samaria to his other son Archelaus with the title of king,
reserving Galilee
and Perea for Antipas with the title of tetrarch.
This arrangement was approved
by Augustus with the one exception
that he would not allow Archelaus the title
of king,
giving him instead that of ethnarch or head of the nation.
Archelaus'
first task was to quell a civil war,
and he behaved so tyrannically that in
ten years Augustus removed him from power.
In Galilee Antipas ruled with more
humanity,
and thither Joseph made his way,
for the memory of Herod's massacre
of the Innocents at Bethlehem kept him from going there.
Besides it was from
Nazareth of Galilee that Joseph had gone to Bethlehem in the first place, and
that in itself provides sufficient motive for his return thither in St. Luke's
narrative, which simply follows the chronological thread of events.
St. Matthew,
however, who is writing for Christians of Jewish origin, bids them to observe
how the designs of Providence are fulfilled even in those things which seem
to happen according to the normal course of events.
By becoming an inhabitant
of Nazareth Jesus takes on the name given to the people of that village.
It was a place of no account, its inhabitants considered as people of poor
intelligence and held in very slight esteem, so that to call anyone a Nazorean,
the name by which they were known, was practically an insult.
[For the distinction between Nazorean and Nazarean, cf. Revue
Biblique, 1927, p. 498 ff.]
But had not the
prophets foretold that the Servant of Jahweh should be disregarded and even
despised?
This last feature puts the finishing touch to the special character the Infancy
Narrative has in the gospel of St. Matthew, a character very different from
that we find in the gospel of St. Luke.
Indeed there are so many differences
that at first reading it looks as though the stories are about different persons.
But a further examination proves that the two writers are in agreement regarding
the essential points:
such as the supernatural conception of Jesus,
Mary's
marriage with Joseph,
Joseph's adoption of Jesus shown by the fact that he
has the Child enrolled as one of the descendants of David,
the birth at Bethlehem,
and the settling of the Holy Family at Nazareth.
Such agreement as this
is not to be explained by a dependence of Luke upon Matthew, for had Luke borrowed
from his predecessor he would not have departed so far from Matthew's narrative
as to have produced the apparent divergence of which we have just spoken;
or
if he had done so, then he would surely have given reasons for his divergence.
But it is evident that each evangelist has followed his own plan in pursuance
of his own special purpose;
the two narratives are based independently on
facts known to both writers.
The only thing that bears the appearance of a real contradiction
lies in
the fact that Matthew seems to be under the impression that Joseph dwelt
at Bethlehem and intended to return there,
while St. Luke tells us that Jesus
was born at Bethlehem only on account of the special circumstances which
led to Joseph's going there.
But the explanation of the difficulty lies in
this:
that St. Luke writes as an historian who is at pains to give a convincing
explanation of the facts that he records, and historical research is more
and more proving him to have been right.
St. Matthew,
however, evinces much less care about the incidents of life which make up human
existence:
he moves about in the higher plane of that which is right and
fitting.
Thus, for example, regarding the fact that Jesus was born at Bethlehem,
he reminds us that it was at Bethlehem that the Messiah had to be born.
Again,
Jesus was brought up at Nazareth:
that was the fact.
But one might almost
say that St. Matthew seems to indicate that this had to be so because so
it was determined by the Scripture.
In the eyes of the critics this gives
him the appearance of an author who is quite ready to invent a fact in order
to vindicate a prophecy.
But in the two cases just cited, which we can verify
for ourselves, it is clear that his theory is based on fact, and not vice
versa.
Moreover, these comparisons of prophecy and event do not imply absolute
coincidence between one and the other;
an unscrupulous author, if he wished
to invent a fact to fit a prophecy, would have contrived to make his argument
much more conclusive.
The critics cannot have it both ways;
if it be objected
that Matthew has been ready to make any fact serve to show the fulfilment
of a prophecy,
then it cannot be objected at the same time that he has invented
the facts.
top
Jesus in His Father's House (14).
Jesus returned, then, to Nazareth, with Mary and under Joseph's watchful care.
St. Luke never loses sight of that two-fold truth concerning Jesus:
first,
that being the true Son of God, He is therefore God like His Father;
but also
that He is at the same time one of the children of men,
and therefore He conducts
Himself in all things like a child.
With delicate art the evangelist here inserts
an episode which shows us that as the infancy of Jesus was governed by this
double truth, so also was his boyhood.
The Child grew up at Nazareth,
and parallel with his physical development
there took place a corresponding growth in knowledge,
though this latter growth
was of a fullness such as was to be found in no one but Him.
All the time God
was beholding Him with ever greater complacency. [Luke ii.40,
52.]
This regarded the human side
of Jesus.
As
for His human intelligence,
we learn from the sound teaching of theology,
which
alone can guide us here,
that from the first moment of His conception there
had been granted to Him the highest degree of that clear vision of God which
is promised to the saints in heaven.
But His human nature, though united
to a divine person,
nevertheless exercised freely all the actions proper
to itself;
nor did this gift of the beatific vision hinder His human intellect
from exercising that faculty of acquiring knowledge which is customary in
those growing up to manhood.
St. Luke is careful to state this explicitly,
for without it the whole gospel would be unintelligible and would be no more
than a continual make-believe.
He has also given us to understand that at the age of twelve Jesus was fully
conscious of His divine origin.
The evangelists in no way attribute this consciousness
to revelation or to a process of gradual growth.
It must therefore be attributed
to that direct vision of God which Jesus enjoyed from the very beginning of
His life,
for by that alone could His human intelligence have been enabled
to fathom the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the bosom
of the ineffable Trinity.
Nazareth was near enough to Jerusalem [About eighty-five
miles by the present road.] to enable its people to visit the
Holy City on occasion of the great pilgrimages, especially that of the Pasch,
though there was no obligation of so doing in the case of women and children.
It is possible, therefore, that Jesus never went to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage
feasts until He reached His twelfth year, when Mary and Joseph took Him there
for the feast of the Pasch.
After the octave was over the group of pilgrims
who had come up from Galilee took the road that led back to the north.
Now
a child of twelve, especially if he be an oriental, is well able to take care
of himself;
the parents of Jesus, therefore, were not at all surprised at His
leaving them at the time of their departure from Jerusalem in order to walk
with some of their kindred or with other children of His own age.
Generally the whole journey was made in four stages,
the first, which was
the shortest, lasting only about three hours,
so that there was no need for
the pilgrims to leave Jerusalem until the afternoon.
But when it came to evening
[Perhaps they were at the village of El-Bireh, north of the ancient Maspha,
or even at Maspha itself.]
the Child was nowhere to be found in the caravan when His parents sought Him
among their kinsfolk and acquaintances.
Full of anxiety, as mothers may well
imagine, Joseph and Mary returned to Jerusalem to look for Him,
but the day
came to an end without their being able to find any trace of Him.
Indeed
it was not until the third day that they caught sight of Him in the Temple.
A group of rabbis were gathered in discussion, as was their usual custom,
while their disciples pressed round eager to gather up the pearls of sacred
wisdom that might fall from their lips.
There were children among the audience,
and one of these was Jesus who, from time to time, even put questions to
the masters.
The latter, as was and is still their manner, questioned the
Child on His reasons for asking,
possibly with the object of finding out
whether He deserved an answer.
His replies to their questions showed such
keen intelligence that all were astonished.
It is a charming scene, but a perfectly natural one,
and much more convincing
than the picture of himself drawn by the historian Josephus:
'When I was a child, and about fourteen years of age,
I was commended by all for the love I had to learning;
on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together in order to know the accurate understanding of points of the Law.'
[Life of Josephus, § 2.]
All that is simply absurd;
Luke makes
no such claims even for the Son of God.
Nevertheless, many a parent would have felt very flattered at the praise
bestowed on Jesus by the rabbis;
a mother might very easily have felt gratified
by it.
But Mary's thoughts were all of grief and surprise,
and in the midst of this learned assembly she claims her rights:
'Son, why hast Thou done so to us?
Behold, Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing.'
And the Child, whose replies all have admired,
now answers something which is beyond the comprehension of these scribes:
'How is it that you have sought Me?
Did you not know that I must be with My Father?' -
that is to say, in My Father's house.
The evangelist
goes on to say that even His parents did not understand these words.
They must have been intended by Jesus, then, in a very profound sense.
Now
a particularly pious young Israelite might have referred to the Temple as 'the
house of the God
of Israel our Father,' and everyone would have understood what he meant.
But
St. Luke means that Jesus already spoke of God as His Father in a very special
sense,
speaking as the only Son of God would speak.
These words form the
prelude of the gospel.
But Mary, though she was perfectly aware of His divine
origin,
could not help wondering why he had so wounded her heart.
As for these rabbis, who had showed themselves so kindly disposed towards
the precocious Child, but were afterwards to prove themselves so hardhearted
towards the young Master whom they thought to be setting Himself up as their
rival, this incident was but a transitory gleam of light.
But for Joseph and
Mary it was a passing shadow of sorrow that soon faded in the joy they felt
at finding the Child;
for Jesus returned with them to Nazareth 'and was subject
to them.'
He was to be theirs for many years to come, during which He was to
accomplish that which was for Him the sweetest and noblest part of His mission,
namely, the sanctification of Mary and Joseph.
At the same time, they also
bestowed much upon Him:
but that is a mystery which is beyond our powers of
penetration.
top
Jesus at Nazareth.
It was when they were both about thirty years of age that John, the son of
Zachary, and Jesus, the Son of Mary, came face to face.
How had their minds
been formed during all these early years?
What were their first impressions?
What influences had been brought to bear
upon their characters?
These are the questions we feel inclined to ask, but
the evangelists meet our questions with silence;
and this silence provides
what is perhaps the chief difficulty in composing a life of Jesus.
It may be
replied, of course, that as far as Jesus is concerned the things that contributed
to his mental and moral formation are of no great importance in his life, seeing
that He possessed within Himself the Light and Life which were all-sufficing.
Nevertheless, He willed to become a man like the rest of us, and, moreover,
those with whom He came into contact during these years were unaware of His
divine origin.
We should like to know what conclusions they may have come to
regarding the manner of His upbringing when they witnessed those actions which
He performed among them by virtue of His acquired dispositions of soul.
To seek for information on the point anywhere else but in the gospels is useless,
and conjectures are of little avail.
There are, however, two details recorded
for us by St. Luke from which we can learn at least something.
We have seen
how John grew up in the desert, and by that we are to understand that his
formation was accomplished in almost complete solitude under the watchful
care of God.
Afterwards he came forth as a hermit, a prophet in the spirit
and garb of Elias.
But it was not in solitude that Jesus grew up;
His life was spent in the
bosom of His family and in His own village.
Regarding these years we have one
precious detail.
When He went up to Jerusalem He stayed behind at the school
of the rabbis whose teaching He delighted to hear.
Taking advantage of this
fleeting opportunity,
He was enabled to come into contact with the most celebrated
of the masters.
From this we may conclude that He was in the habit of frequenting
the schools at Nazareth;
later we shall see that He showed Himself to be very
proficient in the interpretation of the Law and Prophets.
This is clear from
the gospels, and we must not let ourselves be led into error on the point because
of those angry outbursts of His adversaries [John vii.15.] simply
due to the fact that He disagreed with them about the interpretation of what
He, like they, had learnt;
when we speak of what He had learnt we refer to that acquired knowledge of
His spoken of above.
The whole manner of His life, apart from its manifest
holiness, was very much like the life of other men of His own rank, except
that He seemed to be both a master of the Scriptures and a prophet after the
style of Elias.
He spoke Aramaic,
which was the language in common use,
though He could, when
occasion demanded, speak Greek and Hebrew.
He performed the tasks of a manual
labourer,
following the trade of a carpenter,
and was doubtless sometimes employed
in building.
But this was not extraordinary,
for we find that some of the most
celebrated rabbis also followed a similar trade;
indeed they took pride in
earning their livelihood by the labour of their hands
so as not to be under
the necessity of taking payment for the lessons they gave in sacred learning.
At Nazareth Jesus lived among agricultural labourers and vine-dressers;
later on, by the lake of Galilee, He mingled with fishermen,
and in joining them in their labours He followed the directions of Peter and
the other disciples who were used to that kind of work.
From these different
kinds of labour He borrows customs and images for His parables,
where He
uses them with inimitable skill.
If it be not presumptuous to go so far in this analysis of ihe development
of His human character,
we may say that there was in Him, as there is in many
others, something of His Mother's influence.
Where do we find the grace, the
exquisite delicacy, the kindly tenderness that we find in Him?
And these are
precisely the characteristics of such as have had their hearts softened by
the tenderness of a mother's love, their minds refined by communication with
a beloved and revered mother who has taken delight in teaching them how to
appreciate the more delicate refinements of human life.
And Joseph, too, while perhaps he taught his adopted Son how to smooth the
planks of wood,
did he not at the same time show himself to Jesus as the very
model of a conscientious workman and a dutiful son of Israel?
This is the
last we shall hear of Joseph in the pages of the gospel.
He is the man of silence,
the contemplator of mysteries,
and as such he has no part to play in the active
ministry of preaching.
Indeed he was already dead by the time that the kingdom
of God began to be proclaimed by Him whom the villagers of Nazareth then called
'the Son of Mary.'
top