Section VI

the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem

(Luke 2)

When Mary already saw the time of her approaching delivery at hand, she had occasion to travel to Bethlehem with her husband.

The occasion was a civil duty. According to the command of the government, which had ordained a taxation of the inhabitants of Palestine, Joseph was obliged to betake himself to Bethlehem, the town of his family, to be there registered according to his name and property. Mary was also subject to this registration.¹ According to the Gospel (vers. 1 and 2), this taxing was decreed by the Emperor Augustus; it was the first which had taken place in Judea, and happened when Cyrenius was governor in Syria.

We here encounter a great and much canvassed difficulty.² How, it is first asked, could Augustus decree this taxing in Palestine, when king Herod, though dependent upon Rome, still governed the country? And how comes Cyrenius to be mentioned, who, according to Josephus, did not come to Palestine till about ten years later, and that in order to complete the taxing? It is further asked, Why were Mary and Joseph obliged to travel to Bethlehem, when a Roman enrolment required no such change of locality? And finally, Why was Mary obliged to accompany her husband on this journey?

We must first repeat, that we consider Mary the authority for the history of Jesus’ childhood. It is probable that Luke had a narrative by her of the journey to Bethlehem, which he introduced into his own work. In this narrative Mary would express herself according to the political views of an elevated female mind, overlooking the immediate authors of a public measure, and referring it to that supreme power which, though it kept in the background, was actually its author. Herod, the dependent prince, disappeared from the view of the narrator, who, from the point of view afforded by mental observation of the state of the world, was contemplating the source of the great political measures taking place in Palestine. Hence, in grand and womanly style, she named the Emperor Augustus as the originator of the decree of Herod, that a census should take place in Palestine.³

Luke, the compiler of the narrative, would not, in his earnest truthfulness, alter this account. He knew, however, that this taxing formed part of a general undertaking, first completed by Cyrenius some years afterwards. He therefore inserts, by way of correction, the words: The taxing itself took place when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.⁴ Subsequently the word αὐτὴ, whose signification was no longer understood, was read αὕτη, i.e., instead of: the taxing itself-this taxing.⁵ That king Herod could not but allow the organic movements which took place in the Romish state⁶ to prevail in his realm, was but natural.⁷ It was quite in accordance with the character of the times that a registration should take place. But when a king instituted such a taxing, the Jewish national feeling would oblige him to carry it out according to Hebrew genealogical order.⁸ Is it still asked, Why Mary accompanied Joseph? We do not know for certain whether she was obliged to be personally present at the enrolment; it is probable that, as a virgin, she desired to represent the house of her father.⁹ At all events, the expression of the Evangelist seems to point out that she was subjected to the same ceremony as her husband. Thus much, however, is quite certain, that there was no law which obliged her to remain at home. She was now more than ever in need of the care of Joseph. But not this circumstance alone would impel her to decide on accompanying him. Her heart yearned towards Bethlehem. This town had of late become the object of her earthly desires. We cannot be surprised if the theocratic life in her bosom should have made the beloved city of her fathers the object of sacred desire to her maternal feelings. A wish henceforth to dwell there might already have been matured in her mind, since, after her return from Egypt she and Joseph were at first resolved upon so doing. The poetic glory of the city of David could have beamed more brightly in no Jewish heart than in hers, especially at this time, when the hope of David’s house was reflected in the happy anticipations and yearning of her mind. If the life of the child were reflected in the life of the mother, wondrous poetic, child-like, and elevated desires would arise within her. Bethlehem was Mary’s desire.¹⁰ The travellers had not been long in Bethlehem when the hour of Mary’s delivery arrived, and she brought forth her first-born son.¹¹ According to an ancient tradition, reported by Justin Martyr, the place of the nativity was a cave, still shown in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem.¹² It is very possible that this building leant against the side of a hill. Others suppose that it was in the manger of the caravanserai of Bethlehem that the child was born.¹³ A caravanserai, however, would be a place entirely inappropriate for such an event as a birth. The usual representations would have us seek the new-born Saviour in a stable. The Evangelist distinguishes the manger (or the stall, φάτνη) as a separate place from the inn (κατάλυμα). In Palestine, as in all patriarchal districts, there are huts in which the boundaries between the stable and the room, the dwelling of man and the dwelling of the cattle, are not very clearly defined. In such a hut this noble pair seem to have found a shelter.

The contrast between the eternal majesty and lowly appearance of Christ has ever struck mankind, edified Christendom, and exercised a sanctifying influence upon the world. The Prince of heaven, though rich, became poor, to make our poor world rich. That the Son of God should have appeared in such poverty, glorifies, on one hand, His divinity, on the other, human poverty. Divine love appears in its most surprising aspect in this submission to humanity. Humanity, even in a state of poverty, thus becomes sacred. The child in the manger is not exposed to poverty of mind because he is so poor in outward circumstances. His mother calls his name Jesus, God’s salvation for the world. This glorification of poverty is at the same time a glorification of human nature itself. How far has the modern view of the world sunk in the tendency of many minds below this Christian view of life! When poverty is cursed, the honour of free human personality is unconsciously cursed. Christ is a child of the poor traveller, born upon a journey, and, according to common ideas, in extreme want. He was first cradled in a manger. Yet Christ saved and infinitely enriched the world.

But it is not only the contrast of the ideal elevation of Christ with the lowliness of this scene of His birth which is thus striking, but also the relations in which the historical elevation of the holy family stands to its first entrance into the history of the world.

The carpenter Joseph, under whose care and civil fatherhood Jesus was placed, according to the counsel of God, was descended from the house of David. The Evangelist Matthew has given us his genealogy in a solemn and significant compilation, in a symmetrical arrangement of circumstances, significantly expressing the tragic course of David’s line. After the first fourteen generations, the line attains to kingly dignity. In the next fourteen, it fills the high position of the royal house. In the last fourteen, we see its fall from secular royal dignity; and Mary’s husband, the carpenter, as foster-father of the poor yet royal child, stands at the close of this series.¹⁴

Mary also was of the tribe of Judah. Many have indeed believed her to have been of the tribe of Levi, because she is described (Luk 1:36) as a relation of Elisabeth, who was of the race of Aaron. Israelites were, however, allowed to marry into other than their paternal tribes (Num 36:2). The mother, therefore, of Elisabeth might have descended from the family of Mary,¹⁵ or the relationship might have existed in some other manner. The Apostle Paul decidedly says of Christ, that He was of the house of David (Rom 1:3). In the angelic annunciation, it is said of Christ, The Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David (Luk 1:32)-a promise which, being addressed to Mary, by whom He was to be brought forth, must here be understood in a genealogical sense. And her union with Joseph is in accordance with this. Joseph was of the race of David; a circumstance leading to the conclusion that Mary was also descended from that king. For the marriage between Joseph and Mary exhibits very plainly the patriarchal characteristic of being caused by family relations. It would be far more difficult to comprehend, if regarded as a purely ideal and free one between children of different tribes. Hence it has from the very first been natural to regard the genealogy given by Luke as that of Mary.

The sole difficulty presented by this view, is the fact that the names of Zerubbabel and Salathiel appear in both lines. This may, however, be explained by a temporary coincidence of the two genealogies, resulting from the ordinance of the Levirate law of marriage.¹⁶ On the other hand, this view is peculiarly adapted to remove many more important difficulties. It offers the most simple explanation of the differences between the two genealogical tables, the turn of expression by which Luke designates Joseph as the merely ostensible father of Christ, and the carrying back of the line of Jesus to Adam. Luke, according to the character of his Gospel, was desirous of giving the genealogy of the Son of man. We cannot then but suppose that he obtained the genealogy of the mother of Jesus. He so far sacrifices to custom as to mention Joseph; but the very manner in which this is done, points out his true relation to Jesus and Heli, the living means of connection between these latter being Mary.

If Luke were, in his characteristic vein, announcing the nobility of mankind, when deriving the descent of Jesus from Adam, and the divinity of the origin of mankind, by referring the life of Adam to God, everything would, in such a genealogy, depend upon the reality of the natural succession. Only the historical descent of the mother of Jesus could be of any importance in such a view of the genealogy of Jesus. In accordance with this supposition, even Jewish tradition has designated Heli as the father of Mary.¹⁷

It was a sad and tragic circumstance, that the daughter of David, the mother of the King in whom that great promise concerning Bethlehem was to be fulfilled, ‘Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting,’ should return in so poor and unknown a condition to the cradle of her race. The country was already dependent upon the world-wide power of Rome; the will of its emperor obliged this royal Jewish family to travel under the most trying circumstances, and brought them to the poor inn of Bethlehem, which suffered them to appear in a mendicant-like condition. The child whom Jewish anticipation had adorned with all the splendour of supreme worldly power was born in a stable-like hut, and cradled in a manger, while the despotic Edomite sat upon the throne of His fathers, and governed Israel.

But the new-born babe was no pretender; the old world was not His inheritance, but a new and lovelier world, which He brought with Him, in His heart. The tragic shadows falling in a worldly point of view upon the holy family, do but give greater brilliancy to that divine relationship and spiritual glory in which it announced and brought in a new future raised above the curse. The beginnings of this new world play, like celestial lights, with marvellous splendour around the hard cradle of the Holy Child, and glorify His appearing.

───♦───

Notes

As far as the relation of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke to the doctrine of Christ’s descent from David is concerned, it must first be firmly laid down, that this doctrine is entirely independent of their construction. In a genuine and powerful family tradition, the tradition is not supported by the genealogy, but the genealogy by the tradition. Such genealogies may, under special juridical occurrences, become decisive documents, but the tradition satisfies the unprejudiced disposition of the world. If the family of Mary had made legitimist pretensions to the crumbling throne of Herod, our ‘criticism’ would perhaps be justified in taking upon itself the task of a herald’s college and testing the genealogies, and on the discovery of traces of a suspicious kind, in pronouncing them invalid or doubtful. But it must then have a thorough knowledge of the science of heraldry, and a feeling for those embellishments and methods of treatment by which genealogical trees are often somewhat interrupted in their natural growth. Matthew seems to have been such a genealogist, in the highest historical style. The shadow of the curse and the light of the blessing play upon the whole of his genealogy. Luke, on the contrary, is a genealogist of the ideal style. With holy feeling does his genealogy trace the descent of Christ past David and Abraham to Adam. That Christ is the Son of man, the Son of God, and the Son of David, is the fundamental principle upon which both genealogies were written.

That it is absurd to admit the idea of mythic genealogies in a Jewish family, is evident from an estimation of the fundamental relations of Israel. The difference between the genealogies in question, has indeed been explained in another manner than by the fact that Luke communicates Mary’s, and Matthew, Joseph’s descent. The hypothesis of Julius Africanus, according to which, both exhibit the descent of Joseph, which receives its twofold character through the parallel descent of two lines, in two Levirate marriages, has obtained much credit.¹⁸ Apart, however, from the other difficulties which this view presents, it may be remarked, that it would militate against the great precision always observed by the Jews in their treatment of genealogical relations, to suffer an illegitimate descent to figure in the presence of the legitimate one.

On the composition and mutual relation of the genealogical tables, compare in W. Hoffman’s das Leben Jesu, &c., the instructive section, the Genealogy of Jesus, p. 148, which gives an ingenious explanation of the circumstance that duplicate names appear in Luke’s genealogy, a phenomenon which Bruno Bauer has attempted to represent as bearing the impress of non-authenticity. The author ascribes Luke’s genealogy to Mary. ‘A genealogy of Joseph, adduced as a proof of the true human personality of Jesus, with the remark that he was not the true father of Jesus, and after the narrative of the supernatural conception, would have been utterly purposeless both to Jews and Gentiles; and either an extremely perplexing or an insincere act would be ascribed to the author by insisting that among the Jews it was only customary to give the genealogy of the husband. It was not that this was customary, but it was so, when giving that of the woman, to insert in her place in the table the name of her husband, whether he were the actual father of her son or not.’

1) That the words with Mary, &c., Luke ii. 5, relate much more naturally to the immediately preceding words, to be taxed, than to the preceding expression he went up, is evident even from the construction of the sentence. But when the parenthesis is made, and διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν referred to Joseph alone, this is easily explained. It needed not to be remarked of Mary that she was descended from David, this being patent to Christian consciousness; while it was necessary to notice the fact that Joseph was so descended,

2) On the whole question of the census, compare the excellent remarks of Ebrard, Gospel History, 136. [Or the very useful work of Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 65-74 (Lond. 1863); or Fairbairn’s Hermeneutical Manual, p. 461; or Davidson’s Introduction, pp. 206-214.—ED.]

3) If, for instance, a Westphalian woman were to speak of a levy of troops in her country in the year 1810, she would very probably say, ‘The Emperor Napoleon commanded it,’ although, from politic views, it had issued immediately from the dependent king Jerome. Mary likewise comprised the single taxing which Herod decreed with the general kind of taxing which proceeded from the government of Augustus. The expression, all the world, πᾶσα ἡ οἰκουμέη, can never be limited to Palestine alone, not to mention the fact that a decree of the Emperor Augustus is here spoken of (comp. Strauss, Leben Jesu, p. 228). Hebrew national feeling very clearly expresses the contrast between the Holy Land and the whole earth: an οἰκουηένη referring merely to Palestine, cannot then be imagined from this point of view.

4) [Even though this explanation were necessary, the words of Luke do not admit of it; because he gives us to understand that whatever the ἀπογραφὴ was,—whether a taxation, or an enrolment preparatory to taxation,—it was effected at the time of this journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. They went up, ἀπογράφεσθαι: (ii. 3-6), not to accomplish something which might be separated ten years from the ἀπογραφὴ, but for itself; and it was this, this ἀπογραφὴ accomplished by their visit to Bethlehem, which was at the same time accomplished under Cyrenius. So that whether we read αὐτὴ or αὕτη, we cannot interpose a number of years between ver. 8, when all went to be taxed, and ver. 2, when the taxing was made. But, as is now very well known, there is no necessity for interposing any interval between the decree and its fulfilment, between the birth of Jesus and the government of Cyrenius. The investigations of Zumpt have made it appear almost certain that Cyrenius was twice governor of Syria, viz., from 750-753, as well as from 760-765. his is exhibited in his Essay De Syria Romanorum provincia, in vol. ii, of his Comment. Epigraph. ad Antig. Rom. pertinent., Berlin, 1854. A summary of the results may be seen in Alford, Lichtenstein, or Andrews.—ED.]

5) We believe that the above statement corroborate the hypothesis of Paulus, which has hitherto merely stood upon its own merits, even without giving the origin of the change of αὐτὴ indo αὕτη, The view that the second verse is a gloss, is a gratuitous assertion, and one which is so much the worse, as not ‘answering its purpose, since the decree of Cesar Augustus still remains in the first verse. 'This applies also to the assertion that πρώτη stands for προτέρα (see Tholuck, Die Glaubwardigkeit, &c., p. 182), At all events, it does not explain the first verse at all, and the second only in a very forced manner. The hypothesis that Cyrenius came once into Palestine ten years before he was governor of Syria, endowed with extraordinary powers for the execution of this taxing, and that ἡγεμονεύοντος refers to these extraordinary powers, and not to his government of the province, is the most improbable of all. For the word must, at all events, relate to Syria, and may consequently designate only the Prœses Syriœ (see Strauss, i. 233). In any case, an exegete should decide whether he will make decided use of any one expedient ; and to connect different expedients through an apologetic economy, is certainly not allowable.

6) According to Suetonius and Dio Cass., Augustus carried on registration during his whole life (comp. Liegler, des Leben Jesu, 313) ; and according to Tacitus (Anal. i. 11), left behind him the result of these labours in a state paper. Compare what Tholuck adduces in Die Glaubwurdigheit, &c., from Savigny on the general census in the time of Augustus, and Neander’s quotation from Cassiodorus, p. 22.

7) The taxing of Cyrenius (ἀπογραφὴ) of which Josephus speaks, Antig. 18, 1, is more accurately defined as an ἀπογραφὴ, and may consequently assume that foundation of every taxation, the registration of names. Αὐτὴ also seems to point to this contrast. According to Tacitus, Annal, i. ii., Augustus had procured registers of the forces of kings in alliance with Rome. This is a striking proof that he was the originator of the registrations taken by the allied kings, and consequently by Herod, though they might not be carried on according to Roman forms. The census of Cyrenius does not accord with the description of such registrations. Hence the remark of Strauss (p. 230) against the signification of the passage adduced from Tacitus is of no force.

8) Comp. Joseph. Antig. 18,1; Acts v. 87. On the Jewish form of enrolment, comp. Ebrard, p. 137, where he cursorily mentions the coutradiction into which Strauss has here betrayed himself.

9) It has been supposed (Olshausen, Commentary, i. 119) that Mary, as an heiress of property in Bethlehem, was obliged to undertake this journey. If she were an heiress, she would have been obliged, according to Num, xxxvi., to marry into her own family. But it does not follow that her husband (comp, Nehem. vii. 63) must have been received into her family, and have taken her name, and still less that the wife must necessarily be enrolled. In the consideration of this passage, it has been overlooked that, as yet, Mary was only betrothed, and consequently personally represented her own line, perhaps that ‘of Heli, especially if she were an orphan. ‘Thus the daughters of Zelophehad had, undoubtedly, represented their father at the numbering of the people (Num, xxxvi. 2). In this case, Mary would certainly be entered as a virgin daughter of her house.

10) The assumption that a pregnant woman would not travel with her husband to a distant place, unless she also had been summoned, and that her journey is uncertain in the same degree as the summons is uncertain, is too naive to need discussion. If the critics who attack this text could by any means prove that a woman was forbidden to undertake such a journey, they might argue against the internal truth of the narrative with better success.

11) Luke ii. 7.

12) [Justin’s words are: ‘Since Joseph had not where to lodge in that town, he rested in a certain cave (σπηλαίω τινὶ) close by it. And so it was,’ &c. Maundrell complains (Early Travels, p, 478) that almost everything of interest is, in the Holy Land, represented as having been done in grottoes, even where the circumstances of the action require places of another nature. Matt. ii. 11 is not decisive on the point, because by that time room may have been found in the house, or because the house may have included a cavern behind, as described by Thomson (Land and Book, 645).—Ep.]

13) Comp. Ammon, Leben Jesu, p. 202, and others.

14) The first series numbers fourteen members, including David ; the second fourteen, including Jeconias; the third only thirteen, including Christ. It is impossible to suppose an error of computation in so definite a calculation, If, then, one is really found, it must be considered as intentional, and as pointing to some omitted member. Some have sought to render it complete by assuming that the Jeconias before the captivity was replaced by another Jeconias from among his brethren,—7.e., a relation who, according to the Levirate law of marriage, raised up seed to his brother after the captivity. (Compare Riegler, Leben Jesu Christi, p. 444.) But it would be contrary to the law of Levirate in such cases to count the same name twice. Even Riegler does not resort to this expedient, but supposes the omission of one member. Since Mary is in this genealogy mentioned after Joseph as the mother of Jesus, it is probable that its compiler, by his evident omission of the fourteenth member, was desirous of leading to a view of the unique significance of Mary in this genealogy. Compare my essay Ueber den geschichtlichen Charakter, &c., p. 54: Ebrard, p. 151. Strauss’s remark, that if Mary is counted, Thamar must be counted also, and Joseph left out, ignores the fact that Thamar’s place is supplied by her husband, and that Joseph forming an independent member in his genealogycannot be omitted. But neither can the calculation proceed immediately from him to Christ, unless an error is to be established. On the omission of single generations, comp. Ebrard, p. 152. It cannot be thought surprising if, in a genealogy founded on symmetrical principles, single generations are passed over.

15) Neander thinks (Leben Jesu Christi, p. 20, note) that Elisabeth may well have sprung from the tribe of Judah. The passage Luke i. 5, however, speaks too decidedly to the contrary.

16) Comp. Riegler, i. 444; Ebrard, p. 159.

17) Comp. W. Hoffmann, das Leben Jesu, &c., p. 165.

18) [Besides being adopted by Winer and Meyer, the view that both genealogies belong to Joseph is held by most English scholars ; ¢g., by Alford, Ellicott, Westcott, Fairbairn, and Mill, The ancient opinions are given by Fairbairn (Herm. Man. p. 181), and perhaps the ablest discussion of the whole matter is that of Mill (Myth. Interp. p. 147, &e.)" Lord Arthur Hervey holds the same opinion, and has reproduced his work on the genealogies (Camb. 1853) in Smith’s Bible Dictionary. The opposite opinion is, however, maintained not only by the author, but by Wieseler, Riggenbach, Greswell, Ebrard, and others.—ED.]