THE BOY OF NAZARETH.
Joseph, Mary, and her Son remained in Egypt until after the death of
Herod the Great, which event was made known by another angelic
visitation. Their stay in the foreign land was probably brief, for Herod
did not long survive the babes he had slain in Bethlehem. In the return
of the family from Egypt the evangelist finds a fulfilment of Hosea's
prophetic vision of what should be: "Out of Egypt have I called my
son."[254]
It appears to have been Joseph's intention to make a home for the family
in Judea, possibly at Bethlehem--the city of his ancestors and a place
now even more endeared to him as the birthplace of Mary's Child--but,
learning on the way that Herod's son Archelaus ruled in the place of his
wicked father, Joseph modified his purpose; and, "being warned of God in
a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and
dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."[255]
While Archelaus, who appears to have been a natural heir to his infamous
father's wickedness and cruelty, ruled in Judea,[256] for a short time
as king, then with the less exalted title of ethnarch, which had been
decreed to him by the emperor, his brother Antipas governed as tetrarch
in Galilee. Herod Antipas was well nigh as vicious and reprobate as
others of his unprincipled family, but he was less aggressive in
vindictiveness, and in that period of his reign was comparatively
tolerant.[257]
Concerning the home life of Joseph and his family in Nazareth, the
scriptural record makes but brief mention. The silence with which the
early period of the life of Jesus is treated by the inspired historians
is impressive; while the fanciful accounts written in later years by
unauthorized hands are full of fictitious detail, much of which is
positively revolting in its puerile inconsistency. None but Joseph,
Mary, and the other members of the immediate family or close associates
of the household could have furnished the facts of daily life in the
humble home at Nazareth; and from these qualified informants Matthew and
Luke probably derived the knowledge of which they wrote. The record made
by those who knew is marked by impressive brevity. In this absence of
detail we may see evidence of the genuineness of the scriptural account.
Inventive writers would have supplied, as, later, such did supply, what
we seek in vain within the chapters of the Gospels. With hallowed
silence do the inspired scribes honor the boyhood of their Lord; he who
seeks to invent circumstances and to invest the life of Christ with
fictitious additions, dishonors Him. Read thoughtfully the attested
truth concerning the childhood of the Christ: "And the child grew, and
waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was
upon him."[258]
In such simplicity is the normal, natural development of the Boy Jesus
made clear. He came among men to experience all the natural conditions
of mortality; He was born as truly a dependent, helpless babe as is any
other child; His infancy was in all common features as the infancy of
others; His boyhood was actual boyhood, His development was as necessary
and as real as that of all children. Over His mind had fallen the veil
of forgetfulness common to all who are born to earth, by which the
remembrance of primeval existence is shut off. The Child grew, and with
growth there came to Him expansion of mind, development of faculties,
and progression in power and understanding. His advancement was from one
grace to another, not from gracelessness to grace; from good to greater
good, not from evil to good; from favor with God to greater favor, not
from estrangement because of sin to reconciliation through repentance
and propitiation.[259]
Our knowledge of Jewish life in that age justifies the inference that
the Boy was well taught in the law and the scriptures, for such was the
rule. He garnered knowledge by study, and gained wisdom by prayer,
thought, and effort. Beyond question He was trained to labor, for
idleness was abhorred then as it is now; and every Jewish boy, whether
carpenter's son, peasant's child, or rabbi's heir, was required to learn
and follow a practical and productive vocation. Jesus was all that a boy
should be, for His development was unretarded by the dragging weight of
sin; He loved and obeyed the truth and therefore was free.[260]
Joseph and Mary, devout and faithful in all observances of the law, went
up to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. This religious
festival, it should be remembered, was one of the most solemn and sacred
among the many ceremonial commemorations of the Jews; it had been
established at the time of the peoples' exodus from Egypt, in
remembrance of the outstretched arm of power by which God had delivered
Israel after the angel of destruction had slain the firstborn in every
Egyptian home and had mercifully passed over the houses of the children
of Jacob.[261] It was of such importance that its annual recurrence was
made the beginning of the new year. The law required all males to
present themselves before the Lord at the feast. The rule was that women
should likewise attend if not lawfully detained; and Mary appears to
have followed both the spirit of the law and the letter of the rule, for
she habitually accompanied her husband to the annual gathering at
Jerusalem.
When Jesus had attained the age of twelve years He was taken by His
mother and Joseph to the feast as the law required; whether the Boy had
ever before been present on such an occasion we are not told: At twelve
years of age a Jewish boy was recognized as a member of his home
community; he was required then to enter with definite purpose upon his
chosen vocation; he attained an advanced status as an individual in that
thereafter he could not be arbitrarily disposed of as a bond-servant by
his parents; he was appointed to higher studies in school and home; and,
when accepted by the priests, he became a "son of the law." It was the
common and very natural desire of parents to have their sons attend the
feast of the Passover and be present at the temple ceremonies as
recognized members of the congregation when of the prescribed age. Thus
came the Boy Jesus to the temple.
The feast proper lasted seven days, and in the time of Christ was
annually attended by great concourses of Jews; Josephus speaks of such a
Passover gathering as "an innumerable multitude."[262] The people came
from distant provinces in large companies and caravans, as a matter of
convenience and as a means of common protection against the marauding
bands which are known to have infested the country. As members of such a
company Joseph and his family traveled.
When, following the conclusion of the Passover, the Galilean company had
gone a day's journey toward home, Joseph and Mary discovered to their
surprize and deep concern that Jesus was not with their company. After a
fruitless search among their friends and acquaintances, they turned back
toward Jerusalem seeking the Boy. Their inquiries brought little comfort
or assistance until three days had passed; then "they, found him in the
temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and
asking them questions."[263] It was no unusual thing for a twelve year
old boy to be questioned by priests, scribes, or rabbis, nor to be
permitted to ask questions of these professional expounders of the law,
for such procedure was part of the educational training of Jewish
youths; nor was there anything surprizing in such a meeting of students
and teachers within the temple courts, for the rabbis of that time were
accustomed to give instruction there; and people, young and old,
gathered about them, sitting at their feet to learn; but there was much
that was extraordinary in this interview as the demeanor of the learned
doctors showed, for never before had such a student been found, inasmuch
as "all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and
answers." The incident furnishes evidence of a wellspent boyhood and
proof of unusual attainments.[264]
The amazement of Mary and her husband on finding the Boy in such
distinguished company, and so plainly the object of deference and
respect, and the joy of seeing again the beloved One who to them had
been lost, did not entirely banish the memory of the anguish His absence
had caused them. In words of gentle yet unmistakable reproof the mother
said: "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I
have sought thee sorrowing." The Boy's reply astonished them, in that it
revealed, to an extent they had not before realized, His rapidly
maturing powers of judgment and understanding. Said He: "How is it that
ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"
Let us not say that there was unkind rebuke or unfilial reproof in the
answer of this most dutiful of sons to His mother. His reply was to Mary
a reminder of what she seems to have forgotten for the moment--the facts
in the matter of her Son's paternity. She had used the words "thy father
and I;" and her Son's response had brought anew to her mind the truth
that Joseph was not the Boy's father. She appears to have been
astonished that One so young should so thoroughly understand His
position with respect to herself. He had made plain to her the
inadvertent inaccuracy of her words; His Father had not been seeking
Him; for was He not even at that moment in His Father's house, and
particularly engaged in His Father's business, the very work to which
His Father had appointed Him?
He had in no wise intimated a doubt as to Mary's maternal relationship
to Himself; though He had indisputably shown that He recognized as His
Father, not Joseph of Nazareth, but the God of Heaven. Both Mary and
Joseph failed to comprehend the full import of His words. Though He
understood the superior claim of duty based on His divine Sonship, and
had shown to Mary that her authority as earthly mother was subordinate
to that of His immortal and divine Father, nevertheless He obeyed her.
Interested as were the doctors in this remarkable Boy, much as He had
given them to ponder over through His searching questions and wise
answers, they could not detain Him, for the very law they professed to
uphold enjoined strict obedience to parental authority. "And he went
down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his
mother kept all these sayings in her heart."
What marvelous and sacred secrets were treasured in that mother's heart;
and what new surprizes and grave problems were added day after day in
the manifestations of unfolding wisdom displayed by her more than mortal
Son! Though she could never have wholly forgotten, at times she
seemingly lost sight of her Son's exalted personality. That such
conditions should exist was perhaps divinely appointed. There could
scarcely have been a full measure of truly human experience in the
relationship between Jesus and His mother, or between Him and Joseph,
had the fact of His divinity been always dominant or even prominently
apparent. Mary appears never to have fully understood her Son; at every
new evidence of His uniqueness she marveled and pondered anew. He was
hers, and yet in a very real sense not wholly hers. There was about
their relation to each other a mystery, awful yet sublime, a holy secret
which that chosen and blessed mother hesitated even to tell over to
herself. Fear must have contended with joy within her soul because of
Him. The memory of Gabriel's glorious promises, the testimony of the
rejoicing shepherds, and the adoration of the magi must have struggled
with that of Simeon's portentous prophecy, directed to herself in
person: "Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also."[265]
As to the events of the eighteen years following the return of Jesus
from Jerusalem to Nazareth, the scriptures are silent save for one rich
sentence of greatest import: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature,
and in favor with God and man."[266] Plainly this Son of the Highest was
not endowed with a fulness of knowledge, nor with the complete
investiture of wisdom, from the cradle.[267] Slowly the assurance of His
appointed mission as the Messiah, of whose coming He read in the law,
the prophets, and the psalms, developed within His soul; and in devoted
preparation for the ministry that should find culmination on the cross
He passed the years of youth and early manhood. From the chronicles of
later years we learn that He was reputed without question to be the son
of Joseph and Mary, and was regarded as the brother of other and younger
children of the family. He was spoken of both as a carpenter and a
carpenter's son; and, until the beginning of His public ministry He
appears to have been of little prominence even in the small home
community.[268]
He lived the simple life, at peace with His fellows, in communion with
His Father, thus increasing in favor with God and men. As shown by His
public utterances after He had become a man, these years of seclusion
were spent in active effort, both physical and mental. Jesus was a close
observer of nature and men. He was able to draw illustrations with which
to point His teachings from the varied occupations, trades and
professions; the ways of the lawyer and the physician, the manners of
the scribe, the Pharisee and the rabbi, the habits of the poor, the
customs of the rich, the life of the shepherd, the farmer, the
vinedresser and the fisherman--were all known to Him. He considered the
lilies of the field, and the grass in meadow and upland, the birds which
sowed not nor gathered into barns but lived on the bounty of their
Maker, the foxes in their holes, the petted house dog and the vagrant
cur, the hen sheltering her brood beneath protecting wings--all these
had contributed to the wisdom in which He grew, as had also the moods of
the weather, the recurrence of the seasons, and all the phenomena of
natural change and order.
Nazareth was the abode of Jesus until He was about thirty years of age;
and, in accordance with the custom of designating individuals by the
names of their home towns as additions to their personal names,[269] our
Lord came to be generally known as Jesus of Nazareth.[270] He is also
referred to as a Nazarene, or a native of Nazareth, and this fact is
cited by Matthew as a fulfilment of earlier prediction, though our
current compilation of scriptures constituting the Old Testament
contains no record of such prophecy. It is practically certain that this
prediction was contained in some one of the many scriptures extant in
earlier days but since lost.[271] That Nazareth was an obscure village,
of little honor or renown, is evidenced by the almost contemptuous
question of Nathanael, who, on being informed that the Messiah had been
found in Jesus of Nazareth, asked: "Can there any good thing come out of
Nazareth?"[272] The incredulous query has passed into a proverb current
even today as expressive of any unpopular or unpromising source of good.
Nathanael lived in Cana, but a few miles from Nazareth, and his surprize
at the tidings brought by Philip concerning the Messiah incidentally
affords evidence of the seclusion in which Jesus had lived.
So passed the boyhood, youth, and early manhood of the Savior of
mankind.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 9.
1. Archelaus Reigned in Herod's Stead.--"At his death Herod [the Great]
left a will according to which his kingdom was to be divided among his
three sons. Archelaus was to have Judea, Idumea, and Samaria, with the
title of king (Matt 2:22). Herod Antipas was to receive Galilee and
Perea, with the title of tetrarch; Philip was to come into possession of
the trans-Jordan territory with the title of tetrarch (Luke 3:1). This
will was ratified by Augustus with the exception of the title given to
Archelaus. Archelaus, after the ratification of Herod's will by
Augustus, succeeded to the rule of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, having
the title of ethnarch, with the understanding that, if he ruled well, he
was to become king. He was, however, highly unpopular with the people,
and his reign was marked by disturbances and acts of oppression. The
situation became finally so intolerable that the Jews appealed to
Augustus, and Archelaus was removed and sent into exile. This accounts
for the statement in Matt. 2:22, and possibly also suggested the point
of the parable (Luke 19:12, etc.)."--_Standard Bible Dictionary_, Funk
and Wagnalls Co., article "Herod." Early in his reign he wreaked summary
vengeance on the people who ventured to protest against a continuation
of his father's violence, by slaughtering three thousand or more; and
the awful deed of carnage was perpetrated in part within the precincts
of the temple. (Josephus, Antiquities xvii, 9:1-3.)
2. Herod Antipas.--Son of Herod I (the Great) by a Samaritan woman, and
full brother to Archelaus. By the will of his father he became tetrarch
of Galilee and Perea (Matt. 14:1; Luke 3:19; 9:7; Acts 13:1; compare
Luke 3:1). He repudiated his wife, a daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia
Petrea, and entered into an unlawful union with Herodias, the wife of
his half-brother Herod Philip I (not the tetrarch Philip). John the
Baptist was imprisoned and finally put to death, through the anger of
Herodias over his denunciation of her union with Herod Antipas. Herodias
urged Antipas to go to Rome and petition Cæsar for the title of king
(compare Mark 6:14, etc.). Antipas is the Herod most frequently
mentioned in the New Testament (Mark 6:17; 8:15; Luke 3:1; 9:7; 13:31;
Acts 4:27; 13:1). He was the Herod to whom Pilate sent Jesus for
examination, taking advantage of Christ being known as a Galilean, and
of the coincident fact of Herod's presence in Jerusalem at the time in
attendance at the Passover (Luke 23:6, etc.). For further details see
Smith's, Cassell's, or the Standard Bible Dictionary.
3. Testimony of John the Apostle Concerning Christ's Development in
Knowledge and Grace.--In a modern revelation, Jesus the Christ has
confirmed the record of John the apostle, which record appears but in
part in our compilation of ancient scriptures. John thus attests the
actuality of natural development in the growth of Jesus from childhood
to maturity: "And I, John, saw that he received not of the fullness at
the first, but received grace for grace; and he received not of the
fullness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received
a fullness; and thus he was called the Son of God, because he received
not of the fullness at the first." (Doc. and Cov. 93:12-14).
Notwithstanding this graded course of growth and development after His
birth in the flesh, Jesus Christ had been associated with the Father
from the beginning, as is set forth in the revelation cited. We read
therein: "And he [John] bore record, saying, I saw his glory that he was
in the beginning before the world was; therefore in the beginning the
Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation, the
light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into
the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of
men and the light of men. The worlds were made by him: men were made by
him: all things were made by him, and through him, and of him. And I,
John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only
Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of
truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us" (verses
7-11).
4. Missing Scripture.--Matthew's commentary on the abode of Joseph, Mary
and Jesus at Nazareth, "and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth:
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be
called a Nazarene" (2:23), with the fact that no such saying of the
prophets is found in any of the books contained in the Bible, suggests
the certainty of lost scripture. Those who oppose the doctrine of
continual revelation between God and His Church, on the ground that the
Bible is complete as a collection of sacred scriptures, and that alleged
revelation not found therein must therefore be spurious, may profitably
take note of the many books not included in the Bible, yet mentioned
therein, generally in such a way as to leave no doubt that they were
once regarded as authentic. Among these extra-Biblical scriptures, the
following may be named; some of them are in existence to-day, and are
classed with the Apocrypha; but the greater number are unknown. We read
of the Book of the Covenant (Exo. 24:7); Book of the Wars of the Lord
(Numb. 21:14); Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13); Book of the Statutes (1
Sam. 10:25); Book of Enoch (Jude 14); Book of the Acts of Solomon (1
Kings 11:41); Book of Nathan the Prophet, and that of Gad the Seer (1
Chron. 29:29); Book of Ahijah the Shilonite, and visions of Iddo the
Seer (2 Chron. 9:29); Book of Shemaiah (2 Chron. 12:15); Story of the
Prophet Iddo (2 Chron. 13:22); Book of Jehu (2 Chron. 20:34); the Acts
of Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (2 Chron. 26:22); Sayings of the
Seers (2 Chron. 33:19); a missing epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1
Cor. 5:9); a missing epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); missing
epistle to the Colossians, written from Laodicea (Col. 4:16); a missing
epistle of Jude (Jude 3).
5. Nazareth.--A town or "city" in Galilee, of which Biblical mention is
found in the New Testament only. Josephus says nothing concerning the
place. The name of the existing village, or the Nazareth of to-day, is
_En-Nazirah_. This occupies an upland site on the southerly ridge of
Lebanon, and "commands a splendid view of the Plain of Esdraelon and
Mount Carmel, and is very picturesque in general" (Zenos). The author of
the article "Nazareth" in Smith's _Bible Dict._ identifies the modern
En-Nazirah, with the Nazareth of old on the following grounds: "It is on
the lower declivities of a hill or mountain (Luke 4:29); it is within
the limits of the province of Galilee (Mark 1:9); it is near Cana (John
2:1, 2, 11); a precipice exists in the neighborhood (Luke 4:29); and a
series of testimonials reaching back to Eusebius represent the place as
having occupied the same position." The same writer adds: "Its
population is 3000 or 4000; a few are Mohammedans, the rest Latin and
Greek Christians. Most of the houses are well built of stone, and appear
neat and comfortable. The streets or lanes are narrow and crooked, and
after rain are so full of mud and mire as to be almost impassable." At
the time of Christ's life the town was not only regarded as unimportant
by the Judeans who professed but little respect for Galilee or the
Galileans, but as without honor by the Galileans themselves, as appears
from the fact that the seemingly contemptuous question, "Can there any
good thing come out of Nazareth?" was uttered by Nathanael (John 1:46),
who was a Galilean and a native of Cana, a neighboring town to Nazareth
(John 21:2). Nazareth owes its celebrity to its association with events
in the life of Jesus Christ (Matt. 2:23; 13:54; Mark 1:9; 6:1; Luke
1:26; 2:4; 4:23,34; John 1:45,46; 19:19; Acts 2:22).
FOOTNOTES:
[254] Matt. 2:15; compare Hos. 11:1.
[255] Matt. 2:19-23. Note 5, end of chapter.
[256] Note 1, end of chapter.
[257] Note 2, end of chapter.
[258] Luke 2:40.
[259] Note 3, end of chapter.
[260] Compare His teachings after He had reached manhood, e.g. John
8:32.
[261] Deut. 16:1-6; compare Exo. 12:2.
[262] Josephus; Wars of the Jews, ii, 1:3.
[263] Luke 2:46; read 41-52.
[264] Compare Matt. 7:28, 29; 13:54; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:22.
[265] Luke 2:35.
[266] Luke 2:52.
[267] Note 3, end of chapter.
[268] Matt. 13:55, 56; Mark 6:3; Luke 4:22; compare Matt. 12:46, 47;
Gal. 1:19.
[269] For illustrative examples see Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:43);
Mary Magdalene, so known from her native town of Magdala (Matt. 27:56);
Judas Iscariot, possibly named after his home in Kerioth (Matt. 10:4;
see page 225 herein.)
[270] Matt. 21:11; John 18:5; 19:19; Acts 2:22; 3:6; see also Luke 4:16.
[271] Note 4, end of chapter.
[272] John 1:45, 46.