SECTION VII

the first homage, or the shepherds and the wise men

When the first man entered the world, Nature surrounded his childhood in all the glory and bloom of her paradisaic constitution. The appearance of the natural man was solemnized in a natural paradise.¹ The spiritual man was also surrounded by a paradise when He entered the world-by a paradise homogeneous to His nature, a paradise of New Testament dispositions. Of these dispositions He was Himself the principle. As the flower must be surrounded by its garland of leaves, and Adam by his paradise, so was the birth of Christ, the bodily manifestation of the Gospel, surrounded by a circle of inspired dispositions and revelations, of reflexes of the Gospel. The centre in which the union of divinity with humanity took place, spread around it a great vibration throughout the mental world; the birth of the Messiah was that heavenly note which called forth wondrous responsive echoes from every Messianically disposed heart. The Child in the, manger was therefore glorified by a circle of Messianic revelations.²

Even on the holy night of Christ’s birth, the shepherds of Bethlehem appeared in the abode of the holy family. They greeted the Holy Child, and then related the marvellous occurrence by which His importance had been made known to them. As they were keeping watch by night over their flocks in the fields, the angel of the Lord had appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord had shone round about them. The words point to a vision of the angel of the covenant; the incarnation of God had itself shed its light upon their souls. The Gospel which the angel of the Lord proclaimed to them, was just the Gospel for these shepherds. He announced to them great joy to all nations: Christ born in Bethlehem; their shepherd-town honoured as the city of David; the Saviour in the manger. Thereupon they heard the praises of the heavenly host. Their hearts were so exalted, their state of mind so raised above the world, that they were capable of hearing the hymns of heaven at the birth of Christ. This one occurrence, however, involves a threefold effect: glory to God is manifested in the highest; earth obtains the peace of heaven; among men the goodwill in which God receives and blesses mankind, has personally appeared.³

It may be said that the ancient festal song of the Christian Church Allein Gott in der Höh sei Ehr, was derived from this revelation from heaven. As truly, too, may it be affirmed that it originated in the night-watches of the poor shepherds; it is the shepherd-lay of the Christian world.

Mary kept all these things in her deep, faithful heart, and pondered on them in holy meditation.

After this strange homage, however, one still more striking was offered to the new-born child, by the appearance of the Magi from the East. They probably arrived shortly after Christ’s birth, during one of the following nights. This may be inferred from the circumstance, that they entered, as the Evangelist at least seems to say, during the night-season, when the stars were visible in the heavens. Such an arrival at so unwonted an hour, points to a household whose usual domestic arrangements are still suspended by the novelty of a birth. The whole context, too, of the history leads to this conclusion. With their appearance is connected the flight of Mary and Joseph into Egypt. But this cannot well be misplaced after the presentation of Jesus in the temple, if we consider the remark of the Evangelist (Luk 2:39), that the parents of Jesus returned to Nazareth after this presentation, as a genuine one.⁴ They fell down before the Child, who was the object of their unexampled and peculiar veneration, and offered Him gifts emblematic of their homage, gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

The guidance which led the Magi to the birthplace of Christ, was a miracle of divine providence. It shows how that love of truth by which noble and candid minds are impelled, contributes, under God’s providence, to lead them with happy certainty to the true aim of their life, even if error should accidentally intermingle uncertain or even false assumptions; nay, how the preponderance of the spirit of truth converts even error into a means of promoting their progress towards the goal of knowledge.

The Magi, according to the original meaning of the word, were either Median, or especially Persian scholars. In those times, the Persian view of the world had spread abroad through Syria and Arabia, and ‘Magi was the general name given to travelling astrologers, conjurers, and soothsayers.’⁵ Wise men of those days were sometimes accustomed to make long journeys to seek the treasures of wisdom in distant lands. Hence it would not be surprising if these Magi came from the most remote parts. They may, however, probably have dwelt not very far from Palestine, especially if they came directly eastward from Arabia to Bethlehem.⁶

But how came these heathen philosophers to expect the Messiah? In answering this question, too much reliance has been placed upon an uncertain historical notice, while a great, certain, actual relation has been ignored. Suetonius, in his Life of Vespasian (c. 4), relates that an ancient and definite expectation had spread throughout the East, that a ruler of the world would, at about that time, arise in Judea. Tacitus also similarly expresses himself (Hist. v. 13). It is, however, probable⁷ that both derived this notion from a passage in Josephus (De Bello Jud. vi. 5, 4). Josephus relates of the Jews besieged in Jerusalem, that what most induced them to rebel, was an ambiguous oracle in their sacred writings, declaring that at that time one going forth from their country would govern the world. This, says Josephus, they referred to a native, though it manifestly points to Vespasian, who was summoned from Judea to become emperor. Thus Josephus had merely the Messianic hopes of the besieged Jews in view, though it was not without perfidy that he referred the Old Testament foundation of this hope to Vespasian.

It is, however, a world-wide fact, that the fame of the temple had spread through all the East;⁸ that the Jews, at the time of Christ, had already spread throughout the world;⁹ and that their religion had gained proselytes among the noblest and most susceptible spirits of the day. Nothing is more easy to account for, than that there should be noble-minded inquirers in Arabia, Syria, or Persia, in whom a receptive disposition had been kindled by the Messianic hopes of Israel, as by a spark from God, and had awakened great, though dim hopes and desires. To such a class of minds belonged also those Greeks who, according to John’s Gospel (12:20), desired to become acquainted with the Messiah.

The Magi believed that they had received, in their native land, a sign that the King of the Jews, who had obtained in their view a religious significance, was born. They had seen His star. If we suppose that they looked upon a star as the sign of the Messiah in an astrological sense, we must think of a constellation as directing them. The astrologer, as such, deals with a constellation, while in a constellation the chief matter is the relation in which one star stands to the others.¹⁰ If this fundamental principle of astrology had not been lost sight of, such various notions would not have been entertained concerning the phenomenon of the Magi; nor could it have been considered at one time a meteor, at another a comet, at another the exclusive appearance of a new star.¹¹ Nor could it have been remarked that if a constellation of stars were here meant, a star could not have been spoken of. The astrologer has to do with a star which belongs to his hero; the meaning, however, of this star is made known to him by the position it occupies in the constellation.

The renowned astronomer Kepler has shown,¹² that in the year 747 after the building of Rome, a very remarkable triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn took place; that in the spring of the following year, the planet Mars also was added to them; and has declared it very probable, that an extraordinary star may have been added to these three superior planets, as happened in the year 1603. Kepler considers this remarkable conjunction to have been the star of the wise men. Ideler the chronologist further improved upon his view. Wieseler refers to it with the remark, that, according to a notice of Münter, it is reported in the Chinese astronomical tables, that a new star appeared at a time corresponding with the fourth year before the birth of Christ.

All chronological notices referring to the birth of Christ lead, according to Wieseler’s calculations, to the conclusion that Jesus was born in the year 750 after the building of Rome (four years before the birth of Christ according to the ordinary computation), and most probably in the month of February. This conjunction, however, took place in the year 747 and 748, and therefore two years earlier.

Hence the Magi undoubtedly looked upon one star of this conjunction as the star of the Messiah. If they consequently judged as astrologers, it does not follow that the result could not have corresponded with their view. It would be a terrible tenet concerning divine providence, to assert that it could not suffer a sincere love of truth to gain its end, if it should accidentally proceed on false or uncertain premisses. Astronomy, e.g., certainly arose from astrology, chemistry from alchemy; and the Son of man Himself came after the flesh, of the race of Adam. This star then actually became, by God’s appointment, the star of the Messiah to the Magi, though the birth of the Messiah did not exactly coincide with this conjunction, and thus proved itself to be raised above this constellation. It was to the Magi a sign;¹³ to the Church of Christ, however, it is a symbol that all true astronomy, all sincere inquiry, all the efforts of an earnest love of truth, conduce, under the guidance of God, to the highest knowledge, the knowledge of God in Christ.¹⁴

The Magi, indeed, as pilgrims seeking the new-born Messiah, fell immediately into a false supposition. They sought Him in Jerusalem, probably at the court of Herod himself. Their inquiries electrified the Idumean, and his excitement soon spread through the veins of all the royal dependants in the capital.

The tyrant quickly recovered himself, and formed his diabolical plan. He first assembled an ecclesiastical council,¹⁵ and put to them the question where Christ should be born. They referred him to the prophecy of Micah (5:2),¹⁶ and named Bethlehem. He then privately called for the Magi. He told them the birthplace of Christ, and requested them to inform him of the discovery of the Holy Child. With crafty prudence, however, he at the same time obtained accurate information concerning the time of the first appearance of the star.¹⁷ He perhaps anticipated that he could not make sure of these pious philosophers, who must have appeared to him either as rebuking spirits or as suspicious enthusiasts. The pilgrims went their way. But the circumstance that they suffered themselves to be sent forth from Jerusalem towards Bethlehem, testified to the supernatural assurance with which they had undertaken this journey. Their audience with the king seems to have deprived them of the greater part of the day. His manner and his directions very probably discouraged them. How should they find the King of the Jews in this small shepherd-town? Night closed in upon their wanderings in a strange land; but it brought them consolation, for the star was again seen in the heights of heaven.

If it seemed to them as though the star had travelled with them until it reached Christ’s birthplace with them, and that it rested there, this unables us to understand the power and certainty of this conviction.

The critic, however, steps forward, and assures us that the stars pursue their own appointed courses. He gives us, by the way, a piece of astronomical information, which might make the high and mysterious understanding between the eyes of the stars and the stars of the eyes somewhat doubtful. But poets, and wise men of the East, and Christians often wander with the stars, and the stars with them. Must such happy beings be forbidden to speak in the language of the happy, that is, poetically? When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. But how did they so quickly find the abode of the child? asks the critic. Nay, but was not their condition peculiar? How does the magnetic needle find the pole? The magnetic needle is not made of wood.

Probably the repulsive impression which must have been made by the gloomy Herod upon chosen souls like these, still continued to affect them, and became the more vivid the more it was contrasted with the bright image produced in their minds by the mother of Jesus. The remembrance of Herod’s expressions, his injunction that they should bring him word where the young Child was, might awaken and increase within them a feeling of deep mistrust against him. Was it likely that they would conceal from Joseph the solicitude they felt?

Thus their own frame of mind predisposed them to receive a divine revelation in a dream. A vision of the night gave them the direction they needed, and they returned to their homes by another route than Jerusalem.

Joseph saw the deep seriousness with which they departed in an opposite direction. The excitement of his mind became the element in which the spark of divine revelation was kindled. The command of God was announced to him, that he must save the life of the miraculous Child committed to his keeping, by a flight into Egypt.

───♦───

Notes

It is only a proof of the extraordinary confusion with which the myth-hypothesis has snatched at similarities in the Old Testament to incidents in the New, that the star of the Magi has been connected with the star of Balaam (Num 24:17), and even derived therefrom. That star figuratively denotes the great King who should come forth from Israel, this is the heavenly sign of His birth. Critics are thus obliged to pass over the great difference between a metaphorical and a literal meaning, to catch at an appearance of the mythic. Comp. Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfüllung, Pt. 2, p. 57. Though later Jews cherished the expectation that the Messiah would be announced by a star, it does not follow that this was induced (as Strauss supposes, i. 272) by the prophecy of Balaam. The critic in question, however, makes this assumption, because he must otherwise have maintained that the supposed myth had been merely formed to favour rabbinical and popular Jewish expectations. These expectations must therefore be connected with the star of Balaam, which however has, even with Rabbis, another meaning, so that two appearances co-operating may form one greater appearance, from which the mythic appearance aimed at might be deduced. Instead of that constellation of stars which the Magi looked for, criticism is on the look-out for a constellation of appearances, for the purpose of gaining its end.¹⁸

1) That we herewith deny the rude constructions of the origin of the first man which have arisen within the sphere of natural philosophy, and that, even in the philosophical interest of natural freedom, needs only a passing remark.

2) It may here be, once for all, remarked that our view is, that in the realm of primitive Christianity there is for every christological human disposition a predisposing revelation, for every revelation a corresponding human disposition, The Godman could not but be surrounded by a periphery of the God-manlike.

3) We leave to exegesis the discussion of the various views on this subject. Our interpretation is founded on Eph. i. 5, 6, and other passages,

4) Even chronology leads to this view. Comp. Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 49 ff., especially p. 65.

5) So Winer on this article in his R.W.B.

6) [On the various traditions regarding the wise men of the East, see Kitto, Life of our Lord p. 113, &c, On the astrology of the Magi, see Mill, Myth. Interp., p. 299, &c.—ED.]

7) Comp. Gieseler’s Kirchengesch., vol. i. p. 47 ; [and Ellicott’s note on this point (Hist, Lect. 44), who thinks the imitation is not clearly made out.—ED.]

8) [Tacitus says, in describing Jerusalem (Hist. v. 8), ‘Illic immense opulentix templum,’ &e. ; also in ¢. 5 he endeavours to account for what he speaks of as a wellknown fact—‘auctæ Judæorum res’—ED.]

9) [Schlegel mentions, in his Philosophy of History, that the Buddhist missionaries travelling to China, met Chinese sages going to seek the Messiah about the year 33 A.D,—ED.]

10) Hence perhaps the expression, ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ, Matt. ii. 2, is to be understood of the astrological definition of the star’s rising. [Alford’s reasons for rendering these words ‘in the east,’ are perhaps scarcely sufficient, though the reasons on the other side are possibly no more decisive, Neither do Lichtenstein’s. references (p. 91) to Rev. vii. 2, xvi. 12, disprove the author's rendering, for in both those passages the dcfining ἡλίου is added. The note of Alford may, however, here be referred to as an admirable summary of what is to be held regarding this star.—ED.]

11) As, c.g., the author in his work, Ueber die geschichtlicke Charakter der canon. Evangelien.

12) Comp. Wieseler as above.

13) [Augustin calls it the ‘magnifica lingua cceli’—ED.]

14) A modern astrologer would perhaps proceed on the assumption that Jupiter might be designated the star of the eternal God, Jehovah, inasmuch as Zeus might be regarded as the Grecian mutilation of the Jewish knowledge of Jehovah ; a triple conjunction, therefore, of Jupiter, with the addition of Mars, would denote a threefold victory of the eternal God over the time or process God, and that in the sign of the fish, i.e., of the Church.

15) Among the chief priests of this council were included those who presided over the several orders of priests,

16) The expression concerning the eternal ‘goings forth’ of the Bethlehemitish ruler, is one of the most profound christological sayings of the Old Testament. The contrast lies in the facts, that the Ruler of Israel proceeds, on the one hand, from the extremely unimportant town of Bethlehem, on the other, from eternity, ‘The Evangelist, in his vivid conception of the sense, has freely rendered the words, ‘ though thou be little,’ by ‘ thou art not the least.’

17) The critic has no notion of this craftiness, when he supposes that this notice betrays the fact that the Evangelist invented this circumstance with reference to the subsequent slaughter of the children of Bethlehem. Still less does he perceive, that it would be a moral absurdity for so subtle a craftiness to make its next appearance in the aimless slaughter of the children.

18) [For an account of the use which has been made of this star as a datum for ascertaining the time of our Lord’s birth, the reader must be referred to the very interesting discussions of the leading chronologists. ‘Those who hold that it was merely a meteoric appearance, and subject to none of the ordinary laws of heavenly bodies (‘not to astronomical but to special laws,’ Ellicott), can of course make no use of it asa chronological datum. But very many of the ablest investigators (Ideler, Patritius, Ebrard, Alford) consider the ‘star’ to have been the conjunction of planets (Saturn and Jupiter) which occurred, according to Kepler and Ideler, three times in the year 747 ; and they have on this account been induced to place the birth of our Lord in the same year. Others, of equal name, are inclined to give greater weight to the other data—the government of Cyrenius and the time of our Lord’s baptism (which dates are independently ascertained), and to fix the year of the birth as 750 or 749. As Herod died about the Ist of April 750, the birth ‘of Jesus cannot be placed later than this, or indeed later than February of the same year. This is the month chosen by Wieseler, and adopted by the author. Lichtenstein and others prefer the middle or end of 749.—ED.]