Bible Library

Forex Trading

Store Items

Audio Bible

eBook Business

CHRIST; OR JESUS OF NAZARETH PROVED TO BE THE MESSIAH INTRODUCTORY REMARKS IF it be admitted, that, as a transgressor, man needs a Savior, and that one has been provided for him; then, all the evidence which establishes the personal identity of such a Savior, must be considered as invested with fearful interest. Who is he? When did he appear? What is his character?

What has he done? How is an interest in him to be secured? These, and similar questions, a serious and reflecting mind will not only propose, but desire to them all satisfactory answers.

The more knowledge of the fact, that we need a Savior, however deeply felt, cannot save us: nor can any reliance, however strong, we repose in a pretended deliverer, secure our everlasting peace. In the former state of mind, we only perceive the ruin in which sin has involved us, without being rescued from such ruin. In the latter, our reliance being placed upon a false foundation, must, of course, disappoint us when the time of trial comes.

Besides, one who undertakes to rescue us from sin and death, must demand our confidence, and ought to receive both our homage and our obedience. But how can that confidence be demanded by one unknown?

And how can such homage and obedience be rendered to one, whose merits and character are concealed?

The very existence therefore, of spiritual character, and of a well founded hope for eternity, must depend upon a proper knowledge of Him, whom God hath sent “to destroy the works of the devil,” and “to bring in everlasting righteousness.”

What then is the nature and strength of the evidence, upon which Christians have so uniformly regarded Jesus of Nazareth, and none other, as their great Deliverer and Hope? It is known, that the Jews as a race, do not agree with Christians in this faith. It is known, that the larger portion of the world are altogether ignorant of such a person as Jesus. It is also lamentably true, that many, who are familiar with his name and history, yet reject him as a Savior. Why is it, that in distinction from all these, Christians repose their trust in Jesus, and make him, and him only, the foundation of their hope for eternity?

The ground upon which such confidence is reposed in Jesus can of course be none other, than the firm conviction, that he is in truth the great Deliverer, promised to mankind from even the earliest ages. If deceived on this point, all Christians are in a dreadful delusion; and, notwithstanding their most sanguine hopes, must still be under the power of sin and the displeasure of God. On the contrary, if Christians be not deceived in their faith, and if indeed, Jesus of Nazareth be the promised Messiah, and “the only name given under heaven whereby men must be saved;” then are the rest of mankind in a most perilous and dreadful condition. Whether therefore the one or the other be in error, the evidence, which substantiates the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to Messiahship, can be considered only with the deepest interest. It is that evidence which we now proceed to exhibit.

CHAPTER - THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS ONE sign, which was to designate the person of the promised Messiah, was, his regular descent from Abraham, through the tribe of Judah, and family of David. If the will of God had so determined, the Messiah might have descended from any other nation than the Israelites, or from any other tribe than Judah, or from any other family than that of David. But since the purpose of God has marked out successively, Abraham, Judah, and David, as the lineal ancestors of the promised Savior, it is in that line, and that only, that we must expect his birth. And should every other part of the evidence be complete, and yet this be wanting, it could not be proved, that Jesus of Nazareth is really the Christ. He might have been an illustrious prophet; he might have been a great “teacher sent from God;” his life might have been the most blameless and pure, and his doctrine the most exalted and heavenly; he might too, have effected a great moral change among the Jews, and also in the state of the world generally; still his claims to Messiahship could not be established, unless he were born in the predicted line of ancestry.

When God called Abraham from Ur of Chaldea, among other promises, he gave him the following, “And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 12. This promise was afterwards repeated when Abraham was called to offer up his son Isaac. Genesis 22. Now, whatever blessings mankind may in general have derived from the Israelites, it is evident, that this promise refers to the Messiah. The Apostle Paul has given us its true exegesis — “He saith not, and to seeds, as of many, but as of one and to thy seed, which is Christ.” Galatians 3.

The Messiah then was to be a lineal descendant of Abraham.

He was also to descend from the tribe of Judah. When the patriarch Jacob was blessing his sons, he pronounced, by divine inspiration, the following remarkable prediction concerning Judah: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come, and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” Genesis 44.

Whatever criticisms the learned may have made upon this passage, the opinion has almost universally obtained, both among Jews and Christians, that its reference is to the Messiah as descended from the tribe of Judah. “The Jews,” says Hengstenberg, “regard verse 10th, as predicting the Messiah. Thus it was interpreted by the Chaldaic paraphrases; the Targum of Onkelos, of Jerusalem, and of Jonathan; the Talmud, the Zohar, and the old book Bereshith Rabba; and even by several of the more modern commentators, as Jarchi. The Samaritans also explain this passage of the Messiah. In the Christian church, the Messianic interpretation has, from the earliest times been generally approved.” 1 Gesenius renders the passage thus — “Judah shall not lay aside the scepter of a leader, until he shall have subdued his enemies and obtained dominion over many nations; referring to the expected Kingdom of the Messiah, who was to spring from the tribe of Judah.” The same reference to the Messiah, as descended from the tribe of Judah, is to be found in Psalm 108, where it is said of that tribe, “Judah is my lawgiver.” This passage may have primary reference to the establishment of the throne in that tribe; but its allusion evidently extends farther, and designates that future and illustrious Lawgiver, whom not only the Jews, but all the nations of the earth were to obey. “Perfectissime hoe completum in Christo,” 3 — says Poole — This is most perfectly fulfilled in Christ.

The prophet Isaiah is even more explicit. “And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains, and mine elect shalt inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.” The allusion here is so obvious as to need no explanation. The Messiah, therefore, was also to be a descendant from the tribe of Judah.

He was also to be of the house or family of David. “And thy house and thy kingdom,” said God to David, “shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever.” 2 Samuel 7. The Psalmist in alluding to this promise, represents Jehovah as saying — “Once have I sworn by my holiness, that I will not lie unto David.

His seed shall endure; and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established forever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.” Psalm 89.

These promises include specifically and with great emphasis, the perpetuity of the throne in the house of David. Now, from Solomon to Zedekiah, there was included but a period of about four hundred and thirty years. And from Zedekiah to the dispersion of the Jews by the Romans, only a period of about six hundred more: unless, therefore, the throne of David be set up in the person of Messiah, these promises can have no real fulfillment.

But the prophets are more specific — “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him. And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes; neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.” Isaiah 11.

The reference of this passage to the Messiah is not only proved by the context, but also by a similar one in Jeremiah. “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch; and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth; and this is his name whereby he shall be called — The Lord our Righteousness.”

Jeremiah 23.

But, even if there were any obscurity in these passages, there can be none in the following. Speaking of the Messiah, Isaiah says — “Of the increase of his government and peace, there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever.” Isaiah 9.

These prophetic passages sufficiently explain the promise originally given to David, and so delightfully dwelt upon by the ancient Israelites in their inspired songs. The perpetuity of David’s throne and kingdom, was to exist in the person of the Messiah; who according to the flesh was to be made of the seed of David. David himself died soon after the promise was given.

The line of earthly kings descending from him, terminated in the period of a few centuries. Even the dependent and afflicted dominion of the family of David and of the tribe of Judah which succeeded, was terminated under Titus and the Roman legions. All these were to pass away. But the kingdom of Messiah was to be strictly “everlasting,” and his dominion without end. In him, the throne of David was to be re-established, and was destined to continue “forever.” The descent then of the Messiah was to be through Abraham, Judah, David. Any other descent therefore must destroy the title and defeat the claims of him, who pretends to be the subject of these remarkable predictions. Was Jesus of Nazareth of such descent?

This question is both fully and satisfactorily answered in the New Testament. The evangelists, Matthew and Luke, have each given genealogies of Jesus, the express object of which was to exhibit these facts.

These tables are in many respects different; but in that which is essential, they perfectly agree. Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus to Adam; Matthew only to Abraham. Luke follows either the line of Mary’s ancestry, or of Joseph’s legal ancestry; Matthew that of Joseph’s natural ancestry. From Jesus to David, Luke mentions forty-two names; Matthew but twenty-seven. Matthew has also omitted three names found in First Chronicles, chapter 3.

Now, notwithstanding these discrepancies, and the various methods adopted by the learned to reconcile them, the facts, about which we are inquiring, are obvious in both tables. Each evangelist traces the genealogy of Jesus to David. They take different routes, but arrive here at the same point. Nor is there the least variation between them from David, through Judah to Abraham. Here the tables perfectly agree, and the testimony of each is, that Jesus of Nazareth was linearly descended from David, Judah, Abraham.

In explanation of the differences between these tables, the following observations of Bloomfield will be found appropriate. “As to the reconciling this (Matthew’s) genealogy with that of Saint Luke, it is best done, by supposing that St. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and St. Luke that of Mary. And therefore the former, who wrote principally for the Jews, traces the pedigree from Abraham to David, and so through Solomon’s line to Joseph the legal father of Jesus. And it must be remembered, that among the Jews, legal descent was always reckoned in the male line. St. Luke, on the contrary, who wrote for the Gentiles, traces the pedigree upwards from Heli, the father of Mary, to David and Abraham, and thence to Adam, the common father of all mankind. Finally, whatever difficulties, even after all the diligence of learned inquirers, shall exist on certain matters connected with these genealogies, we may rest assured, that if these genealogies of Christ, which must be understood to have been derived from the public records in the Temple, had not been agreeable thereto, the deception would have been instantly detected. And thus, whether Christ’s pedigree be traced through the line of Joseph or of Mary, it is undeniable, that Jesus was descended from David and Abraham, agreeably to the ancient promises and prophesies that the Messiah should be of their seed.” The following statements from the learned Dr. Clarke are also valuable. “Mary therefore appears to have been the daughter of Heli. Joseph and Mary were of the same family; both came from Zerubbabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son; Mary by Rhesa his youngest. Thus it appears, that Jesus, son of Mary, reunited in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights, of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called, the son of David.” There is another remarkable fact recorded in the New Testament, which casts light upon the ancestral descent of Jesus. Luke records it in the following manner — “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And all went to be taxed every one to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem (because he was of the house and lineage of David) to be taxed, with Mary his espoused wife.” Luke 2.

Here is an event in which we see most clearly the hand of Divine Providence. The emperor Augustus makes a decree, which in its operation, requires every Jew to be enrolled in his own family and tribe. The names of Joseph and Mary are entered at Bethlehem, as belonging to the house of David. What a remarkable occurrence! What a public and authentic attestation of the real ancestry of Jesus! The humble circumstances of Joseph and Mary; their remoteness especially from the ordinary dwellingplace of the illustrious family of David, might have obscured the ancestry of their extraordinary Son. But a circumstance occurs forever to dispel all doubt on that subject. By an imperial mandate, they are enrolled at Bethlehem, as the descendants of the royal house of the son of Jesse!

But there are a great many different passages in the New Testament, which distinctly state, that the genealogy of Jesus was such as the Old Testament Scriptures had assigned to the Messiah. Thus the Apostle Paul declares, that Christ “took not on him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham.” Hebrews 2. Again he affirms, that “it is evident, that our Lord (that is Jesus) sprang out of Juda.” Hebrews 7. Zachariah also speaks of Jesus as “a horn of salvation raised up in the house of David.” Luke 1.

Peter affirms, that Jesus was “the fruit of the loins” of David, Acts 2; and Paul, that Christ, “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.”

In truth, so numerous are the statements of this sort to be found in the writings of the Apostles, that it is impossible to deny, that their plain, uniform, and invariable testimony is, that Jesus was descended from David, Judah, Abraham.

The evidence then, in behalf of the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth, so far as ancestral descent is concerned, is perfect. The purpose of God and prophecy require, that the Messiah should be descended through certain persons, specially designated, in the Old Testament Scriptures. The Evangelists and Apostles furnish indisputable testimony, that Jesus of Nazareth was thus descended. His genealogy, both legal and natural, passes through these very persons. The most authentic records are employed to show that these were his ancestors. And those who knew him best, never considered him as belonging to any other family, tribe or nation.

CHAPTER - THE BIRTH OF JESUS BESIDES the evidence arising from the previously defined ancestors of the Messiah, there was to be one circumstance connected with his birth, so peculiar and extraordinary, as to point him out in distinction from all others — He was to be born, of a virgin. True, a fact of this kind might be of more difficult proof than many others, in the life of the promised Savior. Delicacy too, would naturally cast a veil over it for a time. Still however, it might be proved; and when proved, it would powerfully tend, not only to identify the person of the Messiah, but to demonstrate also, the extraordinary character of his mission.

In Genesis 3:15, are these words, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

The reference in this passage is evidently to the Messiah. We have already seen that the term seed, employed in the promise given to Abraham, refers to the predicted Savior. The same allusion is intended by the word in the present instance. The Messiah was to be, not only a son of Abraham by natural descent, but a soil of the woman, by miraculous conception and birth.

That which is here affirmed of this seed is applicable only to the Messiah.

He was to bruise the head, that is, to overthrow the kingdom of the serpent, or Satan. But who is competent to a work of this kind, save the chosen of God, the Savior of men? Nor was Eve the specific woman alluded to in this promise. The Messiah was not born of her; for, he was afterwards promised to Abraham and David. Eve, therefore, could not be the woman here meant. The prophecy must therefore refer to some other woman, who should exist in after ages. “He, (Christ) says Scott, is called the seed of the woman, and not the seed of Adam, though descended from both; not only because Satan had prevailed first against the woman, but likewise with an evident prophetic intimation of his miraculous conception and birth of a pure virgin.” 1 “Christ is called the seed of the woman, says Lowth, by way of distinction, as not to be born in the ordinary way of generation.” 2 Bloomfield also speaks of Mary, as “that particular virgin who was prophesied of from the beginning, and whose seed was to bruise the serpent’s head.” The prophet Isaiah, is still more explicit, in predicting the miraculous birth of the promised Deliverer. “And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men; but will ye weary my God also? Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Isaiah 7:13,14.

Attempts have been made to explain away the meaning of this passage, by asserting that the Hebrew word hml[ here translated a virgin, denotes also a young married woman, and by applying the language either to the son of the prophet himself, or to some other child, born about that time.

This mode of interpretation seems almost inexcusable in Christian commentators, from the fact that the Evangelist Matthew applies the passage directly to Mary and to Jesus. A safer expositor, no plain and honest believer could desire. Gesenius, although he asserts the meaning of the word in this place to be, “a youthful spouse,” yet defines it as generally meaning, “a girl, maiden, or virgin, of marriageable age.” 4 “The primary meaning of the word, says Lowth, is hid, or concealed; from whence it is taken to signify a virgin, because of the custom in eastern countries, to keep their virgins concealed from the view of men.” 5 The Hebrew word, says Scott, most properly signifies a virgin; and so it is translated here, by all the ancient interpreters, and it is never once used in the Scriptures in any other sense.” There is, however, another and very obvious objection to the application of this language in the manner above alluded to. The birth of the predicted child was to be a sign, a miracle. Now, what sign or miracle could it be, that a young married woman should bear a son? Evidently, the force and propriety of the language, are entirely destroyed by such an interpretation.

Nor is it any objection to the Messianic character of the passage, that in the context, the prophet alludes so much to the existing state of things among the Jews. It is the usual practice of the ancient prophets, not only to make rapid transitions in their subjects, but also to mingle their predictions of the Messiah, and his kingdom, with the state of the Jewish commonwealth around them. The latter was a sort of prophetic observatory, from which these holy men contemplated and described the more distant objects under the Messiah’s reign, a sort of national prism, casting its various hues upon the glories of the latter day.

The name also of the predicted child, forbids the application of this passage to any ordinary Jewish family — “And shall call his name Immanuel.” This name which is made up of three Hebrew words combined, means literally, God-with-us. Now, it is certain, that such a name was really given to no child born at the time, of which we have any account. It is also certain, that such a name could be appropriately given to no ordinary Jewish child whatever. Of whom, but of the. promised Son of David, the Messiah, could such a name be descriptive? He and he only, could be, “God-with-us.” If then we associate these passages together, we have two distinct and positive declarations, the one made immediately by God himself, the other by a prophet in his name, that the promised Savior was to be virgin-born; that he was to be peculiarly and independently the woman’s son. How do these prophecies apply to Jesus of Nazareth?

The circumstances and manner of his birth are thus given by Luke: “And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored; the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind, what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her. Fear not Mary, for thou hast found favor with God. And behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her; The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:26-35.

The narrative as furnished by Matthew is the following: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: when as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins.

Then Joseph being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son. and he called his name Jesus. Matthew 1:18-25.

Jehovah, to execute his purposes of grace to man, and to fulfill the prophecies previously delivered, sends an angel to Nazareth in Galilee, to make known to a virgin there, that she had been selected as the mother of the long expected Savior. With conscious innocence, but deep interest in the tidings brought, the virgin states, what seemed to her an insuperable barrier to the accomplishment of the event announced. Her doubts however, are removed by the angel, who informs her, that the birth of her son was to be miraculous, and not ordinary. Mary was at the time espoused to a man, also living at Nazareth, whose name was Joseph.

Joseph, in the course of time discovers the condition of his intended wife.

He loves, he esteems her; but being “a just man,” and not willing by a public act of marriage, to cover a crime he considered so heinous and offensive, he resolved to give her a bill of divorce, and thus, according to the Jewish usage, to destroy the contract of marriage existing between them. He determined, however, from the regard he felt for his intended bride, to do this privately. While meditating upon these things, an angel appears to him also, and informs him, not only that Mary had not offended, but that the child she was about to bring forth, was the promised Deliverer of men. So satisfied was this just and good man with the information given him by the angel, that all his fears were dissipated, and he hesitated not publicly to receive Mary as his wife, and thus to become not only her guardian and protector, but the guardian and protector also, during his infancy and childhood, of her illustrious Son.

There is in these simple and undisguised narratives, every possible appearance of truth. There is nothing improbable that the birth of a Savior should be attended with miracle. And if such a birth be miraculous, there is nothing improbable in the visitation of angels on the occasion, and especially, of their visitation to the parties most deeply concerned. The reserve too and modesty of the virgin, the fears and. anxieties of Joseph, the native simplicity which pervades the narratives, all tend to give great probability to the facts here stated.

Besides the testimony of Mary and Joseph to the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus, another witness is introduced by the Evangelists. This witness is Elizabeth. Being informed by the angel that Elizabeth was also about to become the mother of an extraordinary personage, Mary pays her a visit. Upon her entrance into the presence of Elizabeth, the latter is filled with divine and extraordinary influences. Under these supernatural impulses, she announces to her visitor the very facts communicated by the angel to Mary, and with which she supposed none acquainted but herself.

Luke 1:39-45. Elizabeth, herself a woman of great piety, was the wife of a very reputable priest, by the name of Zacharias. Her testimony, therefore, was well calculated to confirm the extraordinary statements made by Mary and Joseph, concerning the supernatural conception and birth of Jesus.

Nor would facts like these be apt to be withheld from Zacharias, or from the other relatives of both families, indeed, of the three families. Mary would be likely to narrate them to some at least of her immediate and most trust-worthy friends. Joseph would no doubt, make them known to some of his; and Elizabeth and Zacharias, to some of theirs. By this means, a number of persons would soon be informed of these wonderful events.

The near approach too of the long expected and earnestly desired Messiah, would be too good news to be kept altogether a secret. Modesty, it is true, together with the extreme sacredness of the matter, might prevent clamor or commotion. There might be no general fame, no widespread report.

Still, however, there would be found a sufficient number of faithful hearts, to which, like Mary’s, these wonders might be confided. And that this was really the case, there can be no doubt. Matthew and Luke both speak of them as of events well known.

Nor can we suppose, that the statements of the Evangelists are themselves but inventions, to embellish their history and to exalt their hero. All the evidence which proves the truthfulness in general of the Gospels written by these two Evangelists, will also go to establish the accuracy of these particular parts of those Gospels. The facts here stated, therefore, must stand or fall with the New Testament itself. Besides, had these statements of the Evangelists been false, that fact might easily have been detected. So that instead of adding to the interest of their composition, or to the dignity of Jesus, the imposture would have produced just the contrary effect. The Evangelists, however, speak of these things, as of facts worthy of the utmost credit; of facts too, which the subsequent and illustrious life of Jesus, served but to confirm and establish in the minds of men. We cannot, therefore, without minds capable of resisting the strongest evidence, capable of denying the positive statements of the most authentic history, disbelieve the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus of Nazareth. His mother, Joseph, Elizabeth, two of his disciples, and many of his most intimate acquaintances, all agree in their testimony on this point.

But if the birth of Jesus was miraculous, then have we another, and a most powerful proof of his being the Messiah. According to two express prophecies concerning the Messiah in the Old Testament, he was to be “the woman’s seed,” “a virgin’s son.” He was to be born, not in the ordinary method of human generation, but by the exercise of Divine and supernatural power. A body was to be prepared, for the manifestation of the Godhead in human flesh. These prophecies have been fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. Nor have they been fulfilled in the birth of any other person whatever. Abel, Noah, Abraham, David, John and Peter, were all born in the ordinary way. Even the mythological stories about the birth of Alexander, Romulus, Aeneas, and others, were not believed by the very historians, among the Greeks and Romans, who narrated them. Nor can the history of the world, save the New Testament, produce one probable case, of a miraculous conception and birth. This has been peculiar to one only, of all the multitudes that have lived upon our globe. That one is Jesus. He, and he only, was miraculously conceived; he, and he only, was born of a pure virgin. So far then as these prophecies are concerned, Jesus must be the Christ, must be the promised Savior of men.

CHAPTER - THE BIRTH-PLACE OF JESUS.

ANOTHER indication of the person of the Messiah, as presented in prophecy, is to be found in the place of his nativity. He must not only be descended from certain specified ancestors, and born of a virgin, but his birth must occur in a particular town. A birth, therefore, any where else, even should it be miraculous, would destroy the claims of him who might pretend to be the Messiah.

The designation of the birth-place of the Messiah is thus given by the prophet Micah: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2.

As in most of the ancient prophecies, the Messiah is not named in this passage; he is, however, so significantly referred to, as to render the name altogether unnecessary. Long before the days of Micah, this remarkable personage had been revealed to the Israelites as some great king, whom God would set over them. He was to be more righteous and wise than other sovereigns, and in his day there was to be great peace and prosperity. Such prophecies fixed, of course, the eyes of all Israel on this predicted and pre-eminent Prince. They turned to him as a bright star in a cheerless night, and even when oppressed and enslaved, looked forward to his day, as to one of deliverance and triumph. When, therefore, one of Israel’s own prophets, as he looks far down the future, speaks of Him, “who is to be Ruler in Israel,” certainly he can be understood to refer to none else, but to that distinguished Sovereign, the Messiah, whom the Lord God was to raise up in the latter day.

The reference in this passage evidently cannot be to David. Micah, as both the title and the contents of the book prove, prophesied in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; that is, about two hundred and sixty years after the reign of David. Nor can the reference in this passage be to any of the royal descendants and successors of David. Josiah was the only one of any note among them, who filled the throne after the days of Micah. It is evident, however, that he is not meant; the description does not suit him, nor was he born in Bethlehem, but in Jerusalem. There is no one then to whom this prophecy can be legitimately applied, but to that Great King, the Messiah, whom God, in later times, was to set upon the throne of Israel.

The description here given of the character of this extraordinary Sovereign, also limits the application of the passage to the Messiah: “His goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Such language, which can in no case be applied to mere mortals, is precisely such as is applied in many other passages of Scripture to the Messiah. There is a sublimity, a greatness, a sort of prophetic obscurity in language of this kind, which at once indicates the person to whom it is to be referred, and marks out, as with the light of sunbeams, the extraordinary character both of his nature and office.

The ancient Jews also uniformly applied this passage to the Messiah.

When a number of them were almost persuaded that Jesus was the Christ, others said, “Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” John 7:47.

The objection here raised, was to the supposed fact that Jesus was born at Nazareth in Galilee. The very objection however proves that Bethlehem was to be the birth-place of the Messiah.

We have, however, not simply the opinion of the multitude on this subject. The Sanhedrim, the highest court formerly of the Jewish nation, expressed the same sentiment. Herod, alarmed at the visit of certain Eastern Magi, who had come to Jerusalem to inquire after him “who was born king of the Jews,” instituted the inquiry before this celebrated council, “where Christ was to be born?” The answer given was, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for thus it is written by the prophet: “And thou, Bethlehem in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my’ people Israel.” Matthew 2:5,6 This is decisive. The very text itself is used by the Jewish Rulers and Rabbins, to prove the birth-place of the Messiah.

If then this passage have reference to the Messiah, it is perfectly clear, where that Messiah must be born; not at Jerusalem — not at Nazareth — not at Hebron or Capernaum — but in Bethlehem. Nor would any place by the name of Bethlehem answer the purpose. It must be Bethlehem Ephratah; that is, Bethlehem in the land of Judah, as distinguished from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun. Any other birthplace, therefore, than that of Bethlehem of Judah, would destroy all other evidence of one’s being the Messiah. Where then was Jesus of Nazareth born?

And here, we cannot but admire that overruling providence of God, which employs, not only various, but often apparently contradictory means, to effect its purposes. Joseph and Mary had been living at Nazareth, a town in Galilee. It was in this town they had seen their extraordinary visions. It was in this town they had loved, had wedded. Nor had the visiting angel informed them, that Bethlehem must be the birth-place of the predicted child. Nor did Joseph and Mary seem at all to suppose that the birth of their son, occurring at Nazareth, would vitiate his claims to Messiahship.

Probably the passage in Micah had escaped their notice, or they had forgotten it. Of themselves, there is not the least probability, that they would have visited Bethlehem. The distance was considerable, and the condition of Mary unsuited to the fatigues of travel. But He who has ordained the end, has also ordained the means. God never forgets a promise, or overlooks a word he has spoken. Caesar Augustus, ignorant alike of prophecy and of the Messiah, having no knowledge of the Divine decrees, nor any intention to fulfill them — holding, it may be, the whole nation of the Jews in contempt, and believing not a word of all their sacred writings — this distant, and proud Emperor is made to fulfill a prophecy, of whose very existence he was entirely ignorant. Either to gratify his vanity, or to fix a regular rate of taxation, the Emperor issues a decree, “that all the world should be taxed;” that is, enrolled. To accomplish this, it was necessary for each Jew to report himself in his own tribe and town.

This edict, so unexpectedly issued, brings Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem, just at the time when Mary was about to be delivered of her extraordinary son! Thus the birth of Jesus, which, under ordinary circumstances would have occurred at Nazareth, was made to happen at Bethlehem, according to the prediction of the prophet Micah, many centuries previously.

But what evidence have we that Jesus was really born at Bethlehem? To satisfy ourselves on this point, we must consult the testimony given us by the two evangelists, Matthew and Luke. The statement of the latter is the following: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And all went to be taxed, every one to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) to be taxed, with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

And she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country, shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone about them; and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not; for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men. And it came to pass as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord has made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it, wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.” Luke 2:1-18.

The narrative of Matthew is the following: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East and are come to worship him.

When Herod the King had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them, where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child, and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they had heard the king they departed; and lo, the star which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and. fell down and worshipped him.

And when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream, that they should not return to Herod, they departed unto their own country another way.”

Matthew 2:1-12.

From these narratives, we infer the following facts concerning the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem. The decree of the Emperor Augustus, was the palpable reason of the visit of Joseph and Mary to that town. Owing probably to the situation of Mary, their arrival was late. The best accommodations, as is usual where great crowds collect, had already been engaged and occupied. Joseph and Mary are, therefore, compelled to take that part of the caravansary, or inn, which, according to Eastern custom, is occupied jointly by men and cattle. The birth occurs probably, the very night of their arrival; at any rate but a short time afterwards. It was the very night of the birth, and while Joseph and Mary were still occupying their humble lodgings, that the shepherds paid to the infant stranger their remarkable visit. Not long after this, Joseph and Mary are removed to a comfortable house. Either the dispersion of this crowd gave them more room, or the visit of the shepherds brought them into higher notice.

Shortly after this removal, the visit of the eastern Magi occurred, who, “when they were come unto the house, saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him.” This again was soon followed by the descent into Egypt, and the bloody work of Herod, in slaughtering all the babes in Bethlehem and its coasts, in order to destroy in the mass, the infant King of the Jews.

In reference to the evidence which these narratives afford, that Jesus of Nazareth was born at Bethlehem, I offer the two following remarks. It is in the first place, not at all probable, that the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem is a mere invention of the Evangelists. True, these Evangelists must have known, that had Jesus been born at Nazareth, and not at Bethlehem, this one fact must have invalidated greatly, all their testimony to his Messiahship. Still, however, it was impossible for them to have transferred his birth from Nazareth to Bethlehem, had he not really been born in the latter town. It may be difficult in the earliest ages of society, to determine the birth-place of distinguished men. Thus, seven towns of ancient Greece, contended for the honor of having given birth to Homer.

No such difficulty, however, exists in a more polished and literary age.

How impossible would it be, for instance, for any historian of the present age, to establish the birth of Napoleon at Paris, or that of Washington at New York! The undertaking would be ridiculed; and the author who should attempt such an imposition upon the credulity of an enlightened age, would destroy the reputation of both himself and his work in the attempt. Similarly situated were the two biographers of Jesus. They lived in the Augustan age of Roman literature. Jesus too was a man so famed for his doctrines and mighty works, as to attract general attention. How absurd, then, must have been the attempt of these men, to prove that he was born at Bethlehem, had he really been born at Nazareth, or elsewhere!

The undertaking would have been hazardous to themselves, and ruinous to their work.

Nor can we, in the second place, suppose the Evangelists to have been deceived, as to the true birth-place of Jesus. So did Providence order events, as to give great publicity to his birth at Bethlehem. The decree of Augustus, the visit of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem to be taxed, the testimony of the shepherds, the unusual appearance at that time of the eastern Magi in the town, the subsequent slaughter of the infants — these were all facts of so very public a nature, as to leave no doubt whatever, concerning the true birth-place of this remarkable personage. Indeed, if it be not proved by these things that Jesus was born in Bethlehem-Judah, then can we establish the birth-place of no one whatever. We have the testimony of his own biographers, the testimony of his parents, the testimony of the shepherds, of the Magi, indeed the testimony of the age in which he lived; for no one in all that age has even started the doubt, that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem- Judah.

The testimony, therefore, given by the Evangelists to the true birth-place of Jesus is both reasonable and credible. It is such as if given by any other historians, in reference to the birth-place of any other distinguished individual, would not be questioned. We are, therefore, bound to receive it.

In receiving it, however, we admit another proof, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. Micah had predicted, ages before, that “the Ruler of Israel” the Messiah, was to come forth of Bethlehem-Judah. The Evangelists show to a demonstration, that Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in that very town. In this particular, therefore, does the history of Jesus, accord with the ancient predictions concerning the Messiah. And if all other parts of his history shall agree as well with those predictions, then may Jew and Gentile, yea, angels and men, unite in the song, “Glory to God in the highest; on earth peace, good will towards men;” for “unto us has been born in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ, the Lord.”

CHAPTER - THE TIME WHEN JESUS MADE HIS APPEARANCE ANOTHER criterion for determining the person of the Messiah was, the time of his appearance. The prophecy, which most accurately fixes that time, is one delivered by Daniel. “Seventy weeks,” says Gabriel, “are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to build and to restore Jerusalem, unto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. And the people of the prince that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of the abominations, he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” Daniel 9:24-27.

This is one of the most remarkable prophecies in the Old Testament. In many parts of it there is obscurity, and critics have exhausted much time and patience in its elucidation. Still, however, the leading facts are remarkably clear. It evidently refers to the Messiah. It both names and describes him. It also assigns a definite time for his appearance. This time was sixty-nine weeks, or four-hundred and eighty-three years, after the issuing of the decree “to restore and to build Jerusalem;” or, it was sixtytwo weeks, that is, four hundred and thirty-four years, after the complete re-establishment of Jerusalem and. the Jewish polity.

To understand this better, it will be necessary to observe, that the Jews had two kinds of weeks, one of days including seven days; and another of years, including seven years. Leviticus 25:8. It is evident, that the former kind of weeks cannot be meant; for seventy weeks of days, which would be less than a year and a half, would be entirely too short a time, even to build Jerusalem, much less to complete what the prophet mentions, as occurring long after that event. The prophet must therefore speak of weeks of years. Seventy of such weeks would make four hundred and ninety years; which is the whole space of time specified in the prophecy.

This four hundred and ninety years was to begin, “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.” The chief difficulty in the application of the prophecy is, that there were no less than four decrees, overspreading a space of at least eighty-four years, which were issued by the Persian kings, in reference to the restoration of the Jews.

The first of these was published by Cyrus, (Ezra 1.) in the first year of his reign, and one year after Daniel was favored with this revelation. Daniel 9:1. The second was published by Darius Hystaspis. (Ezra 6.) about sixteen years later. A third was issued by Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes, in the seventh year of his reign, (Ezra 7:1,) which was fifty-five years after the one issued by Darius, and seventy-one after that issued by Cyrus.

Artaxerxes also delivered the fourth decree to Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of his reign. Nehemiah 2:1.

Cyrus founded the Persian empire about the year 536 before Christ. Now, if this prophecy be applied to the edict published by him in the first year of his reign, it will fall short of the vulgar Christian era by forty-six years.

So also, if it be applied to the edict of Darius, it will anticipate the period of the birth of Jesus, about thirty years. Prideaux, therefore, and many others have selected the third edict, or the one published in the seventh year of Artaxerxes as the commencement of this prophetic period.

According to the data above, this would bring the reckoning down to the year of our Lord 26, which was about the time that John the Baptist began his public ministry. There are some variations however, in the modes of computing dates. Prideaux, therefore, makes the termination of this prophecy, precisely coincident with the death of Jesus. “The beginning, therefore, says he, of the seventy Weeks, or four hundred and ninety years of this prophecy, was in the month Nisan of the Jewish year, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes king of Persia, and in the 4256th of the Julian period, when Ezra had his commission; and the end of them fell in the very same month Nisan, in the 4746th of the Julian period, in which very year and very month, Christ our Lord suffered for us, and thereby completed the whole work of our salvation, there being just seventy weeks of years; or four hundred and ninety years from throne