John Kitto Evening Bible Devotions: July 28

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

John Kitto Evening Bible Devotions: July 28


Today is: Friday, March 29th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)

Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of July: (Show All Months)

A Chronological Question

Mat_2:13; Luk_2:39

It will be observed that the evangelist Luke, after recording the circumstances which attended the presentation of the Lord in the temple, adds, “and when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.” He says nothing about the visit of the magi to Bethlehem and its consequences, with the flight to, and sojourn in, Egypt. On the other hand, Matthew relates nothing of the circumstances which led Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (though he states that Jesus was born there), nor of the presentation in the Temple; and seems to send them at once from Bethlehem to Egypt soon after the visit of the magi.

This has raised the question—involving one of the greatest difficulties in harmonizing the, gospel narratives—in what order we are to place the events which, reciprocally, one of these two evangelists omits, and the other relates; or, in other words, whether the presentation in the Temple was before or after the visit of the magi. We, as the result of much inquiry and careful investigation, have related the former event as anterior to the latter; and we feel inclined to lay the arguments on both sides before the reader, as a specimen of the sort of investigations which lie in the way of a person who undertakes to reduce four original narratives of the same history into one, or to bring into chronological order the events which they severally relate. Questions of this nature are rather numerous, and sometimes important; and respecting all of these, a writer dealing thus with the history must make up his mind before he can hazard a simple statement, which in itself affords no trace or memorial of the investigations through which alone it could be reached.

That the visit of the magi was prior to the presentation at the temple, has been by many thought to be rendered probable by the fact, that the public declaration of Simeon in the temple on that occasion, and the concurrence and reports of a woman so well known as Anna, do not accord with the surprise felt by Herod at the inquiries of the strangers, and the general ignorance that seems to have prevailed on the subject. It is further remarked that no adequate reason appears why the family should have returned to Bethlehem, where the magi found them, after the presentation in the temple; but it would seem more reasonable that, as the words employed by Luke appear to intimate, they would return to their home at Nazareth when all that the law required had been performed.

To the first of these reasons for the priority of the visit of the magi, it may be answered, that we do not at all know the real degree of publicity involved in the declarations of Simeon and Anna, or that the inquiries of the magi would at the instant of time come to the knowledge of the persons cognizant of the previous circumstances. And if known to many, Herod is the last person likely to have heard of them; for there must have been a general reluctance to disclose to one, whose wrath was but too well known to be cruel as the grave, any circumstances which might tend to awaken his jealousy or suspicion. The priests who were summoned to council were only asked where Christ should be born, and they answered rightly, at Bethlehem. This was all they were asked, and all they needed to answer; and if, among the priests present, there were some acquainted with what had taken place at the presentation, they would have been little likely to volunteer the information. Indeed, we apprehend that if the whole city had known these circumstances, there would have been a general feeling to keep them from the knowledge of Herod, and to guard from him the life of the infant Messiah. The dominion of the Herodian family was hateful to the people, who longed for the time when it should be brought to a close, as was expected, by the Messiah. There would have been, we may suppose, every disposition to regard the new-born child as the long-hoped-for son of David. He was of David’s line; He was born at Bethlehem; and his birth was not wanting in signal manifestations. These facts—some of them obscured by the time our Lord commenced his public career, might then have been easily ascertained. At that time, therefore, there could have been none of that prepossession against his claim which existed thirty years later; when these circumstances of his early history had gone out of knowledge, and when a prejudice had been excited by his declaring—to the utter frustration of the popular views and objects—that his kingdom was not of this world.

As to the return to Bethlehem, we must remember that it was very near to Jerusalem—not above six miles off. It is, therefore, quite probable that Joseph and Mary would first go up some morning to the temple, and then return to Bethlehem to settle their little affairs before returning home finally to the distant Nazareth. Or, as it occurs to us, one of the three annual festivals may have been near at hand; and in that case they would naturally have wished to remain in the neighborhood, in order to attend it before returning to their home. It is, however, quite possible that Joseph had, during his protracted stay in his paternal town, seen reasons for concluding to wake it the place of his future residence. Remembering that Christ was to come from this place, he might naturally desire to render this fact evident concerning Jesus, by removing there; and the policy of this is demonstrated by the reproach which Jesus afterwards incurred, as not having apparently come from Bethlehem, but from Nazareth in Galilee, “out of which ariseth no prophet.” As a comparatively poor man, he must necessarily have sought employment at his trade during his first stay at Bethlehem, and thus may have been so much better than he had found at Nazareth, as to encourage his purpose of remaining in the city of his fathers’ sepulchers. This is not mere conjecture; for we find that, when Joseph returned with his family from Egypt, it was his intention to remain in Judea, doubtless at Bethlehem; and it was only the information he received as to the state of affairs in that dominion which induced him to proceed into Galilee, to his former place of residence at Nazareth.

The strongest argument for the priority of the presentation, seems to be found in the offering which was made on that occasion, which was that prescribed for poor persons, and this would not have been necessary had they then been in possession of the valuable gifts of “the wise men from the East.” Surely they could then have afforded the lamb for an offering, and would have rejoiced to have this in their power.

Again: is it likely that, after the jealousy of Herod had been awakened, and after the magi had been directed to return home by another way, Joseph and Mary would have been allowed, by going to Jerusalem at that particular time, to run into the very jaws of danger, and when the declarations of Simeon and Anna, which would then have acquired immense importance, would have at once pointed the child out to those who sought his life?

We are, besides, expressly told that, after the visit of the magi, the parents were supernaturally directed to withdraw into Egypt, for the very purpose of evading the danger to which a visit to Jerusalem would at that time have exposed them.

What then becomes of Luke’s assertion, that they went to Nazareth after having done, respecting the infant, all that the law required? Well, and so they did; but not until after other circumstances had taken place, which Luke does not himself record, but Matthew does. In all concise historians, a connection is thus apparently given, by the omission of intervening particulars, to events that were really distant. Other instances of this occur in the gospels. Thus, in Luk_21:7, etc., Jesus’ prophecy seems immediately connected with the observations in Luk_21:5-6; and yet that there was some intervening time, and that the scene was not the temple, but the Mount of Olives, which commanded a full view of the temple, is apparent from Mat_24:3; Mar_13:3. So likewise in Luk_24:50, the ascension of Christ seems connected with his appearance to the apostles on the first day of the resurrection; and yet the same evangelist tells us himself, in Act_1:3, that forty days intervened. Again: the journey into Galilee, mentioned in Mat_4:12, Mar_1:14, Luk_4:14, seems to have immediately followed the temptation; and yet St. John acquaints us with many intermediate facts—such as the testimony of John the Baptist, the conversion of Andrew, Simeon, Philip, and Nathanael, a journey into Galilee, a miracle at Cana, attendance at the Passover, and baptizing in Judea. There is also the remarkable instance in Act_9:19-26, where Paul’s journey into Arabia, mentioned by himself in Gal_1:17, is certainly passed over. It is obvious that, after so many clear instances—and there are more of the same kind—no argument for the priority of the visit of the magi can be drawn from the statement of Luke respecting the return to Nazareth after the due performance of the legal ceremonials.