Back to Basics - The Birth Narratives - Part 2

I have always wondered why the angels appeared to the shepherds outside Bethlehem. There are two views about the shepherds; there is the traditional view which looks on the shepherds as insignificant, uneducated men who looked after dumb sheep. The rabbis who produced the Talmudic literature (written around A.D. 200-500 but containing oral traditions from before, during and after the earthly lifetime of Jesus) often regarded shepherds as dishonest and prone to violating Jewish law. Likewise, Philo, a Jewish sage in Egypt and a contemporary of Jesus, wrote that shepherds “are held to be mean and inglorious” (On Husbandry, 61). This has been the prevailing view which has been perpetuated in the church for generations.

The other view of the shepherds is much more honouring and affirming. Firstly, consider the teaching of Scripture about shepherds and those people in Scripture who were engaged in shepherding and we immediately come up with rather different estimate of shepherds because they come out rather well.

According to the Jewish Mishnah (A.D. 200 but also containing longstanding oral traditions of previous ages), animals in the vicinity of Bethlehem (specifically Migdal Eder — “Tower of the Flock”) could be offered for Temple sacrifices (Shekalim 7:4). According to Eusebius, a Palestinian Christian leader of the fourth century in his work, “Concerning the Place-names in Sacred Scriptures” (Section B, 196), Migdal Eder was located one mile east of Bethlehem.

If the shepherds of Luke’s account were those who kept flocks potentially destined for the Temple at Migdal Eder, they especially would have been receptive to the angel’s message. Both the geographical locations of Bethlehem and nearby Migdal Eder are mentioned in Micah’s prophecy of the Messiah (Micah 5:2 and 4:8). In regard to Migdal Eder, this locale too is linked to the coming of the King, “And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem” (Micah 4:8). In the margin of my KJV translation, tower is Migdal Eder, thus linking the coming of the Messiah with this location near Bethlehem. In Micah 5:2 we read, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, 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.” This second messianic prophecy of Micah links His rulership with Bethlehem. Of course, in the heart and mind of Christians, Bethlehem has memorable associations, not least being the fact that it was the home of Ruth and Boaz and later David, “And Salmon begat Booz of Rahab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah” (Mat.1:5-6).

Matthew’s genealogy follows the line of Joseph, but, interestingly he does not hide the irregularities which are contained within it, - he refers to Rahab who was a prostitute, a Canaanite from Jericho; Ruth who was a Moabitess, Tamar who had a son born out of incest by her father-in-law and Bathsheba who was the wife of Uriah a Hittite. Luke does not mention these women in his genealogy. A further point, with reference to the shepherd David – he may have grazed his sheep on the same hills as these shepherds who raised sacrificial lambs for killing in Jerusalem.

If the shepherds tending the flocks for the Temple stationed at Migdal Eder are the shepherds of Luke’s account, then the annunciation to the shepherds would fulfil that aspect of messianic prophecy referred to in Micah.

The angel of the Lord appeared to these shepherds, “Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger” (2:8-12).

The angel calmed them and told them that the Messiah had just been born in nearby Bethlehem. While not revealing the exact location in the city for the child, the angel related that the child was the one who was swaddled in binding cloths and lying in a manger (v12). The angel was joined by a heavenly host of angels that praised God,

“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, goodwill toward men!” (vv13-14).

The shepherds rush to Bethlehem to find this child, lying in a manger and wrapped in swaddling cloths/bands. This is referred to specifically as a sign to them. It has special significance to them as shepherds from the tower of Migdal Eder just a mile away from Bethlehem. After a short walk to the city (only about one mile if Eusebius is correct), they found the child with his parents, (often described as the holy family). The picture of the nativity has captured the imagination of the world, they linger here but never view the life of Jesus or His teaching and they have no knowledge of His death, resurrection and ascension to Father’s right-hand. We know that this new-born child is the Son of God and that He is alive today and reigns for ever and ever. Hallelujah!

The shepherds praised God for both the angelic message and their visit to see the child; they then herald Messiah’s birth, spreading the news throughout the community around Bethlehem which causes great amazement among them (vv17-20).

Certainly, the Bible has its own perspective on shepherding, although Biblical shepherds are viewed in the singular, whereas the shepherds in the nativity are in a group. Consider the significance of the role of the shepherd, in the lives of Abel (Gen.4:4), the Patriarchs, Moses (Ex.3:1), David (2Sam.7:8), and Amos (Amos 7.14) and the impact it obviously had on their lives. The Bible takes up the imagery and the lessons which quite naturally are associated with the profession. Moses took his shepherds staff with him into Egypt, David exchanged his shepherds crook for a kingly crown, but exploited the spiritual

significance of the shepherd, he wrote, “The LORD is my shepherd!” (Ps.23:1). Many of his Psalms were composed while he was a shepherd. For David the imagery was rich in terms of God’s focused attention and care of his personal welfare and safety. There are only positive things to be gained from the examination of the shepherd role. On top of David’s teaching which is related to pastoral care and responsibility, also consider the teaching of Jesus about Himself in the role of shepherd, “I am the good shepherd” (Jn.10:11), obviously the imagery of the shepherd as an object lesson for His disciples suited Jesus well, nevertheless, He must have been pondering on His own ministry in the light of the shepherd. Also associated with the shepherd is his guardianship of the sheep and again the typology of the Lamb and the shed blood of the Lamb predominates in Scripture. The subject is too vast to consider here but remember the sacrifice of Isaac and the prophetic words of the Abraham to Isaac, “God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering” (Gen.22:8; see Lev.16). In the Apocalypse the Apostle John’s favourite title for Jesus is “the Lamb.” John Baptist following his newly discovered revelation that Jesus was the Son of God and the Saviour from sin, by pointing to Him and saying, “Behold the Lamb of God …” Finally, consider how the profession of the shepherd has been used to communicate values and qualities of Christian leadership, this analogy goes back to the OT, to Jesus and to the original apostles and the apostles Peter and Paul who speak about shepherding the flock of God.

The shepherds of Bethlehem have been viewed even more highly by some, it has been suggested that they were priest-shepherds linked to the priesthood in Jerusalem and delegated to ensure the supply of young male sheep for sacrifice in Jerusalem. Great care was needed to birth lambs in special mangers and then to swaddle them, thus

ensuring their purity. The lambs were reared for one year before they were sacrificed. Even this picture of nightly guarding, I have seen in Rumania where shepherds were guarding their flocks by night, a description that reminds one of the priests in the tabernacle who served God by night and by day. This phraseology is repeated shortly when Anna the widow woman in the temple is introduced, “who did not depart from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day” (Lk.2:37).

The Jewish historian Josephus writing in the first century records that during New Testament times at Passover up to 260,000 lambs would be sacrificed in the temple at Jerusalem. Where did this vast number of lambs come from? Furthermore, these were very special lambs. Therefore, they had to be born and bred in controlled conditions and inspected for birth defects before being raised in a specially protected environment under the close watch of the Jerusalem priests. The vast numbers of sheep given here seems hard to grasp and must surely have entailed supplies available beyond those which were reared in Bethlehem.

According to the laws of the time the sheep that were used for the offerings had to be a one-year-old male sheep that had been outside for 365 days (one-year), since these sheep needed to remain outside the shepherds were also outside. You can see this in Luke 2: 8, “That night some shepherds were in the fields outside the village, guarding their flocks of sheep”. Once the sheep were of age the shepherds would bring them to the city of Jerusalem to be sacrificed for the Sabbath (Friday). It was important that the sheep that was to be sacrificed did not possess any blemishes (broken legs, or injuries). Once the sheep’s blood was completely spilled for all of the sins the

priest would return to the people and proclaim, “It is finished”. Jesus was born in the small city of Bethlehem. When his time had come Jesus was led to Jerusalem to be sacrificed. It was extremely important that he did not have any imperfections (blemishes). On the Sabbath Jesus Christ was crucified and gave up his life. He proclaimed, “It is finished”, and gave up his life. His last proclamation from the cross, “He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit” (Jn.19:30).

It has been suggested that the ‘sign’ of the ‘swaddling clothes’ - “And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger” (2:12), was in anticipation of the death of Jesus as the Passover lamb. This could only be the case if the new born lambs in Bethlehem were actually swaddled by the shepherds and then sold on to the temple as sacrificial lambs. It was a common practise that new born babies were swaddled in strips of cloth, but the unique difference was that the Child Jesus would be found swaddled in a manger, thus affirming the word of the angel. If the shepherds did swaddle their new born lambs which were reared for temple sacrifice then it truly was an amazing sign which pointed directly from the manger to the cross, but this meaning would have been lost on the shepherds, it only has significance to us who can look back with insight and comprehend its significance.

This common practise of swaddling babies (see Ezek.16:4) would have been even more important for Mary due to the fact that His cradle was a manger. This point of observation affirms again, the source of Luke’s information as coming directly from Mary the mother of Jesus (Lk.2:51).

“Everyday life in the Holy Land” James Neil, a former missionary to the Jews, he accurately described life in Palestine in Jesus’ time and he says, “The swaddling clothes of Palestine to this day consist of bands of white cotton or linen cloth about four to five inches wide and some five or six yards long. The child's legs are laid together, and his arms by his side, and these bands are then wound round and round his naked body until it presents somewhat the appearance of a little mummy. A band is even passed under the chin and round the top of the head, by which the child is unconsciously taught the important lesson of keeping its mouth closed and of breathing through its nostrils … The swaddled babe may be seen in the hammock-like cradle hung on the wall, so often used in these village houses. Imagination can hardly picture a lowlier state, and one of greater weakness and helplessness than such a swaddled fellahheen child laid in the rude manger of such a humble abode.”

A further question relates to the general idea that Mary faced her first child birth alone in a filthy stable with animals in a village inn, having been turned away from other accommodation. The fact is that houses generally had a ground floor which was shared by animals such as a donkey, a cow, hens and the like, but imagine if this accommodation was the ground floor of an inn, it would have been crowded with various kinds of animals, people bustling, shouting, shoving and one wonders how Mary could have delivered a child in such a situation.

However, I don’t think she would have faced having a child without sympathy and help. Mothers were midwives and would have been on hand to encourage and support Mary in child birth. The idea of isolation seems unlikely, but who can tell? There are so many interpretations woven around the nativity story it is important to keep as close as possible to the actual text of Scripture. I certainly have given you plenty of material which lies beyond the actual text of Scripture!