“THE turf was vividly green, gemmed with innumerable flowers. Orchards of peach, apricot, and pomegranate, with their white and scarlet blossoms, succeeded one another in an unbroken series along the valley.... ‘The little hills rejoice on every side; the pastures are clothed with flocks, the valleys also are covered over with corn; they shout for joy, they also sing.’ Wherever we turn our eyes, the words of the Psalmist are suggested as the aptest description of the scenery.”
Thus writes one who, a few years ago; traveled across the “holy fields” of the Promised Land. Ephrath, or Ephratah― “the fruitful” ―was the name fitly chosen of old for the fruitful spot here described. But however lovely may be the natural scenery, it is not that which chiefly attracts the Christian’s heart to ancient Ephrath, or Bethlehem. Of old the Valley of the Plain had been “like the garden of the Lord,” but, though it had retained all its glory to this day, it could never rival the interest which the Christian feels in Bethlehem. There was brought to light that mystery of godliness which confessedly is great―God was manifested in flesh. And in the presence of this fact, the outward beauties of, and all other circumstances connected with, the place, great as they may be, are indeed small in comparison.
Yet Bethlehem has an interesting history. It was while journeying thither, when but a little way from Ephrath, that Rachel gave birth to Benjamin, or, as she called him, “Benoni” ― “the son of my sorrow.” For there she died, and there Jacob buried her, and set up a pillar over her grave. A building called Rachel’s Tomb is still pointed out on the way, and though it is of comparatively recent erection, it may mark the spot. Bethlehem is again mentioned in connection with the lawless times recorded in the book of Judges, and from it, Elimelech and Naomi and their sons, took their ill-fated journey across the hills to Moab, while on their return, Bethlehem was the scene of Boaz’s kindness and Ruth’s piety. So little change has taken place in the surroundings of Bethlehem, that the “entire scene of Boaz and Ruth might be enacted at the present day by the dwellers of Bethlehem, with but trifling omissions and variations.”
But the name which (next to that of the Lord Jesus Himself) is most closely connected with Bethlehem, is that of David; it is the “City of David,” “the town (or village) where David was.” Here were spent his boyhood and youth, and his eyes took in those scenes of natural loveliness which he has so richly described in the Psalms. “It was easy to see,” says the writer first quoted, “where the Shepherd of Bethlehem drew the materials for his poetry.” At the gate of the town was the well of water, for a drink of which he sighed when hard pressed by the Philistines, and of which, when brought to him by his three chief men, he would not drink, but poured it out to the Lord.
There are a few further references to Bethlehem in the course of the Old Testament history, among others to the “habitation (or khan) of Chimham,” which has been suggested as the very inn where “no room” could be found for the humble, yet Royal family traveling up from Nazareth. For a place so small as Bethlehem was hardly likely to possess two “inns.”
But the most important reference occurs in the prophecy of Micah. From the time of the publishing of the “First Gospel” in Eden, where all that was announced was the coming of the Deliverer, and the result, the horizon of the promise had been narrowing. From all the people of the earth Abraham was chosen; from all the nations which sprang from him, the “father of many,” the family of Isaac was marked out; and so, ever narrowing, the field of view, to each age was given some fresh revelation of the Messiah. But it was in the period during which Isaiah and Micah were contemporary, that the minute details were given which enable us to construct from the pages of the Old Testament alone a “life of Christ.” Isaiah tells of His miraculous birth, of his suffering, and atoning death; but it was reserved for Micah to make known where He should be born, “whose goings forth had been from of old, from the days of eternity.” It was to Bethlehem-Ephratah, little indeed though it was among the thousands of Judah, that that signal Honor belonged. We do not dwell upon the fact that when He, the Judge of Israel, came, Bethlehem had no room for Him—nothing but the manger connected with the inn—yet so it was. “There was no room for them in the inn.”
The accompanying woodcut will give an idea of the present appearance of Bethlehem. The large building at the left-hand side of the picture is the “Convent of the Nativity.” It was at a very early date that the ancient name of “Ephrath” ― prophetic surely of that “corn of wheat,” which, dying, brought forth “much fruit” ―was changed to “Bethlehem” (the house of bread); equally prophetic of “the bread of God” which came down from heaven. The modern name, “Beit-lahm” (the house of flesh), is an attempt to preserve in Arabic the sound and meaning of the earlier name.
At the time of the return from captivity, only one hundred and twenty-three of “the children of Bethlehem” returned. It could not have been a large or prominent place, and though Luke calls it “a city” the word so translated is used much more loosely than with us, and Josephus speaks of it simply as “a little place.” It is probable, therefore, that our thoughts of the massacre of infants have been exaggerated. However, few they may have been, Herod’s cruelty was revolting enough; but a visitor to Bethlehem, under the guidance of the monks there, would be invited to believe that the remains of twenty thousand infants lie buried close to the place of the nativity! The most careful computation shows that the number would probably be about twenty.
Bethlehem now contains about three thousand inhabitants “all Christians.” Say one authority; but he adds, in strange keeping with these words, “They are, however, a turbulent, quarrelsome set, ever fighting amongst themselves or with their neighbors.” Dr. Thomson says that “they are ever distinguished in the great feasts at Jerusalem their fierce and lawless manners, and if my row occurs they are sure to have a hand in it.” The “christians” chiefly belong to be Greek Church, but the Latin and the American Churches share with the former the fort-like convent, which encloses the chapel said to be erected over the cave where Christ was born. Here the monks of the three confessions live and quarrel. As to this cave, it may be the spot, for very ancient tradition asserts that it is so, but such great changes have taken place in the pasts that an equal possibility exists that it―like so many of the relics exhibited in the Holy Land―is spurious. But the monks leave the visitor no room to doubt: they point out in the floor a large star, formed of silver and precious stones, around which runs the inscription in Latin: “Here Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.”
There is a lesson, and that a grave one, which we would draw from the mention of Bethlehem in the New Testament. When Herod inquired of the chief priests and Scribes where the Christ should be born, there was no hesitation in answering, “In Bethlehem of Judaea; for thus it is written,” they go on to say, “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda; for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule My people Israel.” Any fairly instructed Jew would have given a similar answer; even the common people raised the question later on: “Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” Jewish tradition had ever interpreted the passage in Micah of the Messiah; thus the ancient paraphrase into Chaldee, for those who had lost the Hebrew tongue (the Targum), renders it: “Out of thee shall come forth to Me the Messiah, who shall have the dominion.” So that Scribes and Pharisees could readily answer Herod’s question. In that particular, as in many others, they had the light of the word. Yet when the Messiah came, their knowledge of the word did not save them from the rejection of Him of whom that word throughout testified, for, as Paul writes in another case, it was not mixed with faith in them that heard. Bare knowledge of God’s word, without faith, will never open any heart to receive Christ. And we would earnestly and affectionately warn our readers on this point, lest they fall after the same example of unbelief. They may possess much knowledge about the Lord, the glories of His person, the history of His life, and the course of future events in relation to His coming and kingdom, but all this knowledge may exist, as did that of the Scribes, with the refusal of the Lord. Jr.