Chp.78 - Cave Or No Cave, Christ is YHWH

“Now this king Herod, at the time when the Magi came to him from Arabia, and said they knew from a star which appeared in the heavens that a King had been born in your country, and that they had come to worship Him, learned from the elders of your people that it was thus written regarding Bethlehem in the prophet:" Justin Martyr. (1885). Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 237). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. Justin makes it very clear that the prophecy will be identified by the town of Bethlehem, not a particular cave. Therefore, this prophecy hinges on the city of Bethlehem as "the focal point." ‘And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art by no means least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall go forth the leader who shall feed my people.’4 Justin Martyr. (1885). Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 237). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. Micah 5:2 (Brenton LXX En) 2 And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity. Micah 5:4 (Brenton LXX En) 4 And the Lord shall stand, and see, and feed his flock with power, and they shall dwell in the glory of the name of the Lord their God: for now shall they be magnified to the ends of the earth.

Justin paraphrases the prophecy, to identify not only the town of Bethlehem, but the prince who shall arise from the clan of Ephrathah, quoting out of the NT gospel of Matthew. Ephrathah literally means in the Hebrew "out of the ash heap he shall bear fruit." English translation: out of death--life. This was the place of Jacob's beloved Rachel's death and the birthplace of the fruit of her womb--Benjamin (Gen.35:16-20). Thus, it is a picture of Christ; for this little town of Bethlehem Ephrathah was nothing but an ash heap left for dead, but the Christ who shall be born here will feed his people--Israel, according to the prophecy. Therefore, Christ crucified and resurrected is the "eternal" theme of this literal, historical story that surrounds this "ruler" who will "feed" his people with life. Matthew 2:1–6 (NKJV) 1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: 6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’ ” But Justin wants us to notice that it was "the star" that led the Magi to this place, for they knew not the place of birth with the limited information they had to work with. The Scriptures that were entrusted to them spoke only of the star. Why follow a star if you already know where the Christ shall be born (Num.24:17)? And what we don't know, at least in my current understanding, is how these wise men knew which star to follow. This was the mind of God from the beginning; to isolate these believing individuals from portions of the Scriptures that contained the "concluding" factual pieces; to show that it was all a work of God to lead these "wise" men to the worship of His beloved Son.

These men did not obey and follow Yahweh by their own will and power; for at each turn they would have been tempted to turn back at each road block; but they persisted at each obstacle [See Dr. Jason Lisle's link https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/christmas/what-was-the-christmas-star/ for further study.] It was a supernatural faith for these wise men to continue on their journey and be led, not only by the subjective sight of an objective bright sign in the heavens, which only gave glimpses of temporary light, but also by a written promise of the King of kings who would save his subjects from their spiritual poverty (Matt.5:3,8); for these wise and wealthy men were also oppressed by the demonic powers of darkness, as we discussed in the previous chapter. Numbers 24:17 (NKJV) 17 “I see Him, but not now; I behold Him, but not near; A Star shall come out of Jacob; A Scepter shall rise out of Israel, And batter the brow of Moab, And destroy all the sons of tumult. The history of Israel was known throughout the surrounding nations, and these nations watched and observed Israel's formation and their public worship of their God. And every time their God, even our God, empowered them to defend their promised land, the nations that were plundered and spoiled took note of Israel's [that is of her God] power, as it was a recurring theme. Some of these wise men "from the east" may have been descendants of Moab, as the wise men were from all over, as far as Persia, to bring plunder and spoil in recognition of this king of Judah. Indeed these nations were watching and waiting to understand what this king had done for their peoples; for the meekness, even the wisdom if you will, of his subjects will inherit them the land (Matt.5:5). Therefore, this is the "voluntary" (Ps.110:3) spoil and plunder that Justin spoke of . . . "Accordingly the Magi from Arabia came to Bethlehem and worshipped the Child, and presented Him with gifts, gold and frankincense, and myrrh; but returned not to Herod, being warned in a revelation after worshipping the Child in Bethlehem."

"But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him." Justin Martyr. (1885). Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 237). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. This portion is where Justin is criticized and is brought into question. Some believe Justin to be in error when he states that Joseph took up quarters outside the village in a cave after being unable to find a place of residence in the certain village. Kenneth Bailey, PhD writes: In the second century, Justin tells us that Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem. The problem is not the cave as such, but rather Justin’s placement of it “outside the village.” Many Palestinian village homes are built into caves.3 Yet Justin’s overall statement seems less than reliable. Due to the influence it has had, this text requires close examination. Justin has taken seriously the fact that the text clearly affirms an extended presence in the village before the birth. But the reader is left with two problems. First, the phrase “while they were there” is applied to the cave outside the village rather than to the village itself (as in Lk 2:4). Secondly, we are told that Bethlehem turned Joseph and Mary out *[not by Justin but by later tradition]* and thus they turned to a cave outside the village. The latter is problematic on two counts. First, Mary’s relative, Elizabeth, whom she had just visited (Lk 1:39), lived somewhere nearby in the “hill country of Judea.” If Joseph was rejected in Bethlehem and had no remaining family in the area, he could have turned to Mary’s family and easily found shelter. Secondly, Luke tells us the shepherds visited the baby and were overjoyed at all they had heard and seen (Lk 2:20). As Middle Eastern peasants they surely would have noticed the accommodations offered the Holy Family. If they had been inadequate, as good villagers they would have immediately helped the family make other arrangements. The text gives no hint that anyone was displeased. Thus, despite its antiquity, Justin’s exegesis and his direct and indirect violation of the clear statements of Luke arouse grave suspicions regarding the accuracy of his account of a birth outside the village. . . . At the same time, the cave tradition itself may be historical. As indicated, many peasant homes in Palestine in the past were, or began as, caves. Thus, Justin’s “cave” and Matthew’s “house” (Mt 2:11) could be the same place. The manger is not a problem, as we will see. The same cave tradition (again outside the village) is repeated in the Protevangelium of James, along with the addition of the late-night-arrival myth *[Again, not Justin's account]*. In the Protevangelium, the “days were fulfilled” not in the cave but along the way. Joseph and Mary have to stop because, as Mary says, “the child within me presses me, to come forth.” They are in a desert, and Joseph finds a cave (17:3–18:1) where the child is born and a number of gynecological wonders take place.8 Here we have clearly moved from typology to exaggerated myth. Among other things, the hill country of Judea is hardly a desert (the pressure in both texts to have the birth take place outside of Bethlehem may be theological, as we will observe). Thus, having judged the outside-the-village tradition as textually inaccurate and historically unreliable, and having found no objections to the cave, we turn to an examination of the internal evidence of the text itself *[But apart from the original prophesy of Micah to the paraphrase of Matthew; my additional note]*. . . . We have observed that Justin allows for time spent in the village and then *[imposed on Justin by Kenneth; not in the account of Justin]* insists that Joseph found nothing and resorted to a cave outside the village. The cave tradition we have accepted. But why the insistence by Justin and the Protevangelium of James that the birth took place outside the village rather than in it as Luke simply states? After reading a number of Arabic and Syriac fathers’ writings on the question, one has the distinct feeling there is an unspoken subjective pressure to understand the birth as having taken place without witnesses because of the sacred nature of the “mother of God” giving birth to the “Son of God.” Even as the sacraments are consecrated in utter seclusion behind an altar screen, so the eyes of even the faithful might not look on the holy event, even so Middle Eastern Christology, Mariology and piety seem to combine to insist that the birth took place where no eye beheld the divine mystery. For this to be possible the story must take place outside the village in some secluded spot. Is it not possible to assume Justin’s outside-the-village account coming from this kind of theological pressure? We can add to this the early allegorization of the text of the New Testament, where attention is focused on the mystical and allegorical meanings behind words, and the exegete is not interested in the humanness of the incarnation in its Palestinian setting. First, lets address that Justin is somewhat misrepresented by Dr. Bailey, though not intentionally. He is right to question the Roman Catholic traditional understanding of Justin and the Scriptures because they indeed have labored to twist the them to fit their presumptions, as we have been laboring ever since to sort out their mess, but Justin has not labored to twist but to reveal. There is evidence from the original prophesy, not to a cave, but to "the possibility" of the holy family, as Justin puts it, "taking up quarters outside the village." Micah 5:2 of the Hebrew suggests that "One" will come out of "Bethlehem Ephrathah." One commentator gives the impression that Bethlehem and Ephrathah were of the same region of twin towns and often was spoken of as one city--Bethlehem. This is most likely the intent of the prophesy and makes Justin's short hand accurate. In other words, "outside the village" doesn't necessarily mean outside of Bethlehem. It is those who use Justin to interpret their own traditions who undo Justin's testimony, but when comparing Justin to the infallible account of Scripture, he still stands above the Roman tradition. The words "the same as Bethlehem" hold true when we judge Bethlehem "within" Ephrathah, but it is only "erroneous gloss" when the region is relocated to establish a lie. "The designer of the mosaic Madeba Map has separated Ephrathah from Bethlehem; apparently he thought of Bethlehem as being in the territory of Ephrathah. The name occurs in the NEB at Josh. 15:59, based on the LXX (59a). A man of this place was called an Ephrathite (Ruth 1:2; 1 S. 17:12). Some authorities hold that Ephrathah where Rachel was buried (Gen. 35:16; 48:7) was a city N of Jerusalem near Ramah in the territory of Benjamin, the words “the same is Bethlehem” being a late and erroneous gloss. Jung, K. G. (1979–1988). Ephrathah. In G. W. Bromiley (Ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Vol. 2, p. 120). Wm. B. Eerdmans. Which now, in turn, being aware of the Roman Catholic authoritarianism, brings us to another critical question concerning Justin's account. Does the following portion even belong in Justin's original intent? Those, for fear of losing power and authority come under many temptations, and inserting things after Justin's earthly departure, may be in error of scribal weakness to defend one's own authority above the revelation.

I have repeated to you,” I continued, “what Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave; but for the sake of those who have come with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage.” Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him.5 Justin Martyr. (1885). Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 237). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. Again, it is possible and should be critically questioned if this portion belongs in the original thought and intention of Justin at all. There is a major "interruption" of Justin's narrative, here, to consider how the proposed tradition of the cave is some how a foreshadow of Christ; but was possibly "then" taken captive (in the Greco-Roman culture) to promote the doctrines of the Mithras is now used to uphold Roman Catholic tradition. But Justin doesn't really want to make this the point of his narrative, and continues on as this never even happened, making no sense of what was just stated, supposedly by him. Therefore, it should be questioned if it ever was of his narrative in the first place. This can be very easily added by a scribe who was under temptation to treat Justin as an infallible source of truth, rather than deal with the possibilities that Justin may have misunderstood the facts. Justin is not the one who is to be under the scrutiny of unbelievers; it is Christ who is under the critical eye. Justin, to this point, has only been laboring "for us" to defend the message of the Christ; so this should be the labor of the scribe as well, not merely "for himself." If the followers of Mithras were distorting the facts of Christ's birth, the scribe should not be treating Justin as the infallible source to defend the faith that was delivered to the saints. Rather, he should use the Scriptures, as Justin has righteously demonstrated, and oppose those who seek to malign the truth of Christ. Of course Justin's history is a good guide to help understand the issues that the early church faced, but it is never a guide to determine infallible truth. Justin gives us a good history to hold onto, but it is also a history that teaches us not to make the same errors and create lies against the truth. “And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah’s1 words?2 [Taken from chp. 70] Justin Martyr. (1885). Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, pp. 233–234). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. Therefore, again, this is also under suspicion because it was "added" for the sake of "those who have come with us today," as it was said. It is, then, possible that a scribe added this for the sake of some of the disciples of the Mithras who were investigating the claims of Justin, but it was added in defense of those twisting it to make the doctrines of Mithras superior to Justin's testimony. Justin did however use the passage in Isaiah 33:16, but it has nothing to do with a foreshadow of Christ being born in a cave. And so, Justin was not using that passage to speak of a prophecy concerning the birth of Christ. Therefore, this is most likely a scribal addition to what Justin recorded. It is not uncommon for scribes to do this, as I have done it, even in this very recollection, but the scribe is responsible to explain. The error of the scribe was the failure to elaborate for the future reader. We must say what we mean, but we must also define what we mean. It is note worthy, though, that the Mithras disciples were using the text of Isaiah to imitate Christ, as Justin did indeed record previously, but imitated in a manner that images Christ falsely, and therefore maligns the Gospel's reputation, giving evidence they know not Christ or his Father. The Bread and Water of that passage was, according to Justin, an allusion to the Lord's Table, not his birth place. Therefore, the cave may also be a metaphoric picture of Christ being "a hiding place," [a shelter from the storm if you will], but it was never an intended prophecy that requires fulfillment in a cave of his birth. For further study go to Kenneth Bailey's article: "The Manger And The Inn" http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/11/08/The-Manger-and-the-Inn.aspx . Cave or no cave, Christ is God; and as Justin further explains, the prophecy concerning Herod's jealousy is also fulfilled in the birth of Christ, signifying the spoil and plunder of his demonic kingdom: "And Jeremiah prophesied that this would happen, speaking by the Holy Ghost thus: ‘A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and much wailing, Rachel weeping for her children; and she would not be comforted, because they are not.’1 Therefore, on account of the voice which would be heard from Ramah, i.e., from Arabia (for there is in Arabia at this very time a place called Rama), wailing would come on the place where Rachel the wife of Jacob called Israel, the holy patriarch, has been buried, i.e., on Bethlehem; while the women weep for their own slaughtered children, and have no consolation by reason of what has happened to them. For that expression of Isaiah, ‘He shall take the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria,’ foretold that the power of the evil demon that dwelt in Damascus should be overcome by Christ as soon as He was born; and this is proved to have happened. For the Magi, who were held in bondage2 for the commission of all evil deeds through the power of that demon, by coming to worship Christ, shows that they have revolted from that dominion which held them captive; and this [dominion] the Scripture has showed us to reside in Damascus." Justin Martyr. (1885). Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 238). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. Justin believes that the wise men's rebellion to Herod signifies the expression of Isaiah in the name of his child "Spoil quickly, plunder speedily." Again, we have this theme surrounding the Christ showing up, here, in Justin's theology. The Magi are the Amen to the prophecy, as they were miraculously led by the star. Surely, this was no orchestration of man, but a divine appointment in the Providence of God, using both good and evil to establish the root of Jesse to be the Ephrathah--fruit out of the ash heap of death to feed his people--Israel. This is the wisdom and point of Justin's narrative--Christ the wisdom and power of God.

Therefore also this grace has been transferred to us, as Isaiah says, speaking to the following effect: ‘This people draws near to Me, they honour Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; but in vain they worship Me, teaching the commands and doctrines of men. Therefore, behold, I will proceed4 to remove this people, and I shall remove them; and I shall take away the wisdom of their wise men, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent men.’ ”5 Justin Martyr. (1885). Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 238). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.