Catholic Replies
Q. When Joseph and Mary came to the inn in Bethlehem, the innkeeper said that there was no room and told them to “go on.” That night an angel of the Lord came to Joseph in his dream and said, “It is you who shall go on and on.” Is this true? — J.B., Pennsylvania.
A. Not according to the Gospel accounts of the birth of our Lord. In St. Luke’s account of the Nativity, he makes no mention of the innkeeper, but says only that Mary wrapped Jesus “in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn” (2:7). There are no recorded words of the innkeeper.
The next time an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream was some weeks after the birth of Jesus. “Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you,” the angel said. “Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him” (Matt. 2:13). The Holy Family remained in Egypt until the death of Herod and then returned to Israel and settled in Nazareth.
Q. I have an issue regarding two key events surrounding Matthew and Luke’s treatment of the infancy narrative in the New Testament, namely the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt and the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple. In no way can I see that both events could have taken place. One would have to choose between one or the other. And here is why. In the case of Matthew, rather than returning to Judea out of fear of Herod’s son Archelaus, the family departs for Nazareth in Judea [Galilee]. No mention of the Presentation. In Luke’s case, the same thing happens following the Presentation. The family, once again, departs for Nazareth in Judea [Galilee]. No mention of the flight to Egypt. So which of the two events is one to opt for? — T.A.K., via e-mail.
A. There is no reason not to accept both events once you understand the chronology. Matthew and Luke were writing from different perspectives — Matthew was more concerned with Joseph and Luke with Mary — and they recorded different events. Consider the following possible chronology:
Day One: Jesus is born in Bethlehem
Day Eight: Jesus is circumcised in Bethlehem
Day Forty: Jesus is presented in the Temple in Jerusalem
Day Unknown: The Magi meet King Herod in Jerusalem; he has ascertained that the “newborn King of the Jews” is to be born in Bethlehem, and he asks the Magi, once they have found the Child, to report His whereabouts to him so Herod can purportedly go to worship the Child.
Day Unknown: The Magi arrive in Bethlehem and present their gifts to the Child. They are warned in a dream not to report back to Herod, so they return home by another route.
Day Unknown: Herod realizes that the Magi are not coming back, so he orders his soldiers to kill every boy in the Bethlehem region two years of age and under.
Day Unknown: An angel warns Joseph of Herod’s plot and tells him to take the Holy Family to Egypt until Herod has died.
Day Unknown: An angel tells Joseph that Herod has died, and it is safe to return to Israel.
Day Unknown: Joseph changes his plan to return to Bethlehem in Judea when he learns that Herod’s son Archelaus is ruling there. He travels instead to Nazareth in Galilee, where Herod’s son Antipas is ruling. Jesus and Antipas will meet again in Jerusalem some thirty years later.
Q. I have a beef to discuss if you will permit. Regarding the siege and slaughter of Jericho, your editorial contention (it comes up in other contexts also) is that the slaughter of every human in the city was not instructed by God, but somehow the boys got carried away, and God PERMITTED it. This is not supported by the text. God’s instructions to Joshua were very detailed and exact; it is not plausible to believe that the Israelites could have violated His instructions in such a big way and God did not give a consequence. Violations of His instructions were punished. For pocketing a few items, they lost the next battle. Another family who violated the rules was stoned to death. God did not want intermingling with the peoples of pagan nations, and the only way He could give the Israelites a real chance at following His Commandments was to give them a fresh start with “clean territory.” Comments? — P.L., via e-mail.
A. The question is about our statement in a recent column, that after the walls of Jericho fell, “the Israelite army entered Jericho and killed all its inhabitants, except Rahab and her family. This slaughter was morally wrong, but God tolerated it to give His people the land promised them to protect Israel from the idolatry and immorality of the Canaanites.”
The Book of Joshua says only that the Lord told Joshua, “I have delivered Jericho and its king into your power” (Joshua 6:2). There are no instructions from God to slay all the inhabitants of the city, although that is what was done. However, God had given such instructions elsewhere in the Bible. For example, in chapter seven of Deuteronomy, God told Moses that when He delivered a country into their hands, “you shall doom them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy” (7:2).
Why would a God of mercy and love call for such harsh treatment of Israel’s enemies? Because He is also a God of justice and wrath against those who, like the Canaanites, practiced idolatry, sorcery, and child sacrifice. God says that “anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord, and because of such abominations the Lord, your God, is driving these nations out of your way” (Deut. 18:12). However, the same God also urges the Israelites to seek “terms of peace” before attacking a city, and only to “lay siege to it” if it refuses to make peace (Deut. 20:10-11).
The difficulty posed by these passages comes about when we attempt to apply modern-day standards of justice and morality to ancient peoples and nations. We forget, says Robert J. Hutchinson in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible, that “the people in Old Testament times were not exactly like members of a contemporary women’s book club. They lived in an era of bandits and caravans, ruthless empires and slavery, child sacrifice and gang rape — when might made right and whoever could slaughter the most people became king. It was a cruel time, and the God of the Bible issued harsh edicts to cruel people” (pp. 63-64).
Hutchinson says that “modern critics who assert that the Bible justifies war and genocide are looking at isolated passages taken out of their historical and textual context….It was only because of their long and bloody history that the Jewish people came to understand just how much the Creator of the universe hates war and killing….But after the long, bloody march of history, the Bible says, mankind will finally turn its back on killing. There will come a messianic age when God’s anointed shall destroy war once and for all” (pp. 64-65).
He writes that “a time will come, Isaiah agreed, when nations ‘shall beat their swords into plowshares; and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore’ (2:4). This is hardly a God who loves war, much less genocide” (p. 65).
