Jesus of Nowhere (Luke 1:26)

Where were Joseph and Mary living when the Angel foretold Jesus’ birth? Nazareth

The Gospel of Luke records that the angel Gabriel has the honor of delivering Jesus’ birth announcement (Luke 1:26). Not surprisingly, the first human to receive the good news is the child’s mother, Mary (Luke 1:26-38). The location of the Annunciation, however, was likely shocking to Luke’s original audience. It happens in Nazareth.

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. (Luke 1:26-27 NASB)

Jesus puts Nazareth on the map. At the time of his birth, the town was largely unknown and those who were familiar with it were not overly impressed (John 1:46). Prior to its association with Christ, Nazareth was nowhere. It was hardly the place one would expect an earthshattering announcement to be made.

Nazareth is situated in Galilee, a small region in northern Israel. It is a long way from Jerusalem, the nation’s religious epicenter. If an ancient traveler trekked at the standard pace of fifteen miles per day it would take four or five days to reach Jerusalem form Nazareth.

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) introduces:

Nazareth was the village of Jesus’ youth in lower Galilee (Matthew 2:23; Luke 1:26, 2:4, 39), not far north of the Jezreel valley. It is about equidistant from the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean (only fifteen miles from the former). It is identified in the Gospels as the village of Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:39, 51), an identification few have disputed, since Nazareth is not a name one would pick out of the air to be the hometown of a messianic figure. Only four miles away was the capital city, rebuilt by Antipas [20 BCE-39 CE] in 4 B.C., Sepphoris, “the ornament of all Galilee” (Antiquities of the Jews 18.27), but a city predominantly Gentile in character, in a region ringed by Greek city-states (Tyre, Sidon, Scythopolis) and principalities (Gaulanitis and Samaria)...Nazareth seems to have been uninhabited after the Assyrian invasion in 733 B.C. until the second century B.C. It was during the rule of John Hyrcanus (134-104 B.C.) that the city was finally resettled by Jews, for the region of Galilee was reconquered by this Hasmonean ruler. (Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account)

Though inconsequential, Nazareth is close enough to a major city to not be deemed backward or remote. Walter L. Liefeld (b. 1927) and David W. Pao (b. 1966) situate:

It was off, though not totally inaccessible from the main trade routes. Its close proximity...to the major city of Sepphoris...reminds us that Nazareth was not exactly isolated from the wider cultural world. Its relatively insignificant size contrasts with Jerusalem, where Gabriel’s previous appearance had taken place. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Luke~Acts (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary))

The text describes Nazareth with the Greek pólis (Luke 1:26). This word is customarily translated as “city” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, RSV), “town” (CEV, HCSB, NIV, NRSV) or “village” (MSG, NLT). Though city is an accurate rendering of the Greek, Nazareth certainly does not comply with modern connotations of this term.

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and, Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) clarify:

The Greek word here translated “town” (polis) is the common Hellenistic term for “city.” Yet Nazareth in Jesus’ day could hardly be described in that way. It was a small village of a few hundred people, perhaps under the administrative control of the nearby city of Sepphoris. (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 227)

John T. Carroll (b. 1954) comments:

Polis (city) in Greek...[is] perhaps reflecting Luke’s own social world more than the size of this small Galilean town. On Luke’s preference for the term polis, even for towns and villages such as Nazareth, Nain (Luke 7:11), and Bethsaida (Luke 9:10), see Richard L. Rohrbaugh [b. 1936], “The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts: Urban Social Relations” 125-26; Douglas E. Oakman [b. 1953], “The Countryside in Luke-Acts” 170. Luke uses polis 39 times in the Gospel (cf. Mark’s 8 times) and kōmē (village) only 12 times (cf. 7 in Mark). (Carroll, Luke: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 38)

The city’s name has several variant spellings in the New Testament. Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) surveys:

The form of the name of the town varies much, between Nazareth, Nazaret, Nazara, and Nazarath. Karl Theodor Keim [1825-1878] has twice contended strongly for Nazara (Jesus of Nazara, English translation ii. p. 16, iv. p. 108); but he has not persuaded many of the correctness of his conclusions. Brooke Foss Westcott [1825-1901] and Fenton John Anthony Hort [1828-1892] consider that the evidence when tabulated presents little ambiguity (ii. App. p. 160). Ναζαράθ is found frequently (eight out of eleven times) in Codex Δ, but hardly anywhere else. Ναζαρά is used once by Matthew (Matthew 4:13), and perhaps once by Luke (Luke 4:16). Ναζαρέθ occurs once in Matthew (Matthew 21:11) and once in Acts (Acts 10:38). Everywhere else we have certainly or probably Ναζαρέτ. Thus Matthew uses the three possible forms equally; Luke all three with a decided preference for Nazaret; while Mark and John use Nazaret only. This appears to be fairly conclusive for Nazaret. Yet Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener [1831-1891] holds that “regarding the orthography of this word no reasonable certainty is to be attained” (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, ii. p. 316); and Henry Alford [1810-1871] seems to be of a similar opinion (I. Prolegomena, p. 97). Bernhard Weiss [1827-1918] thinks that Nazara may have been the original form, but that it had already become unusual when the Gospels were written. (Plummer, St. Luke (International Critical Commentary), 21)

The name’s origin is also disputed. Charles R. Swindoll (b. 1934) speculates:

The name Nazareth most likely derives from one of two Hebrew terms. Netser is the Hebrew word for “branch” or “shoot,” which forms a wordplay for Isaiah (Isaiah 11:1) and Matthew (Matthew 2:23). Just as likely is the Hebrew word natsar, which means “to watch.” Nazareth rested in a bowl-shaped depression 1150 feet (350 meters) above sea level. This made it a perfect place to keep watch over the vast Jezreel Valley (a.k.a. the Plain of Esdraelon, the Valley of Megiddo, Armageddon), roughly one thousand feet below. (Swindoll, Insights on Luke, 43)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) relays:

It has been suggested by Paul Barnett [b. 1935] that the name Nazareth derives from the Hebrew word netzer (branch), indicating that it was resettled by those of Davidic ancestry (see Isaiah 11:1 about the branch and the root of Jesse). The connection between the word netzer and Nazareth seems apparent in texts like Mark 10:47 and Luke 18:37-38. Mary and Joseph, if of Davidic descent, may have found this a natural place to settle at some point. (Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account)

What is not debated is Nazareth’s insignificance, which is apparent when Luke supplies the qualifying phrase “a city in Galilee called...” (Luke 1:26). Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) researches:

Called Nazareth [is]...literally, “the name of which was Nazareth.” Though this phrase is lacking in manuscripts D and the Vetus Latina, it is otherwise attested by the best Greek manuscripts. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (The Anchor Bible), 343)

The narrator further identifies the locale with the descriptor “in Galilee”. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) notes:

The description της Γαλιλαίας (Luke 4:31) is added for the benefit of non-Palestinian readers who would probably never have heard of so insignificant a village as Nazareth (Luke 2:4, 39, 51, 4:16, Acts 10:38). The name is variously spelled, modern editors preferring Ναζαρέθ (see Paul Winter [1904-1969], ‘“Nazareth” and “Jerusalem” in Luke chapters 1 and 2’, New Testament Studies 3, 1956-57, 136-42). The site of Nazareth in the Galileean hills has long been known, but only recently has inscriptional evidence been found (Jack Finegan [1908-2000], 27-33). (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Greek Testament Commentary), 64)

The audience’s incomprehension is assumed. This is reasonable as there would be no cause for someone outside of the region to know of Nazareth. The obscure locale simply does not have much to commend it.

David A. Neale briefs:

Nazareth...is so obscure that it is never mentioned in the Old Testament, or in Josephus [37-100]’ list of fifty-six towns in the Galilee. Neither is Nazareth mentioned in the Talmud, which lists sixty-three towns there. “From Jewish literary texts, then, across almost one thousand five hundred years, nothing” (John Dominic Crossan [b. 1934] 1991, 15). This utter obscurity is in itself a literary motif; Jesus a “nobody” from a town no one notices, rises to prominence on the center stage with Jerusalem, albeit tragically so. (Neale, Luke 1-9: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 56)

Jonathan Marshall (b. 1978) explores:

Work on Nazareth tends to conclude that it was predominantly a peasant Jewish village with no political importance or conclusive evidence of Hellenization or Romanization before A.D. 40. Following the growing consensus ...on the ethnicity of Galileeans in general, Jonathan L. Reed [b. 1963] and John Dominic Crossan [b. 1934] argue that the people of Nazareth were most likely “Hasmonean colonizers or Jewish settlers” who had arrived within the last two centuries before the common era. Material evidence confirms the picture of a small, Jewish village of approximately 5 hectares and 400 persons. (Marshall, Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors: Roman Palestine and the Gospel of Luke, 71)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) encapsulates:

The town of Nazareth receives no notice in Scripture, intertestamental literature, Josephus [37-100], or rabbinic literature. This means that the story moves from sacred temple space [Luke 1:8-25] and Judea to farflung nowheresville in Galilee. (Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 78)

Nazareth is so insignificant that it took centuries to discover it in the archaeological record. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) informs:

The existence of this insignificant Galileean hamlet is known...from a Hebrew inscription found in 1962 at Caesarea Maritima which, though now fragmentary, listed the twenty-four priestly courses...and the villages or towns where they were resident. It locates the eighteenth course, Happizzez (I Chronicles 24:15), at Nsrt, “Nazareth.” The inscription dates from the end of the third to the beginning of the fourth century A.D. See Michael Avi-Yonah [1900-1974], “A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea,” Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962) 137-139; “The Caesarea Inscription of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses,” in The Teacher’s Yoke: Studies in Memory of Henry Trantham [1882-1962] (editors E. Jerry Vardaman [1927-2000] and James Leo Garrett, Jr. [b. 1925]; Waco, TX: Baylor University, 1964) 46-57. The later prominence of the town is the result of the Christian gospel tradition; for ancient descriptions of it, see Donato Baldi [1888-1965], Enchiridion Locorum Sanctorum § 1-42. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (The Anchor Bible), 343)

Jonathan L. Reed (b. 1963) expounds:

Excavations under several churches have found dwellings dug into bedrock and around caves. Silos, olive and wine presses, as well as storage jar receptacles are indicative of the village’s agricultural base. Evidence for a necropolis helps determine the extent of the 1st-century ruins, which correlate to a population of well under 500...A 3rd-century C.E. synagogue mosaic inscription from Caesarea locates one of the Jewish priestly courses at Nazareth after the destruction of the temple. It is doubtful that a priestly connection can be retrojected into the 1st century, but it does indicate that Nazareth was acceptable for Jewish priests to settle. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], “Nazareth”, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 951)

The detour to Nazareth marks a major departure. Joel B. Green (b. 1956) tracks:

Zechariah’s encounter with Gabriel takes place at the center of the Jewish world, the Holy Place, only a veiled doorway from the presence of God’s glory [Luke 1:5-25]. But Gabriel travels to Mary, far away from the temple mount in Jerusalem, to Nazareth in Galilee — insignificant, despised unclean...The geographical focus has shifted north, from Jerusalem and the Judean hills, to Nazareth in Galilee. The narrative has departed the socio-religious culture center, the temple. Gabriel holds these scenes together as God’s spokesperson [Luke 1:19, 26]. (Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 84-85)

This geographical shift likely jolted Luke’s original audience. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) characterizes:

The setting of the Annunciation drew amazement from first-century Jewish readers because Gabriel ignored Judea, the heartland of God’s work through the centuries, and came to Galilee, a land that was the subject of abiding Jewish contempt because of its mongrelized population. Even more, the angel not only bypassed Judea for Galilee, but the city of Jerusalem for the village of Nazareth. Nazareth was a “non-place.”...Nazareth, a shoddy, corrupt halfway stop between the port cities of Tyre and Sidon, was overrun by Gentiles and Roman soldiers. When guileless, straight-talking Nathaniel mentioned Nazareth, he said, “‘Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?’” (John 1:46), implying that it was miserably corrupt. By consensus, Nazareth was not much. (Hughes, Luke, Volume One: That You May Know the Truth (Preaching the Word), 29)

Mary is not presented as being any more exceptional than her town of origin. F. Scott Spencer (b. 1956) observes:

Unlike Zechariah’s profile [Luke 1:5-7], Mary’s introduction elicits little expectation of spiritual acumen. She appears as an unremarkable young engaged woman, with the most common Jewish female name of the period, from a small, no-account Galilean village called Nazareth...Her husband-to-be comes from a promising lineage (“the house of David”), but is otherwise undistinguished. Gabriel pays Mary a special visit in her home hamlet, not in the Jerusalem temple, and there is no indication that she has been praying or seeking divine guidance. The angel’s appearance and annunciation are acts of pure grace. (Spencer, The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles (Interpreting Biblical Texts), 104)

Though Nazareth is insignificant, God’s use of it is very significant. God could have positioned Jesus anywhere and yet chooses to place him nowhere. This gives hope to all who stem from humble roots. Jesus’ rearing in Nazareth is a reminder that Christ did not come just for the rich, the religious and the important. As his name indicates, Jesus comes to save all.

Of all of the places in the world, why did God implant Jesus in Nazareth? How do you picture Nazareth? What contemporary location would you equate to ancient Nazareth? Who do you know of who came from nowhere? Who has put their hometown on the map?

Luke’s narrative will revisit Nazareth. Ju Hur notifies:

The geographical settings in the prologue anticipate those given in the rest of the Gospel: desert (Luke 1:80), Judea (Luke 1:39, 65, 2:4), Galilee or Nazareth (Luke 1:26, 2:4, 39, 51) and Jerusalem (Luke 2:22, 25, 38, 41, 45; cf. Bethlehem: Luke 2:4, 15). (Hur, A Dynamic Reading of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts, 197)

Jesus will not only return to his hometown (Luke 4:16-30) but will forever be known as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Luke 4:34, 18:37; Acts 10:38, 26:9). Robert F. O’Toole (b. 1936) educates:

More than any other New Testament writer, Luke writes of Jesus’ being from Nazareth...Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and people later use the name of this town to identify him. The annunciation to Mary occurred in Nazareth (Luke 1:26); and since Jesus was from the house of David, Joseph and Mary leave from there to go to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4), but they return with Jesus to Nazareth (Luke 2:39; cf. Luke 2:51) to live...Even evil spirits address him as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Luke 4:34), and by the time of Acts 24:5 the Christians are described as the sect of the Nazarenes. The ordinary people (Luke 18:37) and the disciples refer to Jesus “of Nazareth” (Luke 24:19)...During his earthly life and after his resurrection, both friend and foe knew him as Jesus of Nazareth. (O’Toole, Luke’s Presentation of Jesus: A Christology, 8-9)

Jesus is still remembered as Jesus of Nazareth, a designation to which he never seems to object. Christ’s lowly origins serve as a constant reminder not to overlook anyone no matter how insignificant they may appear to be on the surface.

How do you think that being raised in Nazareth shaped Jesus? Do you think, in modern terms, that Jesus’ hometown represented a “p.r. nightmare”? Where are you from? How does the perception of your hometown shape your image?

“The person you consider ignorant and insignificant is the one who came from God, that he might learn bliss from grief and knowledge from gloom.” - Khalil Gibran (1883-1931)

Shepherds Kept Their Watching (Luke 2)

Which gospel tells of the visit of the shepherds to the manger? Luke (2)

The Christmas story is one of the most familiar in all of the world. Though one of the standard features of the nativity is the visit of the shepherds, these important witnesses appear only in Luke’s gospel (Luke 2:8-20).

Immediately, after Jesus’ birth in a manger (Luke 2:1-7), Luke shifts the scene to a nearby field (Luke 2:8).

In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night. (Luke 2:8 NASB)

Though the shepherds seemingly come out fo nowhere, this is not the case. Joel B. Green (b. 1956) explains:

Though their introduction may seem abrupt, they have been anticipated in implicit ways by the continued mention of David (shepherd-cum-king — I Kings 16:11-13; cf. Luke 1:27, 32, 69, 2:4 [2x]) and of the lowly (Luke 1:52). This account is also tied to the preceding material by geographical (“in that region” — Luke 2:8) and temporal (“this day” — Luke 2:11) markers. (Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 130)

While the shepherds are going about their business, the sacred enters the profane with the emergence of an angelic visitor (Luke 2:9). The scene is set at night which heightens the drama and accentuates the contrast between the darkness of the night sky and the startling appearance of the unexpected visitor. The angel, eventually accompanied by an angelic host, is the bearer of good news: the Savior of the world has been born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:9-15).

After hearing this proclamation, the shepherds rush to confirm the angelic account (Luke 2:15-20). Outside of his own family, the first witnesses to Jesus are lowly, anonymous night shift shepherds.

Justo L. González (b. 1937) interjects:

The story about the inn, the manger, and the shepherds has been told so often that it is difficult for us to see its full poignancy. This is not a mellow, bucolic story about some shepherds tending their sheep with little or no care beyond the possibility of a wandering wolf. This is not the setting in which Luke presents the story...The setting of the shepherds keeping their flocks at night is much less tranquil and romantic. They live out in the fields, suffer all kinds of deprivations and even dangers, in order to protect their flocks...It is in that scene, perhaps silent, but not as peaceful as we tend to depict it, that an angel suddenly appears before the shepherds. (González, Luke (Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible), 33-34)

Since the time of Constantine (272-337), Christmas has been celebrated in December, initially to coincide with a pagan feast called Saturnalia. Many attempts to pinpoint the precise date of Jesus’ birth have been made based upon the account of the shepherds’ visit.

Walter L. Liefeld (b. 1927) comments:

That the shepherds were out in the fields at night does not preclude a December date, as the winter in Judea was mild. But, of course, the text says nothing about the time of year. The traditional date for the nativity was set, long after the event, to coincide with a pagan festival, thus demonstrating that the “Sol Invictus,” the “Unconquerable Sun,” had indeed been conquered. December 25 was widely celebrated as the date of Jesus’ birth by the end of the fourth century. (Liefeld, Luke (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 51)

Despite much speculation, none of the theories offering a more precise birthdate are definitive.

Though not reflected in most translations (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), the Greek text informs that the shepherds are literally “keeping watches” (MSG, YLT), meaning that they were taking shifts (Luke 2:8).

The text also suggests that the shepherds lived outside. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) explicates, “The participle agraulountes means that the shepherds made the open fields (agroi) their house (aulē). (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (The Anchor Bible), 409).”

William Barclay (1907-1978) speculates:

These were in all likelihood very special shepherds...In the Temple, morning and evening, an unblemished lamb was offered as a sacrifice to God. To see that the supply of perfect offerings was always available the Temple authorities had their own private sheep flocks; and we know that these flocks were pastured near Bethlehem. It is most likely that these shepherds were in charge of the flocks from which the Temple offerings were chosen. It is a lovely thought that the shepherds who looked after the Temple lambs were the first to see the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. (Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Daily Study Bible Series), 27-28)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) adds:

It is not unlikely that the shepherds were pasturing flocks destined for the temple sacrifices. Flocks were supposed to be kept only in the wilderness (Mishnah, Baba Kamma 7:7; Talmud, Baba Kamma 79b-80a), and a rabbinic rule provides that any animal found between Jerusalem and a spot near Bethlehem must be presumed to be a sacrificial victim (Mishnah, Shekalim 7:4). The same rule speaks of finding Passover offerings within thirty days of that feast, i.e. in February...As a class shepherds had a bad reputation. The nature of their calling kept them from observing the ceremonial law which meant so much to religious people. More regrettable was their unfortunate habit of confusing ‘mine’ with ‘thine’ as they moved about the country. They were considered unreliable and were not allowed to give testimony in the lawcourts (Talmud, Sanhedrin 25b). There is no reason for thinking that Luke’s shepherds were other than devout men, else why would God have given them such a privilege? But they did come from a despised class. (Morris, Luke (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 93)

As Morris discusses, shepherds were not looked kindly upon, especially in a later era. Their occupation required them to perform activities that would designate them as “unclean” and also kept them away from the temple to remedy the predicament.

William R. Herzog II (b. 1944) expounds:

Much has been made of the shepherds as members of a despised profession because they were considered unclean in the eyes of Pharisees and other Temple authorities and dishonest in the eyes of tribute collectors. The reason is that shepherds had movable assets, so when news spread that the tribute collector would be arriving in a village, the shepherds could drive some of their flock into the Judean wilderness where they might escape detection. Trees, vineyards, and crops cannot be moved and so will be taxed fully, but sheep and other livestock are a different story. This practice may explain the expression, “as dishonest as a Judean shepherd.” Of course, this would reflect the tribute collectors’ evaluation of shepherds, who would more likely be viewed as heroes in their villages. Shepherds were, no doubt, considered unclean by Temple authorities or political factions like the Pharisees, who emphasized a purity agenda, but this was true of all peasants alike, not just shepherds. (Herzog, Ann M. Svennungsen [b. 1955], Timothy Shapiro & Marilyn J. Salmon [b. 1948], New Proclamation Year C, 2006-2007: Advent Through Holy Week, 45)

If Luke views the shepherds as thieves, the gospel is incorporating poetic symmetry as Jesus would have spent both his birth and his death in the company of criminals (Luke 23:32-43).

Others respond that though shepherds might have had a bad reputation outside of the Bible, this is simply not the case within its pages. Shepherds often symbolize all who care for God’s people including God (Psalm 23:1; Isaiah 40:11; Jeremiah 23:1-4; Ezekiel 34:23; Hebrews 13:20; I Peter 2:25, 5:2). In many psalms attributed to David, the king relates God’s connection to humanity as that of a shepherd to sheep (Psalm 23:1, 28:9, 100:3). There are also many prominent examples of godly Old Testament shepherds, e.g. Abel (Genesis 4:2-4), Jacob (Genesis 31:3-13); Joseph (Genesis 37:2-9), Moses (Exodus 3:1-6), David (I Samuel 16:11-13), Amos (Amos 1:1, 7:14).

Whatever their reputation, of all of the people in the world, God chooses shepherds to be the first witnesses to Jesus’ birth. Luke actually stresses this facet.

Keith F. Nickle (b. 1933) clarifies:

Luke’s narrative emphasis falls not on the birth itself but rather on the angelic announcement of that birth to the shepherds and their response to it...In sharp contrast to the simplicity of the account Luke had given the birth itself, the shepherds experience an angel vision, an extraordinary message, the chorusing of the angelic legion! (Nickle, Preaching the Gospel of Luke: Proclaiming God's Royal Rule, 24)

Shepherds fulfilling the role of witness is in many ways apropos. Eduard Schweizer (1913-2006) critiques:

Shepherds play a role in Hellenistic birth narratives, but David was also a shepherd in the vicinity of Bethlehem (I Samuel 17:15, 16:4, 11; cf. Psalm 78:70-72). Later rabbis looked for the birth of the Messiah, the Shepherd of Israel, at the “tower of the flock” (Micah 4:8) near Bethlehem (Micah 5:1-2)...This notion may be in the background here rather than the later rabbinic attitude that looked down on shepherds. (Schweizer, The Good News According to Luke, 49)

Fred B. Craddock (b. 1928) adds:

They belong in the story not only because they serve to tie Jesus to the shepherd king, David (II Samuel 7:8), but also because they belong on Luke’s guest list for the kingdom of God: the poor, the maimed, the blind, the lame (Luke 14:13, 21). And so the shepherds go to the city of David. The shepherds and the scene are described with some of Luke’s favorite words, words he has used before: wondering, pondering in the heart, making known the revelation, praising and glorifying God. The stable is bare, but the glory of God floods the story. (Craddock, Luke (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 36)

Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1934) concurs:

The shepherds fit the setting of Jesus’ birth. They are ordinary folk who work with animals. Although some interpreters appeal to later rabbinic writings to argue that shepherds were viewed as sinners, it is doubtful that this view is assumed in this scene...Probably there is a connection between the shepherds and the repeated reference to Bethlehem as the “city of David” (Luke 2:4, 11). David was a shepherd before being anointed king (I Samuel 16:11), and later is told, “It is you who shall be shepherd of my people Israel” (II Samuel 5:2). Ezekiel speaks of a future David who will be shepherd over Israel (Ezekiel 34:23), and Micah, in speaking of the ruler who will come from Bethlehem, says that he will “feed his flock in the strength of the LORD” (Micah 5:4). The figure of the shepherd has the same ambiguous quality as a royal baby in a manger. A shepherd is an ordinary fellow who would not feel out of place in a stable. A shepherd is also a symbol of kingship. (Tannehill, Luke (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 65)

The fact that shepherds, ordinary people doing an ordinary job on a presumably ordinary day, are the first witnesses to Jesus’ birth is significant. Luke’s story stands in stark contrast to the visitors in Matthew’s account, the only other canonical telling of Jesus’ birth, which features the more prestigious magi or wisemen (Matthew 2:1-12).

Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) notices:

No scholars or court officials visit the baby in Luke’s version of the story. Instead of the magi bearing lavish gifts that Matthew describes (Matthew 2:1-11), in Luke only some shepherds come (Luke 2:8-20). Shepherds...were among the poor, and by the standards of the most religiously meticulous people, they were outcasts. They lived a hard life out in the fields, far removed from the comforts and leisure that would allow them to follow the rules for food preparation, purification, and other aspects of religious practice. They lived a life wrapped in danger as they tried to protect the animals from both human marauders and various wild beasts (see John 10:1-18 for sketch of the shepherd’s life). (Ringe, Luke (Westminster Bible Companion), 42)

The shepherds and the types of people they represent are important to Luke. Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) interprets:

The testimony to Jesus’ birth from the angelic host to shepherds is significant in scope. Creation has no more mysterious and exalted beings than angels, who represent the testimony of the heavens to what is occurring. Moreover, there are no more “normal Joes” in ancient culture than shepherds. They represent the lowly and humble who respond to God’s message, for their vocation is seen positively in Scripture (Matthew 18:12; Mark 6:34; Luke 15:4; John 10:1-18; Ephesians 4:11; Hebrews 13:2; I Peter 2:25). Thus, heaven meets and greets the average person through the angelic announcement to these pastoral figures. Jesus’ birth is more than a family affair. The announcement of “good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10) indicates that God desires to speak to every person about the coming of Jesus, since all humanity is impacted by his coming. (Bock, Luke (The NIV Application Commentary), 84)

The shepherds serving as witnesses corresponds to Luke’s central theme. Charles H. Talbert (b.1934) connects:

This good news...is for “all people” (Luke 2:10), outcast as well as in-group. In Luke’s time shepherds were often considered outside the law. Their testimony was considered invalid because of their reputation for dishonesty (b. Sanhedrin 25b). Yet it was to such as these the angel announced the good news of the Savior’s birth (Luke 2:8-11). This can only be regarded as a foreshadowing of the subsequent theme of God’s grace shown to sinners that runs throughout Luke. The messianic Lord is the friend of sinners (e.g., Luke 5:29-32, 7:36-50, 10:30-37, 15:1-2, 17:11-19, 19:1-10). It is to sinners Jesus promises good news (e.g., Luke 18:9-14, 15:11-32). The news that Jesus’ birth signals the benefit of peace is intended for all the people. This is cause for great joy. (Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel, 35)

The shepherds are just the first of many marginalized people depicted in Luke-Acts where the gospel spreads from the bottom up. Ronald J. Allen (b. 1949) traces:

Luke uses the announcement to the shepherds to make an important point: the realm will renew the entire social world. By the end of the book of Acts, the good news that comes first to shepherds (at the bottom of the social pyramid) has made its way to high officials in the Roman Empire and even to Rome itself (Acts 21:17-28:31). All who repent..are welcome in the realm. (Allen, The Life of Jesus for Today, 32)

Bruce Larson (1925-2008) theorizes:

There is an old saying that “war is too important to be left to the generals.” I suggest peace is too important to be left to the diplomats. The professionals have messed it up again and again. In giving this message to the shepherds God bypassed the professional peacemakers. He gave the message and its interpretation to amateurs. We need amateur peacemakers. The great diplomats and ambassadors of two thousand years ago, the councils that met and the peace treaties that were signed are mostly forgotten. But the world still reverberates with the peacemaking message of a group of amateur preachers and peacemakers like the apostle Paul and Luke himself. (Larson, Luke (Mastering the New Testament), 51)

Often lost in the familiarity of the nativity is that the first witnesses to Jesus’ birth are humble shepherds. The shepherds’ presence accents the fact that the Savior of the world was born in a manger. The shocking thing about the shepherds’ presence, given this setting, is that it is not shocking at all.

Why are shepherds the first witnesses to the birth of the long awaited Savior, as opposed to priests and scribes who would presumably have had a higher appreciation for the event? When has God broken into the ordinary affairs of your life? Have you ever met God on the job? When have you been the first to hear good news? What newborn baby have you rushed to see? Do you know who was present the day that you were born?

The shepherds were placed in a situation that they could not possibly have been prepared for. David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) construes:

That the doxa (“glory, beauty”) of the Lord should shine around humble shepherds on a Judean hillside is an event of enormous portent and hugely counterintuitive to normative religious thinking. The shepherds are understandably unprepared, as would anyone be in their place, for they can only relate what they see to the bright Shekinah glory of God’s holy presence in the tabernacle (Exodus 16:10; Psalm 63:2; Isaiah 40:5; Ezekiel 1:1-28). How should such a presence be borne by unhallowed men? (Jeffrey, Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 40)

The response of the shepherds, however, demonstrates that they were the right people for the job. They immediately run to Jesus, a suitable reaction to most any situation.

Max Lucado (b. 1955) observes:

It wasn’t enough to see the angels. You’d think it would have been...But it wasn’t enough to see the angels. The shepherds wanted to see the one who sent the angels. Since they wouldn’t be satisfied until they saw him, you can trace the long line of Jesus-seekers to a person of the pasture who said, “Let’s go...Let’s see”. (Lucado, Just Like Jesus: Learning to Have a Heart Like His, 154-55)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) lauds:

The shepherds have the type of response any of us should have as we contemplate these events. Their curiosity leads them to go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened. As they see God’s word honored in the presence of the sign, they come to testify to God’s work and tell the story of the child...The audience to the shepherds’ report were amazed. Their response exemplifies the awe that should fill anyone who hears Jesus’ story...In addition, there is the shepherds’ glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen. The birth is no mere arrival of new life, as poignant as each such event is. The story is not told so that hearers can identify with the new mother and father or enjoy a story of hope, of a touching birth in humble surroundings. The birth has value because of whose birth it is. The shepherds have found that the angel’s words were true, that events have transpired just as they had been told. God’s word is coming to pass; his plan is again strategically at work. They break out in praise to God because he has sent Jesus, the Savior, Lord and Christ. (Bock, Luke (IVP New Testament Commentary), 56-57)

How do you respond to Jesus’ birth? What does Christmas mean to you?

“Maybe Christmas”, he thought, “doesn’t come from a store.”
“Maybe Christmas... perhaps... means a little bit more!”
— Dr. Seuss (1904-1991), How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1957)

Hammering Out Cherubim (Exodus 25:18)

What was on either end of the mercy seat above the Ark of the Covenant? A cherub (Exodus 25:18)

In the midst of the Israelites’ wilderness wandering, God lays out specific instructions regarding the tabernacle and its contents (Exodus 25-31). The first item detailed is the Ark of the Covenant, a chest that represents the Old Testament’s most holy article (Exodus 25:10-22).

Stephen J. Binz (b. 1955) acknowledges:

The ark takes first place among the elements of the Dwelling due to its central importance in the whole structure. It is the symbol and vehicle of God’s nearness with Israel, serving as both container for the symbols of the covenant and as throne for Yahweh’s presence. Its size was unimposing; a cubit [Exodus 25:10] represented the distance from one’s elbow to fingertips. The opulence of its gold plating and molding suggests its importance as the most sacred object in the Dwelling. (Binz, God of Freedom and Life: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 99)

The second half of the instructions describe the construction of the “atonement cover” (MSG, NIV, NLT) or “mercy seat” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NSRV, RSV), the box’s top (Exodus 25:17-22). Two golden cherubim (the plural of cherub) are ordered to flank the mercy seat (Exodus 25:18).

You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat. (Exodus 25:18 NASB)

It is between these cherubim that God promises to speak to the Israelites (Exodus 25:22).

Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) details:

The dimensions of the atonement cover are exactly those of the lid of the ark (see Exodus 25:10) it was designed to fit over precisely. It was to be made of pure gold, not a slab of wood overlaid with gold as the rest of the major surfaces of the ark were. At its ends were two pure “hammered gold” statues of uncertain height (but probably more than a cubit high at the very most and more likely only a few inches high in light of the overall proportions of the ark) that portrayed cherubim. (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary, Vol. 2), 571)

Cherubim are supernatural beings often equated with angels. Aside from their name, Exodus provides no further description of the creatures.

Peter Enns (b. 1961) denotes:

The sudden reference to these creatures (in the Pentateuch cherubim also occur in Genesis 3:24 and Numbers 7:89) implies that they need no explanation for the Israelite readers. Cherubim appear not only over the cover but throughout the design of the tabernacle, a sign that the tabernacle is a symbolic representation of God’s heavenly dwelling...The presence of the cherubim also emphasizes the holiness of the ark...It is God’s location above the cover and between the cherubim that has led some scholars to regard the cover as God’s throne and the ark itself his footstool. This is not just a scholarly conjecture. A number of passages speak of God being enthroned between the cherubim (I Samuel 4:4; II Samuel 6:2; Psalm 80:1, 99:1). (Enns, Exodus (The NIV Application Commentary), 512)

Cherubim become the first angels to appear in the Bible when they guard the abandoned garden of Eden (Genesis 3:24). In Exodus, they reprise their role as bodyguards, symbolically guarding the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18).

Mark S. Smith (b. 1955) catalogs:

Cherubim guard the garden of Eden (Genesis 3:24), and they mark the walls of the Jerusalem temple (I Kings 6:29-32; cf. Ezekiel 41:18-10). In II Samuel 22:11 (Psalm 18:11) the Lord rides his cherub on the wind. Two cherubs make up two sides of a royal throne on a piece of ivory from Megiddo; the comparison suggests that the ark had a propitiatory function as a throne, with the Lord serving as divine king. Adding the sizes of the ark and the propitiatory heights, the seat of the throne stands five feet in height and conjures a picture of a superman-size divine king. (Smith, Exodus (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), 97)

The cherubim are one of the most distinctive aspects of the Ark of the Covenant. Waldemar Janzen (b. 1932) lauds:

Its outstanding features are its two cherubim of gold...one mounted on each end of the cover and facing each other (Exodus 25:19-20). Neither their features nor their function are described, beyond the reference to faces and wings...Artists have depicted in diverse ways not only their appearance but also their position on the mercy seat and the way their wings touch each other. (Janzen, Exodus (Believers Church Bible Commentary), 340)

John I. Durham (b. 1933) describes:

These cherubs were to be made with their wings spread and stretched out over the Ark-Cover, their bodies turned toward each other, their faces bowed towards the Ark-Cover. The cherubs have usually been connected with Yahweh’s throne, both as guardians and bearers. (Durham, Exodus (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 3), 359)

Richard A. Gabriel (b. 1942) sees a strong parallel between the Ark’s winged cherubim and the Egyptian throne room:

The relief at Abu Simbel...shows Ramses’ cartouche, the Egyptian symbol of the presence of the god that Ramses was regarded to be, flanked on either side by a representation of the falcon god, Horus. The wings of Horus cover pharaoh’s garden throne in a symbol of divine protection. The relief is starkly similar to the description of the wings of the two cherubim that cover and protect Yahweh’s golden throne in the Tabernacle. (Gabriel, The Military History of Ancient Israel, 96)

J. Gerald Janzen (b. 1932) adds:

The cherubim resemble figures in Assyrian and Canaanite art that can flank a throne. In the tabernacle, they serve as the throne or throne-flank above which the LORD is invisibly seated. Their symbolism receives added dimension from the reference to cherubim in Genesis 3:24. There, the cherubim guard a sacred garden with its tree of life, intended for human habitation but now guarded from further profanation by those who have violated the life-serving law of that garden. (Janzen, Exodus (Westminster Bible Companion), 195)

The ornamentation would have been quite expensive. Gayle A. McCoy estimates:

Made of hammered pure gold, these cherubim, according to Exodus 25:18...were “graven in gold.”...The Bible does not give us an exact size of the cherubim, but we can estimate the approximate size because the cherubim were large enough that their wings touched over the mercy seat (Exodus 25:20). The cherubim could have been cast or molded on an armature making the figures hollow. As we see in...Exodus 25:12, casting was a known Egyptian skill at this time. If sculpture-forming by use of an armature was knot known at that time, the molding could have been on average about half-inch thick...On the other hand, if they were solid gold figures, they would weigh much, much more than hollow figures. Let us assume that they used hollow figures and covered them with approximately 904 lbs. of gold. “Graven,” meaning to carve (Exodus 25:18), is as close as the Bible tells us how the cherubim were formed. Of course, carving is essentially what a sculptor does, whether in wood, stone or clay. (McCoy, God’s Golden Box: The Ark of the Covenant, 83)

Exactly what cherubim look like is subject to debate. H.L. Ellison (1903-1983) recognizes:

The cherubim are variously depicted. Here they are not described, but there are variants between Ezekiel 1:5-12, 41:18-10; Revelation 4:6-7. They are apparently the guardian spirits of this earthly creation: the description is symbolic, and so variation is unimportant. (Ellison, Exodus (Old Testament Daily Study Bible Series), 142)

James K. Bruckner (b. 1957) adds:

The text does not describe the features of the cherubim in further detail, but it is certain they were not the chubby winged boys of European art. Ezekiel pictures them with four faces each (man, lion, ox, eagle; Ezekiel 10:14) and also with two faces (man and lion; Ezekiel 41:18-19). Tradition describes them as having the face of a man and the body of a bill or lion (like a sphinx). Their functions are to guard holy things and attend the Lord. In Genesis 3:24, cherubim guarded the entrance to the garden of Eden, in order to protect the tree of life. The cherubim are the Lord’s chariot in Psalm 18:10, and also in Ezekiel 10. (Bruckner, Exodus (New International Biblical Commentary), 240-241)

Though most likely inaccurate, cherubim have long been associated with childish features. Joel M. Hoffman (b. 1968) traces this fallacy back to the great Jewish rabbi, Rashi (1040-1105):

Rashi [1040-1105] points out that the cherubs have “the image of a child’s face.” His reasoning? The Hebrew word for cherubs is kruvim, a word that happens to sound like the Aramaic word k’ravya. (The similarity is more pronounced in Hebrew than in English transliterations here, because in Hebrew vowels are generally less important than they are in English.) The Aramaic prefix k’ravya means “like child” in Aramaic. Rashi, basing his decision on the mid-first-millennium Babylonian Talmud, concludes that the kruvim must be k’ravya—that is, the cherubs must be “like a child.” (Hoffman, And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning, 29-30)

There is one constant in the depiction of cherubim. Jennie R. Ebeling (b. 1972) relays:

The only uniformity among the many examples known from ancient Near Eastern art is that cherubim were winged creatures. Statues and reliefs depicting various types of cherubim have been found at many Near Eastern sites, including Aleppo, Carchemish, and Byblos; carved ivory depictions of cherubim have been found at Samaria and Nimrud. Many examples of colossal winged bulls and other beasts are known from Babylonian and Assyrian palaces and temples. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 233)

The reason for the winged creatures’ presence atop the mercy seat is not specified. Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) concludes:

Whatever the original inspiration, the cherubim of the Tabernacle certainly communicate some concepts of God that are fundamental to the religion of Israel. As bearers of the celestial throne, they evoke belief in divine, transcendent sovereignty. Their permanent place above the Ark expresses God’s immanence—His enduring presence in the covenanated community of Israel. Their outstretched wings represent the idea of consummate mobility, that is, of God’s omnipresence. (Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, 161)

What sensation is the imagery of the Ark of the Covenant designed to evoke? What does the architecture of the Ark communicate about God? Why are cherubs perched atop Israel’s holiest artifact? How do you visualize cherubs? Do these cherubim violate the second commandment’s prohibition against graven images?

Some have seen a contradiction between the mandate to adorn the ark with golden cherubim (Exodus 25:18-20) and the disallowance of creating “graven images” issued just five chapters earlier (Exodus 20:4-5; Deuteronomy 4:15- 16). The forbidden graven images are those that would be worshiped as false gods. In contrast, others have used this passage to support the veneration of images, seeing the passage as irrefutable evidence that iconography has an approved place in authorized worship.

Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944) deciphers:

In the Old Testament, alongside the prohibition of humanlike images, it was commanded that sculptural gold images of angels be made. What meaning can we attach to this apparent contradiction, which for some proves that human images were prohibited while for others is proves just the opposite? The portrayal of angels — and this is the crux of the matter — contained human images, in virtue of the cohumanity of angels. Of course they differed from human images in some of their particular traits, that expressed their specifically angelic nature (wings, the absence of gender, a youthful appearance), but these traits did not change the human character of the image itself (just as in general the Old Testament angelophanies were in the human image). Thus, even though the religious reproduction of the human image, the icon of humanity, was prohibited directly, it was prescribed indirectly, in the icons of angels. Why? The reason is obvious: in the portrayals of angels the human image was not darkened by sin. (Bulgakov, Icons and the Name of God, 59-60)

Jon E. Roeckelein (b.1937) chronicles:

Curiously, F.L. Cross [1900-1968] and E.A. Livingstone...state that “there is no mention of imagery in the New Testament, as at least from the time of the Maccabees the Palestinian Jews had observed the second commandment religiously” (cf. W.E. Vine [1873-1949] [1981], and a literal distinction between the terms image and imagery; while the term image actually is used in the New Testament [e.g., II Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3], the derivative term imagery as referring to idols, statues, and images–as objects of worship or veneration and as employed in the Old Testament—does not appear in the New Testament.) However, Cross and Livingstone..also state that “[i]t was only when the theological significance of the Incarnation came to be more fully grasped, and what was involved in the fact that God had become visible by making human nature better understood, that, to many, there seemed to be no further obstacle to the use of images and other products of artistic gifts of mankind in the service of the true religion.” (Roeckelein, Imagery in Psychology: A Reference Guide, 135)

How does your church visually promote worship? How important is aesthetics to a place of worship? Why? Do visual representations of spiritual ideas help your faith?

“The image is more than an idea. It is a vortex or cluster of fused ideas and is endowed with energy.” - Ezra Pound (1885-1972), “Affirmations IV: As for Imagisme”. New Age 16.13 (January 28, 1915), pages 349-350

Entertaining Angels (Hebrews 13:2)

Complete: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for ___________________________________________.” Thereby some have entertained angels unawares (Hebrews 13:2)

Hebrews concludes with a series of exhortations. The first is to love one another, philadelphia (Hebrews 13:1) and is followed by a directive to show hospitality, philoxenia (Hebrews 13:2).

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it. (Hebrews 13:2 NASB)

The text moves from loving inside of the community to demonstrating love outside its borders. The word rendered “hospitality” (philoxenia) literally means a love of strangers. The word is used only here (Hebrews 13:2) and in Romans 12:13 in the New Testament. Kathleen Norris (b. 1947) writes, “True hospitality is marked by an open response to the dignity of each and every person. Henri Nouwen (1932-1996) has described it as receiving the stranger on his own terms, and asserts that it can be offered only by those who ‘have found the center of their lives in their own hearts’ (Norris, Dakota: A Spiritual Geography, 197).”

Hospitality was a primary virtue in the ancient world. Caring for strangers was a solemn responsibility in the Old Testament (Genesis 18:1-8, 19:1-3; Judges 19:19-21; Job 31:32) and practiced by the New Testament church (Acts 10:23, 21:16, 28:7). Hebrews’ mandate fits with Jesus’ teaching that hospitality extends to those who cannot possibly repay it (Matthew 25:31-46; Luke 14:1-14).

The ancients placed special emphasis on providing lodging as inns were typically places of ill repute and travelers naturally preferred accommodation in private residences. Peter T. O’Brien (b. 1935) explains, “Among Jews and Gentiles alike, hospitality to strangers was highly regarded, and even considered a religious obligation. It usually involved lodging as well as food and drink (O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 506).”

How would you define hospitality? Who is the most hospitable person you know? Where would you rank hospitality among the virtues?

Hebrews adds an incentive to follow this mandate with a tantalizing potentiality - in demonstrating hospitality, one might be entertaining an angel in disguise (Hebrews 13:2)! Hebrews devotes a section to the cosmic pecking order and includes that humans rank slightly lower than their angelic counterparts (Hebrews 2:5-9). In claiming that a stranger may in actuality be an angel, the author is in effect advising to treat all strangers as if they were God’s direct emissaries because they might well be. The enticement serves the same function as the fable of the king who anonymously inserted his child into the community so that each child would be treated as though they were the prince. People tend to treat someone differently whom they feel is of a superior ilk.

There was precedent for unknowingly entertaining angels. While Gideon (Judges 6:11-21), Manoah (Judges 13:3-20) and Tobit (Tobit 3:17, 5:4-16) all encountered unrecognizable angels, the most notable case is that of Abraham (Genesis 18:2-15). George H. Guthrie (b. 1959) reminds, “The supreme paradigm for hospitality in early Jewish literature was the hospitality of Abraham, shown to his heavenly visitors (Genesis 18:2-15), which is probably alluded to in Hebrews 13:2 (Guthrie, NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews, 435-6).”

Despite the precedence, interacting with disguised angels is a rarity, even in the Bible. With this in mind, F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) comments that the author “is not necessarily encouraging his readers to expect that those whom they entertain will turn out to be supernatural beings traveling incognito; he is assuring them that some of their visitors will prove to be true messengers of God to them, bringing a greater blessing than they receive (Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 371).”

What is the purpose of disguised angelic visits? How common do you feel this experience is? When have you been unfamiliar with someone you have entertained? Do you feel you have ever interacted with an angel? If you did, how would you know?

“Insight is better than eyesight when it comes to seeing an angel.” - Eileen Elias Freeman (b. 1947), The Angels’ Little Instruction Book