NITEWRIT'S OWN COMPANION AND COMMENTARY OF THE GOSPELS

CALLING OF MATTHEW

2012-02-09T06:35:00.000-05:00

“The Feast in the House of Levi” by Paolo Galliari Veronese, 1573

CALLING OF MATTHEW

Matthew 9:9-17; Mark 2:13-22; Luke 5:27-39

And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted to him and he taught them.

Jesus fame and popularity grew in Galilee, especially along the coast of Capernaum. Multitudes of people follow in his comings and goings. Many have come to hear what he says, but a great number are interested in his ability to cure.

And after these things, as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man as he passed by named Matthew Levi, the son of Alphaeus, a publicansitting at the receipt of custom: and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he left all, arose, and followed him.

One day walking through the streets of Capernaum he looks at a publican working in his stall. The man has two names, Levi and Matthew. Some critics have tried to insist Levi and Matthew were two different persons, but it is obvious from Scripture they were the same man. It was not unusual for people to have two names in those times. Levi was the third son of Jacob whose descendents became the priestly class. It was common practice to name a child after past important figures in Jewish history. There is some speculation that Matthew was a name given to him by Jesus, much as Christ renamed Simon to Peter. Matthew is also from a Hebrew root and means Gift of Jehovah. It is interesting that Levi means, “joined”. Perhaps the naming was the other way around since Matthew joined with Jesus.

There are also critics who claim there are two different Matthews, the tax collector named here in scripture and some anonymous person who wrote the Gospel of Matthew. These critics do what all elitist and cynics do, base their judgment on the basis that someone couldn’t have accomplished certain things because they lacked the background and education of the elitists. But Matthew was an educated man to be a publican and probably versed in Latin, Greek and Aramaic. Because these men who became Jesus’ followers did not have college degrees did not mean they lacked knowledge or understanding of God and the Jewish Scriptures.

Matthew’s background is unknown, except for a few passages of the Gospel. He was the son of Alphaeus. This may mean that Mathew was the brother of James the Less, son of Alphaeus. That is not illogical. It is quiet possible, just as Andrew fetched his brother Simon to Christ, Matthew may have brought his brother James.

Jesus passed by and said, “Follow me” and Matthew got up, left his occupation on the spot and did. I don’t think it was a sudden whim. Jesus was preaching in Capernaum for a while by now. Matthew may have heard him at times, may even have been following him about. He may have had good reasons to be seeking a new life.

He was a publican, not a particularly admired profession. No one likes the tax collector and when the collector is more often than not corrupt and overcharging it borders on hatred. This was doubly so for Matthew, a Jew collecting duties for Rome. His people viewed him as a traitor.

Tax collectors were not as we have today. The publicans were freelancers, not elected or appointed. They placed bids with the Roman senate to acquire a post. They made their money by charging a fee over and beyond what the tax was. It was also common practice to exaggerate the tax and keep the difference.

There were two levels of publicans. Those who made the bids at the Senate were the chief publicans and generally came from the elite class of Romans called Equites. These were the ancestors of the equestrian or knight class. Matthew most likely belonged to the second level of publicans, who we can view as franchisees. These men worked for the Chief Publicans. All publicans could become wealthy within such a system.

And it came to pass that Levi made him a great feast in his own houseand as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, a great many publicans and other sinners came and sat down also together with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many and they followed him.

From this passage we see Matthew was among the publicans who did well financially. He also must have had influence among the others in his trade for a great many came to this feast he threw. Why did he have this feast? He wanted his friends to see and hear Jesus. This also tells us not to avoid those we know are sinners, but to reach out to them and try to help them see just who Christ is.

But when their scribes and Pharisees saw it, him eat with publicans and sinners, they murmured against his disciples and said to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with publicans and sinners? How is it that your Master eats and drinks with publicans and sinners?”

Jesus has acquired enough notice by this time that the Scribes and Pharisees are dogging his steps. They aren’t interested in his message as much as catching him in some blasphemy. These men would not ever sit down and eat with the type of person Matthew is or his friends. They were too Holier-than-thou to mingle with sinners, seeing themselves as above sin.

But when Jesus heard that, answering, he said to them, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. But go you and learn what that means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

I doubt that these Scribes and Pharisees understood this explanation. They were too committed to judgment of those not like themselves. This is a warning to us as well. We as saved Christians must never see ourselves above the sinners we once were. Jesus saved and guides us, but our human natures are no different from the corrupt and lost around us. I think we look too forward to judgment rather than concentrating on mercy. It isn’t our job to condemn the sinners of this world, but to lead them to salvation.

PREFACE AND PURPOSE

2010-03-20T20:41:00.000-04:00

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Throughout my I have harmonized passages from the four Gospels to support a point or theme. I often find putting these passages together as a narrative gives a fuller picture of what happened at the time. It also clears up some of the supposed conflicts between the four writers. As one of my New Year Resolutions for 2009, I decided to do my own narrative harmony and commentary of the New Testament.

You might ask, why? Harmonies of the Gospel exist, isn't this just reinventing the wheel?

I have two reasons. The first is dissatisfaction with harmonies I have. They take the four Gospels and put them in four columns on the page aligning the various texts in chronological order. This makes for choppy reading that is sometimes distracting. I found one harmony several years ago that integrated the Gospels into narrative form. It was called The Life of Christ in Stereo. My only problem is the text used isn't from the more popular translations, but a translation made by that particular author.

I had intended originally to use the New International Version of the Bible for my Scriptural texts; however, there are limitations to use of the NIV as it is under copyright, Therefore, I have chosen to use the King James Version, which is in the Public Domain. I have not altered the KJV from the original, except for minor changes from Old English convention to Modern English. For example, changing “thee” and “thou” to “you” or “thy” and “thine” to “your”. In very rare instances an archaic word may also have been altered to the modern equivalent, such as “privily” to “privately”.

My second reason is the more important to me. I feel if I put together my own harmonized narrative of the Gospels it will help me understand God's Word better. As I put the passages together, I look into the context of the times and the relationship of the narrative to other books of the Bible. This way I expect to learn a lot more than I currently know.

I pray for wisdom and insight, and that I don’t wander astray in my comments; however, I am not a Gospel writer and make no claim of infallibility. My commentary is my expressed opinion and I am certainly capable of error. Consider what I say, but follow it up with your own research and study before accepting it as fact. Many of the peripheral details of Jesus’ life, such as the date of his birth and death, what happened to Joseph, or exactly where was he baptized, are subject to conjecture and have been argued for centuries. I have incorporated my own viewpoint into my narrative, but such are strictly my opinion and do not claim to be definitive, correct or settle any long-running debate on such matters. These issues are not substantive to the fact of Christ Jesus’ existence, purpose, virgin birth, miracles, death, burial or resurrection; or to the purpose and will of God in His life or to the need and way to salvation for humankind. These side issues in no way alter, disprove or change the facts of Jesus’ ministry or the events of his life as presented by the Gospel writers. The issues discussed about exact dates and some other details in Jesus’ life are no different than those of any other ancient history, except scholars have often consented to an undeterminable fact about other characters of history and ignored conflicting evidences (See “Problems with Dates and Place”).

I expect it will take me some time to complete this study begun early in 2009 .As I write this preface it is nearly one quarter of a year into 2010. My narrative is 136 pages long containing 32,660 words and has only reached the very beginning of Christ’s first ministry. There is no rush. The purpose is to understand the life of Christ better, to be more able to tell other people about the Good News and to draw myself ever nearer to the Lord.

Putting this out as a Website (www.nitewrit.info) places my progress and resolve under other eyes. I do this making you, Gentle Reader, my conscience and my encourager.

A PROBLEM WITH DATES

2010-03-20T20:40:00.000-04:00

Portrait of Shakespeare by Martin Droeshout, 1623

When was William Shakespeare born and when did he die? What did he look like? These should be pretty knowable things. After all, Shakespeare breathed his last less that 400 years ago and almost 1,600 years after Jesus Christ was crucified. This is not ancient history. Shakespeare lived after 1500 AD; the year generally considered the beginning of modern civilization.

There is his familiar likeness above and schoolbooks tell us he was born on April 23, 1564 and died on his fifty-second birthday, April 23, 1616.

Except we really don’t know for certain what he looked like and those birth-death dates, which are probably close and possibly correct, are merely conjecture, not established fact. The portrait above appeared on a Folio of Shakespeare’s work rendered by a man who, in all likelihood, had never seen Shakespeare, seven years after the playwright’s death. Every likeness since has been based on that portrait. There is no written description of Shakespeare’s looks or contemporary portrait in existence. (There have been a couple of paintings unearthed in recent years with claims of being made during Shakespeare like, but these are not authenticated.)

As to the dates, his birth has been conjectured as April 23, 1564 because there is a baptism registry at Holy Trinity Parish Church in Stratford dated April 26, 1564. Since it was a common practice to baptize three days after birth, it is assumed his birthday was on the 23^rd. However, common practice is not certainty. Infants were sometimes baptized on the day of birth and sometimes not baptized until months later.

Somewhat the same reasoning is used in establishing his death. His burial is registered in the same Stratford Church as April 25, 1616. How long before his funeral did he die? Well, April 23 makes for a convenient date because it is St. George’s Day and St. George is the Patron Saint of England. What better date for England’s greatest writer to have been both born and died? Of course, there has been a long debate if Shakespeare actually wrote those plays that earned him that accolade.

The death of Julius Caesar occurred on the Ides of March (the 15^th), 44 BC or at least that is the preponderance of acceptance. There may be one problem if the writings of Pliny the Elder are accurate. Pliny was born the closest to the death of Julius than the other ancient historians, especially Plutarch, who we depend upon. Plutarch was born in 46 AD and Pliny was born in 23 AD.

According to Pliny there was a solar eclipse in the year of Julius’ death sometime after he was dead. There were no visible solar eclipses in the Roman Empire during 44 BC or the immediate years around it. There was such an eclipse in August 49 BC.

Pliny also quotes Augustus Caesar as saying he saw, soon after Julius’ death, a comet in the northern skies over a period of seven days. Such a comet was recorded in 49 BC, but not in 44 BC. So was Julius Caesar actually assassinated in 49 BC instead of 44 BC?

I don’t know? Can we rely on the writing of one ancient historian? (Unlike other issues discussed throughout this document where multiple sources support the statements made, I have only found one source so far claiming that Julius Caesar died in 49 BC, Biblical Chronology. There information about solar eclipses and comets is supported elsewhere, but that these occurred during the year of Caesar’s death seems to rely mainly on the writings of Pliny the Elder. I would want further documentation on this one.)

We do know Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by 23 men and his last words were, “Et tu Brute?” Right?

Well, maybe; maybe not. We really aren’t sure of Julius’ last words. Suetonius wrote they were “You too, child?” Plutarch wrote Julius uttered no last words. It was Shakespeare who put the words “Et tu Brute” into Caesar’s mouth, you know the guy who may or may not have been born and died on April 23 and may or may not have written “Julius Caesar”.

How many men assassinated Julius Caesar? One credible source says 23 men, another says 37 did and yet another says 60 men were involved. More honest accounts admit the number isn’t known.

Let’s step back even further in our list of great men to Alexander the Great. We hear much about this man with little question as to the veracity of the accounts of his life. It is interesting that critics attack the accuracy of biographies of Christ’s life because they were written dozens of years after his departure, but except willingly the biographies of Alexander written 500 years after his death. (To this day, exactly how Alexander died is uncertain.) His date of birth is categorically given as either July 20 or 21 of 356 BC. This is based on Alexander being born on the Hecatombacon Sixth of the Athenian Festival Calendar. However, the Athenians were very sloppy calendar keepers or we should say calendars, for they had a second calendar for the political year. Hecatombacon was the first month of the Festival calendar and in theory began on the first new moon after the summer solstice. We say theoretically because the astrological, civil and religious calendars did not agree on when the months began, how many there were in a given year or how many days long they were. Despite the statement that Alexander was born on July 20 or 21 of 356 BC, the truth is it is impossible to really know.

This raises the subject of our calendar and the birth of Jesus, whom it is supposedly based upon. After all, BC stands for “Before Christ” and AD is short for “Anno Domini”, which means “In the Year of Our Lord”. (You will notice I stand by these designation rather than the more recent attempts to secularize the division by using BCE “Before the Common Era” and CE “Common Era”.)

It is problematic establishing conclusive dates, especially dates in ancient history. Obviously we can have difficulties because there was not always a standardized calendar, as we have seen with the Greeks. Various countries and people had their own means of counting time. The Jews and Romans, for instance, based their calendars on moon cycles, while we use a calendar today based on the earth’s orbit of the sun.

The standardized worldwide calendar of our time is called the Gregorian calendar. There was a partially standardized calendar prior to the Gregorian called the Julian calendar. Although both are based on the revolution of the Earth around the Sun, they did have a slight difference in the count of days and had to be adjusted. Both require a leap year every four years. However, leap years were erroneously added every three years early in the use of the Julian and this over time resulted in a loss of ten days.

Although the Gregorian corrected some of the errors of the Julian calendar, it presented some problems of its own. Years in the Gregorian were dated from the birth of Christ. Years after his birth were counted forward and those before his birth were counted backward. The span of someone who lived in AD would be shown as 1900-1970 AD, while a person born in BC would be shown as 1970-1900 BC. There is no year zero, which further adds confusion. Some people think 2010 is the first year of a new decade, but in reality it is the last year of the current decade; 1999 was not the last year of the previous century, 2000 was. Our current century began on January 1, 2001.

Furthermore, 1 AD is not correct as the first year of Christ’s life, which is a matter of considerable dispute.

The Julian and Gregorian Calendars are not that old relatively. The Roman’s had a rather messy Calendar up to Julius Caesar. One big problem with it was politicians and others would change it to curry favor, thereby making exact dating difficult. This Calendar had become such an unreliable tool by the time of Julius Caesar that he had a new Calendar created. This was the Julian calendar. It was created in 46 BC and went into use in 45 BC. This was replaced by our modern calendar in 1582 under the auspices of Pope Gregory XIII, for whom it is named.

One of those fringe issues that divert people’s attention to the Gospel truths about Jesus is the debate over his birth date. Information given by Luke and Matthew about certain personages is often used to try and pinpoint the year.

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was {governor} of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register. Luke 2:1-3

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magifrom the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." Matthew 2:1-2

There isn’t much doubt that Caesar Augustus, Quirinius and Herod the Great were contemporaries around the period where BC ended and AD began. However, one question raised is the status of Quirinius during the time prior to 1 AD. It is accepted that Quirinius was Governor of Syria by 6 AD, but not earlier. Remember though, we are dealing with ancient times fraught with questionable histories and dating procedures, not to mention missing or unknown records. Still, there are several possible answers to the Quirinius Question.

The word translated in Scripture as “governor” was “hegemon”, which means “ruling officer or procurator”. Quirinius did not become actual governor {legatus – different word} until later, but there is no reason to dispute Luke calling him a ruling officer at this time. Quirinius was serving in an official governing position in the last decade of BC (and there were many censuses taken during this period of time, any number of which could have been this one).

Other legitimate possibilities have their defenders. One is that Quirinius served as governor more than once and there is archeological evidence to the effect he did so serve during the later years of BC. A second proposition is there was another man named Quirinius. (Names are another area of confusion in ancient times and two people are often mistaken as one and the same. Sometimes one individual is also thought to be two different individuals because they went by more than one name.) Another argument is that Luke’s Greek was translated wrongly and should have been translated as “before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” Yet, another argument is that Jesus was actually born between 5 and 8 AD. This argument hinges on the theory that Herod the Great died in 8 AD, not 4 BC and there are proponents who make a case for 8 AD. (Personally, I am not among those who place Christ’s birth that late.)

Now, why does Herod’s death date come into the discussion? Because Herod was alive when Jesus was born according to Matthew. It was commonly accepted that Herod died in 4 BC and thus estimated that Jesus was born in 5 or 6 BC. (It is sometimes assumed Jesus must have been a child about two years old when the Magi visited and told Herod when the Star first appeared. Why? It was assumed so because Herod ordered all boys in Bethlehem up to the age of two to be killed. This is only conjecture. Herod may very well been playing it safe, overkill as it were, and Jesus may have still been an infant when the Magi came.)

But nothing is set in stone when we deal with dates two thousand years ago. So when did Herod die? Well, pick a year: 6 BC, 4 BC, 1 BC or 8 AD. In many reference books it will say he died in 4 BC. However, more recent evidence suggests he died in 1 BC.

Part of the difficulty is much bout Herod relied upon the works of Flavius Josephus (37 – 100 AD). Josephus wrote a twenty-volume history called “The Antiquities of the Jews” and an eight-volume history called “The War of the Jews”. Josephus wrote two accounts concerning the life of Herod the Great, but these contain inconsistencies and discrepancies on events and the age of Herod at the time these occurred.

There are very good arguments based on known information that Herod died later that 4 BC and I am leaning toward the persuasions that he died in 1 BC. (You can find more information supporting this in the Catholic Encyclopedia, in Novum Testamentum by Andrew E. Steinmann or at www.bethlehemstar.net among others. (I recommend bethlehemstar as a very thought provoking theory that Christ was born in June of 2 BC, the Magi arrived in Bethlehem in December 2 BC (on the 25^th no less) and that Herod died in 1 BC.)

I believe all the swirling debates over dates are inconclusive, circumstantial and speculative, and do not affect the truth or accuracy of Scripture. I trust the Scriptural account more than any questionable opinions written by men, including my own. I take the stand the account of Jesus’ life is true and accurate according to the Word of God. We should concentrate on the story of salvation, rather than be diverted into irresolvable bickering over dates. There exists enough evidence to support any apologetic of supposed conflicts within the Bible to render criticism mote and inconsequential.

One final consideration, in looking backward from a distance, we mustn’t forget contemporary acceptance. Certainly we have record of those enemies of Christ who brought accusations against him, the Apostles and the early Church. These included calling Jesus and his Disciples drunkards, claiming Jesus was the illigitament son of a Roman soldier and spreading a rumor his disciples stole the body from the tomb. These are smear campaigns much as we see today between political oppenents. There are theological debates and arguments within the church over procedural and devotional matters. But there isn’t dispute over historic facts.

Luke addressed both his Gospel and Acts to Theophilus, for instance (refer to “Luke’s Introduction” in Part I). If Luke’s information about the personages mentioned or issues such as the census were incorrect, Theophilus most likely would have caught the error and informed Luke of it. Why would Theophilus be receptive to a second volume, Acts, if he saw major errors of recent history in the first volume?

We mustn’t lose sight that when Luke and the others wrote their accounts and letters there were those alive familiar with the facts. If a biographer of John F. Kennedy wrote that Mark Chapman assassinated him in Denver in 1959, there would be many, many people quick to complain to the publisher about these errors because they had been alive at the time and remembered it was Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in 1963. Subsequent edition of the biography would correct this or the book would soon be assigned to the junk heap and oblivion. Why would we think grievous errors in Luke or any other Gospel writer on the daily news of their times would escape contemporary notice?

INTRODUCTION

2010-03-20T20:39:00.000-04:00

Adam and Eve by Raphael (Raffaello Santi of Urbino), 1509-1511.

When God created Adam and Eve the world was good. They fell into disobedience and sin was brought into the world. This tainted everything and brought death to all. But before the creation God had a plan in place to restore mankind. Even as he put a curse on the world, he made this promise of a future redeemer:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15

Although created by God, Adam and Eve inclined toward their own desires and by listening to Satan man became the Devil’s adopted offspring. But there would be a future offspring of woman, one not of any man, who would eventually crush the head of evil. His name would be Jesus.

However, in those early times, men grieved God so much by their depravity he considered wiping all off the face of the Earth. Still, he remembered his promise of The Redeemer and God never breaks a promise. God found one righteous man and his family to save a sample of each living creature. Noah was not the promised Redeemer of course. Noah did not redeem mankind. He merely preserved it and allowed it to start anew. The sinful nature that began with Adam was preserved along with mankind and the promise of a coming Redeemer was still needed.

Among the survivors, of the Flood God had used to destroy his creation were Noah’s three sons. All the people living upon the planet today descended from those three.

The inhabitants of what we call the Middle East basically descended from Shem. Thus they are known as Semites. Shem’s grandson was Eber. Jewish tradition holds that Eber refused to help in the building of the Tower of Babel and he was allowed to retain his own language, the original language of mankind. Eber’s descendents were Eberites. However, the name Eber was sometimes shown as Heber (I had an Uncle Heber named for him) and in time his descendents and their language was called Hebrew. A further descendent of Eber was Abrams, who was renamed by God as Abraham. He was to become the great patriarch of the Hebrews and they were God’s Chosen people from whom the Redeemer would one day come and they were to show God’s way to the world. (The name Jew referred to those of the Tribe of Judah, but the name eventually came to mean all those of the Hebrew faith.)

Despite the fresh start, as the population grew, people again turned to wickedness, even the Chosen People. God sent prophets to warn them and call them to repentance, but they ignored and sometimes even killed these messengers. Finally, God dispersed the Hebrews and sent many into captivity in Babylon. The country of Israel and Judah was taken from them and Jerusalem and the temple destroyed. The Law itself was lost to the people for decades.

In 539 B.C., King Nabonidus surrendered Babylon to the Persian King Cyrus without a fight. Within the year, the first Jews were allowed to return to their former homeland. By 516 B.C. a new temple had been built.

Ezra, accompanied by about 5,000 former exiles, arrived out of Babylon in 458 B.C. Nehemiah was overseeing the building of a reconstructed wall around Jerusalem, and after its completion in 445 B.C., Ezra stood and read the Law of Moses to the assembled people. (The Book of the Law had been rediscovered during construction.) Since the Law had been lost, the people were overjoyed at hearing it again. They forsook idols and returned to accepting the One and Only Mighty God.

Despite these incredible events, a mere 15 years later the Jews had strayed again. They were sacrificing blemished animals, showing their disrespect to God, and they were marrying foreigners. Why was it bad to marry foreigners? Because God had promised a redeemer and he had promised this redeemer would be a direct and unblemished descendent of Abraham and of David. If the Jews continued to marry with foreigners that ancestry would be lost and God’s plan could not be fulfilled.

So in 430 B.C., God raised up a prophet named Malachi who warned the Jews of coming judgment if they didn’t repent. His prophecies came with assurances of God’s love for them and a promise of salvation. And so it was with these words in Malachi quoting God that the Old Testament comes to an end:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. Malachi 4:5-6

We have 400 silent years between the Old and New Testaments; between the prophesies of Malachi and the Birth of Our Lord, Christ Jesus. Much changed in the world in those years.

Alexander the Great defeated Persia in 331 B.C. King Darius was killed by his own men. Alexander went on to rule the known world until 323 B.C., when he died under mysterious circumstances.

His empire was divided among four of his top generals and split into four sectors ruled thusly: Seleucus (Asia), Ptolemy (Egypt), Lysimachus (Thrace) and Cassander, son of Antipater over Macedonia/Greece. (Many think of Cleopatra VII [69 B.C. - 30 B.C.] as Egyptian, but she was Macedonian/Greek being the last Ptolemy ruler of Egypt, which upon her death became part of the Roman Empire. Her father was Pharaoh Ptolemy XII Auletes his sister, Cleopatra V Tryphaena, was most likely her mother. (Cleopatra VII was married to two of her own brothers, before having her famous liaisons with Julius Caesar and Marc Antony.)

The Jews, after Alexander, came under Seleucid rule. However, when the Seleucid King Antiochus defiled the Jewish Temple in 167 B.C. (a foreshadowing of the future Antichrist), Judah Maccabeus led a Jewish Army, which defeated the Seleucids. This began what is called the Hasmonean Rule of Palestine. However, in 63 B.C., the great Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem and Israel once again lost its independence and came under Roman Rule.

In 42 B.C., Mark Antony appointed Herod tetrarch of Galilee. The Jews resented him because he wasn’t a Jew. He was an Idumean with an Arabian mother. (Idumea was the Greek name for Edom, which bordered Judea on the south. This was a land populated by the descendents of Esau, Edom being another name of his. Esau was the brother of Jacob. The Edomites were perpetual thorns in the side of the Israelites. Given the history between Israel and Edom, it is no wonder the Jews were not happy to have Herod named their king.) During the Parthian War, Herod had to flee because the Jews sided with the Parthians. But after the war and order was restored, Rome reinstated Herod as the sole ruler of Judea. Thus in 37 B.C., Herod the Great was King of the Jews. He was ruling when Jesus was born.

During the Hasmonean Rule arose three important factions among the Jews: Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes.

The Pharisees were spiritual leaders to the extreme. They not only embraced the Law, but also began to add to it their own interpretation and traditions. They did, however, believe in an afterlife, the judgment of the wicked and a coming Messiah.

The Sadducees were an elite priestly group, yet liberally embraced Greek ways into their lives. They insisted on a literal interpretation of the Law rejecting the ideas of the Pharisees, including resurrection. Their lives revolved around ritual and the Temple. They disappeared from history with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

The Essenes didn’t like either of the other two groups. They became monks, moved to the desert and strictly obeyed dietary laws and being celibate. They are associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

During this time a body came into existence known as the Sanhedrin (sitting together). It was a ruling institution for the Jews, a sort of Supreme Court and legislature rolled into one. It consisted of 71 Jewish elders and was presided over by a President and a Chancellor. Members of the Sanhedrin did not gain a seat by election. The supplanted a sitting member on the council be establishing superior knowledge of the Law. (Nicodemus and Saul [Paul) held seats in the council at times.) Both Pharisees and Sadducees were members of this group.

Another group often mention is Scripture were the Scribes. These were akin to attorneys.

So when we come to the beginning of the New Testament and the birth of Jesus, the world is quite different than it was when Malachi talked of a coming prophet like Elijah. The Persian Empire has been replaced by the Roman Empire. The King of Judea is not of the line of David, but a non-Jew named Herod. The Jewish religion and tradition is not being directed by God’s chosen prophets, but is in the hands of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. It is also a time when many Jews are earnestly expecting the promised Messiah to come as a king that will defeat Rome and rule as David once did. This is the world at the time the Christ came.

PART I

2010-03-20T20:38:00.000-04:00

BIRTH OF CHRIST

Birth of Christ by Antoine Pesne, 1745

LUKE’S INTRODUCTION

2010-03-20T20:37:00.001-04:00

St. Luke by Simone Martini, Circa 1330

Luke 1:1-4

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things, which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them to us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the certainty of those things, wherein you have been instructed.

Luke also addressed the Book of Acts to Theophilus, the identity of whom is unknown. Several suggestions exist. One possibility is the name is a pseudonym since it literally means “lover of god”. Because Luke addresses him as “most excellent Theophilus” there is speculation that he was a Roman official. The statement of purpose, “that you might know the certainty of those things, wherein you have been instructed” makes me wonder if Theophilus was a fairly recent convert to the faith. It may be Theophilus was a pseudonym because being Christian might be a treat to his position.

There is also a theory this was Theophilus ben Ananus, who held the position of High priest from 37 to 41 AD This man was the son of Annas and the brother-in-law of Caiaphas. His son also served as the next to last High Priest before the destruction of the Temple by Rome in 70 AD. Archeologists uncovered an ossuary (burial place) bearing an inscription, “Johanna, granddaughter of Theophilus, the High Priest” [D. Barag and D. Flusser, “The Ossuary of Yehohanah Granddaughter of the High Priest Theophilus”, Israel Exploration Journal, #36 (1986), pp. 39-44]

(It is interesting it was Luke who mentions a Joanna (a variant spelling for Johanna) as one of the women following Jesus who went to the tomb on Resurrection Sunday. Is it possible these are one and the same person?)

ETERNAL EXISTENCE OF CHRIST AS THE SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY

2010-03-20T20:36:00.000-04:00

The Trinity by El Greco (Domenikos Theotocopoulos), 1577

Genesis 1:1-4 and John 1:1-5; 9-13

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And God said, “Let there be light:” and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And the light shined in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. That was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world. [The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. (NIV)]

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came to his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

HISTORICAL GENEALOGY OF JESUS FROM ABRAHAM THROUGH JOSEPH

2010-03-20T20:35:00.000-04:00

St. Joseph with the Jesus Child by Guido Reni, c. 1620-1630

Matthew 1:1-17

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren. And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

And Jesse begat David the king and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias. And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa. And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias. And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias. And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias. And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel. And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor. And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud. And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob. And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generation

LEGAL GENEALOGY OF MARY

2010-03-20T20:34:00.001-04:00

Virgin with Child and Rosary by Bartolome Esteban Murillo, circa 1870

Luke 3:23b-38

[Jesus] being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son [-in-law] of Heli. Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph. Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge. Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda. Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri. Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er. Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi. Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim. Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David. Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson. Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda. Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor. Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala. Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech. Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan. Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Why do these Gospel writers bother giving these genealogies? One reason is the Messiah had to be a descendent of Abraham, through Isaac, through Jacob through Judah. Another reason is God promised the Messiah would be a son of David, meaning a male of the line of King David. There were also legal implications. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, showing he was a descendent of King David through David’s son Solomon. Luke gives Mary’s genealogy and we see she also descended from King David through his son Nathan. These genealogies establish that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah on both sides and also of royal blood on both sides. Although Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph, Joseph was legally recognized as his father and it was the father’s line that was important as far as the authorities of the law would have been concerned. At any rate, Jesus had an established claim to being an heir to David.

It is unusual though for Mary’s genealogy to be included. Why was it?

A study of these genealogies would probably yield many interesting facts. For one, there is an unusual inclusion of women in the record. Women were not generally counted in the genealogies, but there are five mentioned in the ancestry of Jesus.

The first mentioned is Tamar (traditional held to be a daughter of Shem.). She was the wife of Judah’s oldest son, Er, unfortunately Er was so wicked that God put him to death childless. As was the custom of the times, Judah then ordered his second son, Onan, to give Tamar a son to carry on the name of his brother Er. (A surrogate father, remember this practice when you read the question of the Sadducees to Jesus about who is married to whom in Heaven.) Onan was selfish. He didn’t want to father a child who wouldn’t carry his own name, so he practiced coitus interruptus. The result of this was Tamar didn’t get pregnant and Onan died.

Judah was running out of sons. He had a third, Shelah, but was afraid marrying Tamar might be the death of Shelah too, so since the boy was still young he told Tamar to wait until he was fully grown. But when he did grow up, it didn’t happen, most likely because Judah was still afraid Tamar was sure death. Of course, by withholding Shelah, Judah was breaking the laws of inheritance and being unfair to Tamar.

Judah’s wife died and he went away or awhile in his grief. Tamar was impatient to have a child, so she went ahead of him, put on sexy clothes and waited by the road. He saw her there, paid her as a prostitute to sleep with him and as a result she finally got pregnant. He didn’t realize who she was, but he gave her some keepsakes.

A few months later Judah was informed his daughter-in-law was guilty of prostitution and was pregnant. He was going to have her burned to death for her sin, but she said, “Remember these keepsakes?”

Tamar was spared. Judah never slept with her again. She gave birth to his twin boys, Perez and Zerah. At the birth, a hand came out and the midwife tied a scarlet thread to the wrist before the hand was pulled back and Perez was born. Then the child with the scarlet thread finally came out and was named Zerah. Although Zerah was officially the first because of his hand, it is Perez who became the direct ancestor in this legal line of Jesus. (Read Genesis 38.)

The next woman mentioned as an ancestor of Jesus is Rahab. Rahab is a prostitute, not just playing one as Tamar had done, and she is not an Israelite. She lives in Jericho where Joshua has sent spies as he prepares to attack it. Rahab hides the two spies in her house and then aids their escape from her roof. In return, they tell her to tie a scarlet cord in her window. When the city is later sacked, this cord identifies Rahab and her family and keeps them safe. (Read Joshua 2.) Rahab later marries Salmon and becomes the Great-Great-Grandmother of King David.

Rahab was the mother of Boaz, which brings us to the third woman, Ruth. Ruth wasn’t Jewish either. She was a Moabite. The story of Ruth is a portrait of the Redeemer-King and a picture of our Savior. (Read the Book of Ruth.)

The fourth woman isn’t mentioned by name. She is identified as having been Uriah's wife. This, of course, is the infamous Bathsheba. The story of David and Bathsheba is hardly a stellar point in the life of King David. It involves seduction, adultery and murder. (You can read all about it in 2 Samuel 11.)

Tamar, Rahab and Bathsheba are not exactly the type of personage we might expect to be ancestors of The Christ, which probably teaches us we shouldn’t judge anyone by their ancestors.

The last woman mentioned is Mary.

We probably can’t leave the genealogies without mention of Jeconiah (also known as Coniah and Jehoiachim, the son of Jahoiakim). God put a curse on Jeconiah-Jehoiachim:

As I live, said the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck you thence; And I will give you into the hand of them that seek your life, and into the hand of them whose face you fear, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. And I will cast you out, and your mother that bare you, into another country, where you were not born; and there shall you die. But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return. Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? Is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? Wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land, which they know not?

O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus say the LORD, Write you this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Jeremiah 22:24-30

Now we discover why it was important to include Mary’s genealogy. You see Joseph was a descendent of Jeconiah-Jehoiachim and ineligible to sit on David’s Throne because of the curse. Although Joseph was required to be recognized legally for Jesus’ inheritance, if he was the biological father of Jesus then Jesus would not be allowed to sit on David’s throne. However, Jesus was not Joseph’s son, was not of the bloodline of Jeconiah. Joseph descended from Solomon. Mary descended from one of David and Bathsheba’s other sons, Nathan. This made Jesus a blood descendent of David who was eligible to ascend David’s throne. Both genealogies mattered.

THE BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST FORETOLD

2010-03-20T20:33:00.000-04:00

Angel Gabriel and Zechariah by Julius Schnoor von Carolsfeld, 1852-1860

[The Temple in Jerusalem B.C. 6]

Luke 1:5-25

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias [which means YAHWEH Remembers], of the course [priestly division] of Abia [or Abijah]: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth [Elisheva: meaning -My God is abundance]. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.

And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, according to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. And the whole multitude of the people was praying without at the time of incense.

In 1 Chronicles 24, King David divided the priesthood into twenty-four orders. Zachariah was serving in the order of Abijah (Abia). This was the eighth in sequence of the twenty-four orders. Each order served in the temple twice a year for one week each time. They would move to Jerusalem and live together during their period of service.

People have attempted to date the birth of John and the birth of Jesus based on this information. (I admit I tried this myself.) However, dating is difficult. I am of the mind God choose to obscure the actual dates so we wouldn’t become fixed on dates and not the personage. (See “A problem with Dates.)

But since we know the orders served in rotation and Abijah was eighth in the rotation, we think we can pinpoint when Gabriel visited Zachariah and deduce John’s birth from that and then because John is six months older than Jesus, infer Jesus’ birthday.

We could if calendars were exact measurements. Traditionally, the priestly rotation began in the Hebrew month Nissan, which would be mid-March to mid-April. Zachariah’s division would have thus served at the end of Iyyar (mid-April to mid-May) and Marheshvan (mid-October to mid-November). This is the rub. The Jewish calendar was twelve months long, but based on moon cycles, not the rotation around the Sun. The year was 354 days long, 11 days shorter than our solar calendar. Periodically, the Jews added an extra month after Adar, to make up the difference. This result in extra service and caused the service periods to fluctuate from year to year. Without knowing a specific year, it becomes impossible to know exactly when Zachariah was serving when Gabriel appeared.

We do know Zachariah had the great honor of burning the incense that day. This was an honor a priest only received once in his lifetime and it was chosen by lot.

And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him, “Fear not, Zacharias: for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elisabeth shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name John [Yochanan: YAHWEH is gracious].

“And you shall have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias [Elijah], to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

And Zacharias said to the angel, “Whereby shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.”

And the angel answering said to him, “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak to you, and to show you these glad tidings. And, behold, you shall be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because you believed not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

Gabriel had appeared in the Old Testament to Daniel to interpret visions (Daniel 8:15-17 and Daniel 9:20-22). He is to appear again to Mary to tell her she will give birth to Christ. He is considered one of the four archangels. The name Gabriel means “Strong Man of God”.

There are three Archangels named in the Bible. Gabriel, who seems to bring prophesy to humans each time he appears. The name means “Strong man of God”. The name appears four times, twice in Daniel and then Twice in Luke, where he appears first to Zachariah to announce he will father John the Baptist and then to Mary to tell her she will give birth to the Messiah. In Daniel 8 and 9, Gabriel explains to Daniel the meaning of future visions

(It is Islamic tradition that Gabriel visited Muhammad on Mount Hira and this meeting led to future revelations that became the basis of the Qur’an.)

The second Archangel is Michael, meaning, “who is like God”. Also Michael is first mentioned in Daniel, as well as in Jude and Revelation. He always seems to be engaged in battle with the Devil and his demons.

A CONTROVERSIAL THEORY

The Devil is the third named Archangel, the fallen one, who became known as Satan and the Dragon, among other names. There is one place, Isaiah 14:12, he is referred to as Lucifer, meaning “light-bearer” or “Morning Star”. However, the Hebrew word translated in the literal is “shining one” and it comes from a root that can mean boasting or boastful.

Compare “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” Isaiah 14:12 to 2 Peter 1:19, “And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.” The Greek translated “Morning Star” in English would be translated “Lucifer” in Latin, but the verse in 2 Peter refers to Christ. If we translate Isaiah 14 more literally we would get, “O shining one [or boastful one], son of the dawn!” Some make the case that the name Lucifer is another name applied to Christ as the Morning Star. That Satan’s name was Heylel, one who once bore the reflective light of the dawn; that is, Christ his creator, but boasted of it as if he were the light bearer and not simply its reflection.

And the people waited for Zacharias, and marveled that he tarried so long in the temple. And when he came out, he could not speak to them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned to them, and remained speechless.

And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house. And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying, “Thus has the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.”

The people were wondering what was taking him so long. There are bells sews in the hem of his robe, so they probably heard him move about. (There is a myth that the priest had a rope tied about his ankle in case he died. This would allow people to pull him out of the place. This is not true and has no scriptural basis.) When he did come out there was no doubt he had seen a vision.

It is not certain how long afterward Elizabeth became impregnated. It is not certain which day Zachariah served. He would have to serve out his week and then travel home. This trip may have been a couple days long.

Elizabeth, who was a descendent of Aaron, and of the Priestly family of Levites, had never been able to have children. We don’t know if it was her problem or his, but in those times it was always considered the woman’s problem. There was a certain stigma to being barren, which is why she says God took away her reproach.

This has personal meanings for me. My wife could not have children (we lost seven) and she had been told it was impossible for her to have a child. When I became a Christian at age 34, with the prayer of a church and the mercy of God, we had three children. Miracles are very real to me because I experienced them.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS FORETOLD

2010-03-20T20:32:00.000-04:00

The Annunciation by Henry Ossawa Tanner's, 1898

(Nazareth in Galilee Late B.C. 6 or early B.C 5)

Luke 1:26-38

And in the sixth month [referring to the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy] the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph [Yosef: meaning he will add], of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary [Miryam: Most likely is derived from Egyptian mry or beloved].

And the angel came to her, and said, “Hail, you that are highly favored, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women.”

And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

And the angel said to her, “Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor with God. And, behold, you shall conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give to him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”

Then said Mary unto the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God.”

THE PROMISES FULFILLED

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Genesis 3:15

Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Isaiah 7:13-17

But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall he come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travails has brought forth, then the remnant of his brethren shall return to the children of Israel. And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide for now shall he be great to the ends of the earth. And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land and when he shall tread in our palaces then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men. Micah 5:2-5

MARY VISITS ELIZABETH

2010-03-20T20:31:00.000-04:00

Mary’s Visit to Elisabeth by Carl Heinrich Bloch, circa 1850

(Judea Early B.C. 5)

Luke 1:39-56

And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Judea [a distance of 90 to 120 miles]; and entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: and she spoke out with a loud voice, and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of your salutation sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.”

We are told Mary hurried to Elizabeth home. This wasn't like going next door. Elizabeth lived perhaps a hundred miles away. It had to be a trip of a few days. We need to consider this. Gabriel had just informed Mary that she was going to bear God's Son. He also informed her that Elizabeth; a barren woman of advanced years was already pregnant. Mary was a teenager, espoused to a man and living with her parents. Who would you or could you tell that an Angel had visited and said you were going to be pregnant yet a virgin? I think Mary went to her relative because she knew Elizabeth would believe her story, and perhaps, also would confirm the truth of it. I don't know what she told her parents about making this trip and staying away for three months. Perhaps her visit to Elizabeth was viewed as assisting her cousin’s pregnancy. She stayed three months, so might have been present for the birth of John.

Elizabeth knew at once Mary's situation. How did she know? Scripture tells us. It was reveled to her by the Holy Spirit. She shouted her blessing on Mary for all to hear. If Mary had any qualms, they were gone with Elizabeth's exclamation. We see Mary's great faith and humble spirit in her song, which is also called the "Magnificat". This title is simply the first word of her song in the Latin, which began: "Magnificat animum mea Dominum", "My soul magnifies the Lord".

Mary's Song

And Mary said, “My soul does magnify the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty has done to me great things; and holy is his name. And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He has put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He has filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he has sent empty away. He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy; as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.”

And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.

In Mary’s Song we may get an insight as to why this maiden was chosen. It certainly shows knowledge of the Scriptures and understanding of God. It is worshipful and thankful. It contains references to eight separate psalms. [ 34, 71, 98 (twice), 103, 107, 111, 132 and 138.) This was a devout person. However, being devout, pious or religious is not enough to save one and Mary was as much in need of a Savior as any human. She begins her song rejoicing “in God my Savior”.

And yes, I am aware of the dogma of the “Immaculate Conception”, but no, I do not believe that Mary was born free of original sin. There is no basis for this belief in Scripture, a fact admitted by those who adhere to it: “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture” (The Catholic Encyclopedia). The defense of the dogma becomes rather strained and convoluted. The familiar words, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”, which begin the “Hail Mary Prayer” are taken from the Douay-Confraternity Bible translation of Like 1:28, “And when the angel had come to her, he said, ‘Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women’,” is said to indicate the godlike state of Mary’s soul. But the Confraternity is a translation of the Vulgate, which was a Latin version of the Bible. Going back to the Greek, the literal translation is more, “Hail, highly favored, the Lord with you.” This is stated in Young’s Literal Translation as, “Hail, favored one,” in the King James version as, “Hail, thou that art highly favoured”, in the New American Standard Version as, “Greetings, favored one” and in the NIV as, “Greetings, you who are highly favored”. Even being highly favored by God does not preclude the existence of your human nature, inclination toward sin and need for salvation.

We are told only salient details in Scripture. We do not know the reaction of Mary's parents upon her return. She was probably pregnant at this time. We can speculate based on our own reactions if our daughter went off for three month and came home pregnant. We certainly know suspicions were that she was a fallen woman. How so? We know from what we are told about Joseph's reaction and plans, until the Angel also comes to him. If Joseph thought the worse, her parents probably did as well. It must have been a very trying time for them.

Think of the strength of Mary’s faith. It is difficult for us to understand how strong she was because we live in Twenty-First century America. Anyone, even teenagers, getting pregnant outside of marriage is hardly uncommon or harshly condemned anymore.

Mary was not only facing ostracism; she was facing accusation of a capital offence.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:20-21. (NIV)

There would have been no way to hide the fact she was pregnant. Although most women do not show until they are four to five months with child, if Joseph and she married before that time, her loss of virginity would have been discovered on her wedding night. If the marriage were later, then the development of the baby would have exposed her first.

Mary could have claimed she had been raped in the country during her journey to Elisabeth’s home.

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 (NIV)

(Although for this to be an acceptable explanation, she would probably have had to begin yelling she had been raped immediately upon meeting other people.

Mary, in her case, was only secure by the Grace of God.

THE BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

2010-03-20T20:30:00.000-04:00

Birth of John the Baptist by Giovanni di Paolo, circa 1454

(Spring B.C. 5)

Luke 1:57-79

Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son. And her neighbors and her cousins heard how the Lord had shown great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father. And his mother answered and said, “Not so; but he shall be called John.”

And they said to her, “There is none of your kindred that is called by this name.” And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.

And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, “His name is John.”

And they marveled all.

And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spoke, and praised God.

And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea. And all they that heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, “What manner of child shall this be!”

And the hand of the Lord was with him.

It was the tradition of Jews, and this went on for thousands of years, to name a child in honor of a deceased relative (although for some sects, the name could be of a living relative or a great Torah scholar). After the Diaspora [the one following the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD until the 1948 reestablishment of Israel], when the Jews were scattered throughout the world and their land no longer theirs, began a tradition of double naming; that is, giving a Hebrew name and a secular name. Within their own enclaves they would use the Hebrew name, but in the culture they lived within they would use the secular name. But that was to come later, so it must have been a real shock when Zechariah insisted on the name John, whom no one in his family had been called. John means "God is gracious".

God was about to be gracious indeed, about to show the world His Grace through the birth and death of Jesus. I also think the name set John the Baptist apart just as his lifestyle and mission was going to set him apart from other men.

Zechariah's Song

And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he has visited and redeemed his people, and has raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he swore to our father Abraham, that he would grant to us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

“And you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Highest: for you shall go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to give knowledge of salvation to his people by the remission of their sins, through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high has visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.”

Mary had been visited by Gabriel and told she would bear God's Son. She immediately went to visit her relative, Elizabeth, who lived some distance away and she stayed there for three months.

Here are a couple of things to consider. We were told in scripture it was the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy when the Angel appeared to Mary, and Mary then stayed with Elizabeth for three months. It seems quite reasonable that Mary was present at John the Baptist's birth and then came back home. Perhaps this was her explanation to her parents for her journey, to tend to Elizabeth during the pregnancy and birthing.

Since Mary was not yet pregnant when she went to Elizabeth, we can logically assume Joseph's visitation occurred after her return. She probably was reveled as "with child" upon arrival back. This would look bad; of course, your teenage daughter goes away for three months and returns home pregnant. This was a very grave matter. One wonders if Elizabeth sent any message of support with Mary, since Elizabeth had experienced a miracle under similar circumstances of angelic visits. Elizabeth obviously understood and believed Mary's story. We don't know what Mary's parents thought of this, but we do know Joseph's reaction. He was distraught.

THE ANGEL’S APPEARANCE TO JOSEPH

2010-03-20T20:29:00.000-04:00

"The Dream of Joseph" circa 1640 AD by Georges de La Tour.

(Nazareth B.C. 5)

Matthew 1:18-25a

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. [Secretly or privately. The NIV translates this as: “He had in mind to divorce her quietly.”]

There is some interesting information in the last sentence. If Joseph did not want to expose her to public disgrace, Mary's condition was probably not widely known. Perhaps it was confided and confined to her immediate family and Joseph. At any rate, Joseph had every right to divorce her under the Law. He would have cited Deuteronomy 24:1, "If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house..." (NIV) This certificate of divorce was called a "Get" and would have been considered merciful on Joseph's part considering the punishment available for adultery. A Get would have accomplished three things. One, it would have severed any marital obligations between Joseph and Mary; two, it would have freed Mary to marry another man if she wished and it would have legitimized any child born to that marriage. Here are the basic rules for a Get:

(1) The parties appear before a rabbi learned in the laws of divorce, a scribe, and two witnesses.

(2) The husband requests that the scribe write the GET for his wife, which the scribe then proceeds to do using a special quill pen.

(3) The husband declares that he is giving the GET of his own free will, and the wife concerning its receipt makes a similar declaration.

(4) At this point, the GET is then signed by the two witnesses.

(5) The parties are again questioned as to whether they are giving and accepting the GET voluntarily.

(6) The husband takes the GET and drops it directly into his wife’s cupped hands, stating: "This is your GET and accept this as your GET, you shall therewith be divorced from me, you are untied free and permitted to any man".

(7) She then places the GET under her arm and symbolically leaves by turning and moving several steps away.

(8) The divorcée then returns and the GET is taken from her by the officiating rabbi who tears the GET crosswise; and

(9) finally, the divorced woman is given a Divorce Certificate to prove her divorced status, and the process is over.

It says Joseph wanted to do this quietly. He would not have been required to place blame in order to obtain a Get, he could simply claim his displeasure in Mary. He would not necessarily had to spell out what the indecency was he found in her. Obviously, her condition would become apparent. Perhaps the plan also included sending her away somewhere. Mary and Joseph were betrothed, which was as binding as marriage, but did not include consummation. If Mary were seen as pregnant, people would assume either Joseph and Mary had not remained pure in their betrothal or Mary had committed adultery. Joseph would probably have desired to avoid either accusation.

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, fear not to take to you Mary your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name JESUS [Hebrew: Joshua, which means God is Salvation]: for he shall save his people from their sins.”

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” [Isaiah 7:14]

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took to him his wife and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

There are some who claim Mary and Joseph never had sex or children of their own. Here in Matthew 1:25 is the first of several passages in Scripture that refute that idea. They restrained from consummation of their marriage vows until sometime after the birth of Jesus. If Mary and Joseph had denied their bodies to each other as man and wife, they would have been committing sin against each other and the commands of God. (See Genesis 1:28; Genesis 2:24; Ephesians 5:25-33 for example.)

This also took great faith on Joseph's part, because by doing so he would bring some condemnation on himself for not restraining himself and his wife during the betrothal period. I am sure people were no different then than now and much whispering went on around the town speculating on just how and by whom Mary had become pregnant. Probably the rumor that she had been either raped or had an affair with a Roman soldier began here.

P.S.: In de La Tour's painting, Joseph appears as quite old. Often we see Joseph portrayed as much older than Mary and although it is possible he was a few years her senior, it seems more likely he and she were both quite young given the customs of the time. Mary may even been as young as twelve or thirteen and Joseph himself may have been a teenager. We really don't know their actual age at this time from any authentic source.

So why have classical artists often painted Joseph as this old man?

There are apocryphal writings, such as "The Story of Joseph the Carpenter", that contend Joseph had been married prior to Mary and was of quite an advanced age. According to these traditions, Joseph married one Melcha (sometimes called Escha) when he was forty years old and they lived together 49 years before she died. During their marriage, Joseph and Melcha had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was known as James the Less.

Now a year after Melcha died, for reasons I really don't know, these priests send a message throughout Judea for a worthy man to Marry this twelve or thirteen year old girl named Mary. So Joseph, this ninety-year man, makes the trek to Jerusalem to apply as the groom and gets selected.

This idea caught on that Joseph was this very old man at the time of Christ's birth. I think one of the reasons this story was perpetuated came from the belief of some that Mary remained eternally a virgin after Jesus was born. There is a belief in some churches that Mary and Joseph never had any sexual relationship in their marriage, a situation I stated was a sin and violation of God's will. However, those who hold that this was the case faced the problem when Scripture mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters on occasion. This story then resolves the problem by claiming Joseph had a previous marriage and Jesus had half-siblings. Joseph would have been free to marry Mary because his first wife had died. (The same apocryphal stories claim Joseph died at the age of 111, which would have his demise coming halfway between Jesus' presentation at the Temple at age twelve and His ministry beginning at age 30.)

This whole idea that Mary remained a virgin and never had marital relations with Joseph is not Scriptural at all. The elaboration of a previous marriage for Joseph just shows the lengths some will go to rather than accepting what Scripture clearly tells us. Scripture tells us that Jesus had brothers and sisters who were the children of Joseph and Mary. Matthew tells us, "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." (NIV) The form of that last statement indicates that after the birth of Jesus they did have normal marital relationships.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS

2010-03-20T20:28:00.002-04:00

Birth of Christ, Immanuel Highlands Church, 1992.

The donkey kneeling at the manger is my oldest daughter.

(Bethlehem Autumn of B.C. 5)

Luke 2:1-7 and John 1:14a

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus [63 B.C – 14 A.D.] that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius [Quirinius, circa 51 B.C. – 21 A.D.] was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city..

The word translated in Scripture as “governor” was “hegemon”, which means “ruling officer or procurator”. Cyrenius (aka Quirinius) did not become actual governor {legatus – different word} until later, but there is no reason to dispute Luke calling him a ruling officer at this time. There were many censuses taken during this period of time, any number of which could have been this one. [Refer to “A Problem with Dates.]

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem (because he was of the house and lineage of David [See the earlier genealogy given in Luke 3]) to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Given the status of women at the time, questions are raised why Mary would have gone with him. I think it is silly speculation to think she wouldn’t, but here are possible reasons. God’s directing them that she should go seems a reasonable explanation. Also, given the nature of Mary’s pregnancy and the suspicions this probably aroused, Joseph could have taken her for her own protection. Saying she couldn’t have gone or made the trip while being pregnant are just spurious arguments of disbelieving critics. There were pregnant woman who indulged in amazing physical activity or endured extreme hardship and delivered their baby with no harm. There have also been claims a woman in her condition couldn’t have ridden a donkey that distance. It doesn’t say in Scripture she rode a donkey; this is only a tradition. Perhaps she did ride a donkey; perhaps she walked or perhaps she rode in a cart, we really don’t know.

It is about 80 miles between Nazareth and Bethlehem. We are not told how long they travelled. We have many images in our head from song and film and story about Jesus birth and often assume certain ideas based on them that are not included in Scripture. We have this idea that Joseph and Mary made a quick trip to Bethlehem at the last minute, but we don’t really know how long they traveled. A journey of 80 miles by people used to travelling distances by foot could be done in less than three days, although most might pace themself and take 3 to 5 days. Who knows, Joseph and Mary could have taken a week or more to make the trip allowing her plenty of rest on the journey.

We also commonly see in depictions of the Nativity the couple arriving in town at the very moment of delivery with Joseph frantically pleading for a place for the birth. We think Jesus was born the day they arrived, but it doesn’t say that at all. It says simply, “while they were there”. This could have been within the hour to a couple of weeks for all we know. The rest of the statement, “the days were accomplished that she should be delivered” could indicate some passage of time.

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Joseph and Mary have at times been portrayed as if they were among the very poorest. I think the Biblical record disputes that. Instead, they were probably lower middle class by that day’s standards. Joseph had a trade; he was a carpenter. They had a home and probably some means. Jesus was not born in a manger because Joseph and Mary were too poor to afford better. Many people were on the road traveling because of the census and Luke tells us clearly, the inn was full. The circumstances of the moment dictated the fulfillment of prophecy and Jesus was born in a lowly stall.

The word ‘Inn’ conjures something different to the modern mind than what is may be referring to here. The Greek word (kataluma) used in this passage can mean inn, but also lodging room or dining place. This probably indicates there was no hotel/motel complex in this tiny village of Bethlehem, but that people let rooms in their homes. In Luke 10 we have the Greek (pandacheion) translated as inn. This word means an inn as a public house for the reception of strangers, which is a business for the traveler and tourist.

THE SHEPHERDS AND THE ANGELS

2010-03-20T20:28:00.001-04:00

Angels announcing Christ's birth to the shepherds by Govert (or Govaert) Teuniszoon Flinck, 1639

(Near Bethlehem)

Luke 2:8-20

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said to them, “Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For to you is born this day, in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign to you. You shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.”

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men”.

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, “Let us now go even to Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us”.

And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things, which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

Why shepherds, who were looked down on in that day, men who spent most of their time alone in the fields with sheep? You wouldn’t think these would be the first choice of the Angels to announce the birth of God’s Son. Yet, it makes perfect sense. Christ is often compared to a shepherd. We Christians are often referred to as his sheep. Ministers are called Pastor. Pastor is Latin for Shepherd.

Also take note it doesn’t say the Angels sang.

When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about."

So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

JESUS PRESENTED IN THE TEMPLE

2010-03-20T20:27:00.001-04:00

The Circumcision by Tintoetto (Jacopo Comin aka Jacopo Robusti), 1587

(Jerusalem, eight days after the birth; distance from Bethlehem to Jerusalem is 6 miles)

Matthew 1:25b and Luke 2:21

And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb and [Joseph] called his name JESUS.

Having heard the Nativity repeated over and over most of our lives; we tend to run these events together as if they happened in a couple days time. It seems obvious that the Angels appeared to the Shepherds on the day Christ was born, but other events didn’t come about until certain passages of time.

Here is something to consider. We celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25, but it may be more likely this was the time of his conception, perhaps during Hanukkah. I tend to agree that Christ was born during the Feast of Tabernacles in late September of 5 BC. If we follow the schedule of priestly duties for Zechariah and the other historic data, this seems logical. I believe the Jewish Holy days have prophetic significance and you can see how Christ was crucified and rose on days related to Passover and the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost. Elijah is expected on Passover and I think there is an argument to be made that John the Baptist was born on Passover. John's birth would align with the conception time based on Zechariah's serving in the Temple on schedule. John was six months older than Jesus and if Passover came in late March of that year, this would have placed Jesus' birth near the end of September. This also fits with the Shepherds still being in the fields with their sheep before winter came.

If Mary did conceive during Hanukkah, John the Baptist would have been born three months later at Passover. And assuming a normal pregnancy of 285 days, Jesus would have been born on the 15th day of the Jewish month of Tishri (September 29 by modern reckoning). This is significant because it is the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot). It is a high day, a special Sabbath, a time of great rejoicing.

There is a credible theory that Christ was born in June of 2 BC. This is based not only on the facts given in the Gospel accounts concerning events, but also on the alignment of the constellations and the conjunction of Jupiter and it’s path that may have been the “star” guiding the Magi. In this timetable, Jesus would have been conceived in September 3 BC, the Magi would have arrived in Bethlehem in December and Christ would have been born the next June. [Google www.bethlehemstar.net for a fuller explanation.]

PURIFICATION

(Jerusalem, 40 days after birth according to Jewish Law)

Luke 2:22-39a

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that open the womb shall be called holy to the Lord [Exodus 13:2]) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

Under the Law of Moses a woman was considered impure after the birth of a child. For the first seven days she and her husband would refrain from any sexual relations. For the next 33 days she will not be allowed to touch anything considered holy or visit the sanctuary. At the end of this 40-day period, she is required to bring a sacrifice to the priest. Mary and Joseph followed the law as spelled out in Leviticus.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean. Levitcus 12:1-8

And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon [which means “he heard” or “obedient”]; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, “Lord, now let me your servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.”

And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things, which were spoken of him.

And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

And there was one Anna [which means “Grace”], a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, [which means “Face of God”; the apocryphal Book of Enoch gives the name Phanuel to the fourth Archangel] of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; and she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fasting and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise to the Lord, and spoke of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. And … they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord.

We do not know much about these two people. Both were elderly, both spent much of their time around the Temple and both were glad to see the baby Jesus.

Simeon, we are told, was promised he would see the Messiah. He bears the name of one of Jacob’s sons. This was the brother of Joseph who was held prisoner in Egypt until his younger brother, Benjamin, was brought to Joseph. There seems little connect beyond the name other than the Simeon in Luke was waiting on the consolidation of Judah and Israel. Simeon was a prisoner on hold to the consolidation of his family and Jacob with Joseph. Jacob is a name also used to refer to Israel.

Simeon in Luke does prophesy about Jesus being a light to the gentiles and to His crucifixion.

We don’t know much about Anna either except the few bits Luke mentions. Anna or Hannah shares the same name as the mother of Samuel and parallels can be drawn between Samuel’s birth and youth and that of Jesus. There is speculation that Anna’s family roots stretched to the Jews held in Media who returned to Israel after the Babylonian Diaspora. For this reason, it is though when she “spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem”; she was referring to the time when all of the Jews would once again be brought together as a nation. This would be similar to what we have stated Simeon was doing.

Here we are a little over a month and a week since Jesus was born. Mary and Joseph are following the Law and Tradition of the Jews. They had Jesus circumcised on the eight day. This was the seal of the Abrahamic Covenant between God and Abraham in Genesis 17: 4-12 (NIV):

"As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham,^] for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."

Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring.

Then they took Jesus for dedication in the temple at the end of the purification period for Mary, where they offered the required sacrifice to the priest.

Note that Mary and Joseph gave what the law required, two doves or two young pigeons. This was the requirement for the woman who couldn’t afford a young lamb. Now this is something some have pointed to in saying Mary and Joseph were poor; however, not being able to afford the price of a young lamb doesn’t necessarily mean they were poor. It has been over a month, so it seems they have remained and established residence in Bethlehem. This trip and stay may have depleted whatever money they had with them on arrival. They certainly appear to be making a new home in Bethlehem, for we will find them still living there in a house when the Magi arrive.

This sacrifice also indicates the Magi had not yet visited because if so they most certainly would have bought a young lamb from the treasures the Magi gave them.

THE VISIT OF THE MAGI

2010-03-20T20:26:00.001-04:00

The Adoration of the Magi by Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, 1632

Matthew 2:1-12

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod [the Great, 73 BC – 4 BC] the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him?”

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

And they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, ‘And you Bethlehem, in the land of Judea, are not the least among the princes of Judea: for out of you shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel’ [Micah 5:2].”

Then Herod, when he had privately called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, “Go and search diligently for the young child; and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.”

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

A possible natural explanation of the behavior of this star is this. The Magi were familiar with the heavens and the constellations. They had interpreted a triple conjunction of the planet Jupiter with Venus and the “king star” Regulus. They had then been following the movement of Jupiter until they arrived in Bethlehem at the time of its retrograde; that is, the point when Jupiter would begin its turn back on its orbit. To the naked eye this would appear as if the planet (or wandering star as it would have been called) had stopped. [Google www.bethlehemstar.net for more on the triple conjunction of Jupiter and its orbit.]

When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented to him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

But who are these Magi?

The queen, hearing the voices of the king and his nobles, came into the banquet hall. "O king, live forever!" she said. "Don't be alarmed! Don't look so pale! There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him. In the time of your father he was found to have insight and intelligence and wisdom like that of the gods. King Nebuchadnezzar your father—your father the king, I say—appointed him chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners. This man Daniel, whom the king called Belteshazzar, was found to have a keen mind and knowledge and understanding, and also the ability to interpret dreams, explain riddles and solve difficult problems. Call for Daniel, and he will tell you what the writing means." Daniel 5:10-12 (NIV)

The old crèche we have is misnamed because what we have is a cardboard stable with a tiny crèche (manger) to place inside and a number of plaster figurines to position around the baby Jesus. (Actually the stable is probably inaccurate as well. Most likely Jesus was born inside a cave where the innkeeper sheltered his livestock, rather than an outbuilding of any kind.) Three of these figures are of men dressed in lavish clothes with crowns on their heads and each holding a gift. One is kneeling, one is standing and one leans down atop a camel.

We three kings of Orient are

Bearing gifts we traverse afar

Field and fountain, moor and mountain

Following yonder star.

-- Rev. John Henry Hopkins 1857

This is a popular Christmas Carol. It was probably heard more when I was growing up than today (after all that was a lot closer to 1857 when it was written than now). It was one of my favorites as a boy. Unfortunately these guys weren't kings, there were probably more than three and there are some questions about that 'yonder star' as well. They also weren't there at the manger right after Christ was born, nope, not even six days later on Epiphany (the twelfth day of Christmas). So let see what Matthew 2 had to say about these guys

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." Matthew 2:1-2 (NIV)

The Magi were priests, not kings. They were in fact "king-makers". They most likely traveled from Persia to Jerusalem after seeing astrological alignments that indicated the time predicted for a coming great king had arrived. The distance they came was perhaps a thousand miles and by camel (although they probably traveled on horses) in those days took a large part of a year’s journey. For such a trip, three guys wouldn't have set out alone. There most likely was a group of Magi accompanied by a small army of armed bodyguards making the trek. Just because they brought three gifts doesn't mean there were only three givers. Assuming they saw this "star" on the night Christ was born, much as the Shepherds saw a great light and then Angels in the sky, and given the time to travel the distance, then Mary and Joseph would have been living in a house by the time they arrived to worship.

But why would they be looking for this event and why make such a trip? They weren't Jewish. First of all, there was a lot of anticipation throughout the East at the time of some expected world king. The Jews certainly were anticipating their Messiah in these years. Ancient historians noted the anticipation of such an event:

"There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judea to rule the world " (Suetonius, Life of Vespasian, 4: 5).

"(T)here was a firm persuasion ... that at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers coming from Judea were to acquire universal empire " (Tacitus, Histories, 5: 13).

The Jews believed "about that time one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth” - (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6: 5, 4).

We must also consider that the Magi may be very well aware of Daniel's timetable for the appearance of the Messiah. We have to remember that Daniel was once the Chief of the Magi and would have had great influence upon them (See Daniel 5:10-11 quoted earlier in this chapter).

I bet King Herod was disturbed! If there already was murmurs about a coming King of Judea, who would rule the world, having people of the stature of the Magi pop in and ask where he was born must have really knocked Herod back on his heels.

The man wasn't exactly the people's favorite. Herod wasn't actually even Jewish and he had half bribed and half manipulated his way into the Kingship. He wasn't a man above killing his own family to protect his crown; he certainly didn't want to hear about some upstart king threatening his rule.

Knowing the nature of King Herod is probably what got all of Jerusalem disturbed. Plus, a lot of people in high places were surely as corrupt as Herod and knew how things went with him would effect how things went for them. A new King could cost them, too.

The Priests and Scribes knew where the Messiah was to be born. There was no hesitation and no lack of knowledge on their part. No surprise here about a Messiah. He was to come from the line of Jesse, from the great King David and from David's city, Bethlehem. (Note that Bethlehem means "house of bread" and from it would come the "Bread of life".)

Do you notice something here? Herod met the Magi secretly. He was plotting and didn't want any one getting suspicious. He got some vital information, the time of when the star first appeared, which he would later use to his own end. Then he tried to get the Magi to make it easy for him and come back to say exactly where this newborn king could be found.

They didn't come back and tell him, so he ordered all male babies age two and under in Bethlehem killed. Why two and under? Just to be on the safe side? Perhaps or It could be the date he was given for the star's appearance was two years earlier.

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

There is some strange behavior on the part of this "star". The Magi saw it in the east when Jesus was born and followed it. But somewhere along the way, the star disappeared. This is why they came to Herod and inquired about the birthplace. Why did they need direction if the star was guiding them all the way?

But then after they left Herod and headed for Bethlehem, the star appeared again and took them to the house (see, Mary and Joseph were now in a house) where they worshiped Him.

Now, many have speculated on this star. Some have though it was a comet or a meteor or some other natural occurrence. I believe it could be a divine light, perhaps an Angel that led them. Why need we look for natural phenomena to explain this? God led the Hebrews through the desert as a pillar of smoke and fire, why couldn't he provide a miraculous guide to the Magi?

However, there is the possibility it was a natural occurrence designed by God for that exact moment when He created the universe. The Magi could have observed a triple conjunction of Jupiter, Venus and Regulas and then followed the orbit of Jupiter across the skies to Judea. At the point of retrograde over Bethlehem, the planet Jupiter would appear to the naked eye as stopping. (Planet comes from the Greek “planetes”, which meant wanderer. In ancient times planets were viewed as stars, which wandered.) There was such a conjunction in the years 3 and 2 BC. If research that indicates that Herod the Great died in 1 BC, rather than the previously conjectured 4 BC (see the notes on dates at the beginning of this work), this would fit into the birth of Jesus quite well. For a fascinating explanation of this and other heavenly phenomena at the same time go to www.bethlehemstar.net.

Here we have the Magi presenting their gifts. Because three kinds of gifts were given, one representing kingship, one representing priesthood and one representing the saving sacrifice, we always just show three Magi handing over a gift. It says they presented him gifts of Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh. There could have been more than one package of each.

The gifts of the Magi not only symbolized the roles Jesus would fill, King, Priest and Sacrifice, but they provided means for Mary and Joseph to flee to Egypt and survive there until they could return home. See, God provides for our necessities in whatever our situation.

THE ESCAPE TO EGYPT

2010-03-20T20:24:00.000-04:00

Flight Into Egypt by Henry Ossawa Tanner, 1923

Matthew 2:13-18

And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be you there until I bring you word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.”

When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt and was there until the death of Herod that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt have I called my son”. [Hosea 11:1 (Greek: egontos, eks aiguptou ekalesa ton huion mou meaning, “Out of Egypt have I called the son of Me”.) Matthew was saying the statement was made perfect in Christ.]

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not [Jeremiah 31:15]”.

This was an act true to Herod’s nature. He had obtained great power in his lifetime and he maintained it through the use of murder and terror. He had had wives and sons murdered as well as anyone else he deemed a threat to his throne. The monastery of the Essenes at Qumran had been violently destroyed by arson in 8 BC and Herod was the prime suspect. During these last years of his life, two teachers urged their pupil to remove the gold eagle, the symbol of Rome, from the Temple. Herod had these two teachers and their pupils burned alive.

The Jewish scholars were already anticipating the Messiah because they believed the Messiah would come in the seventy-seventh generation since creation and they believed the seventy-sixths had just passed. The Messiah was viewed as a deliverer who would free them from Rome and sit on David’s throne as King. What Herod thought of these Jewish ideas is hard to say. He himself was not Jewish. His father was Idumean (Edom) and his mother was Arabian. He had been made King of the Jews by Rome and conquest. This made him unpopular with the Orthodox, religious and political parties of the Jews. He was unpopular for his support of Rome, his flaunting of the Law of Moses and for heavy taxation. Obviously, knowing this, he would be leery of any talk of a new King of the Jews.

Amidst such rumors, along come the Magi, people known as “King Makers”. Asking where this new king was born. This must have scared Herod to death. His action of mass murder of children is certainly something he would have considered to nip any threat to his throne in the bud. One must remember, Herod when knowing his death was imminent ordered his followers to arrest all the leading men of the city and imprison them with orders that upon his death they were all to be killed. His reasoning was he was so hated by his subjects no one would mourn for his death and on the day he died he wanted to assure the people mourned. Such a man is capable of any depravity.

Josephus wrote that Herod suffered excruciating pain in his final days. From what Josephus described, modern doctor believe chronic kidney disease and Fournier’s gangrene (a necrotizing infection affecting the genitals). The visible worms and putrefaction he suffered were probably scabies or a form of lice.

THE RETURN TO NAZARETH

2010-03-20T20:23:00.000-04:00

Flight to Egypt by Giotto di Bondone, 1302-03

(Sometime Later After 4 BC)

Matthew 2:19-23 and Luke 2:39b; 1:80; 2:40

But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, “Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.”

And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus [Herod Archelaus, 23 BC – Circa 18 AD. Ruled 4 BC – 6AD] did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go toward that place: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside.

There is as usual some historic debate over the rule by Herod Archelaus. He is said to have ruled from 4 BC through 6 AD. There are historians who say he ruled for a period while his father Herod the Great was still alive. There is also support for the idea that Herod the Great did not die until 1 BC, rather than in 4 BC. Herod the Great had two of his son murdered, and he may have planned the same fate for Archelaus, but something changed this ending. At any rate, Herod the Great had named his son Herod Antipas, from wife number four, Malthace, to succeed him. He then executed another son, Antipater III from his wife Doris in 4 BC and changed his will again, naming Herod Archelaus to the kingship. It is quite possible that Herod the Great gave over rule in the final days of his terrible illness to Archelaus before he actually died. Herod Archelaus had a reign filled with constant turmoil and riot.

Herod the Great had Judas and Matthias, two teachers, along with their students burned alive for removing Roman Eagles from the Temple entrance as idols. This resulted in Archelaus facing angry mobs demanding rehabilitation of the teachers’ reputations. He had three thousand of these Jews executed during Passover.

Archelaus then went to Rome to have himself crowned king and while there men, a robber named Judas, a slave named Simon and a shepherd named Athronges led a number of riots. These three men may have been presenting themselves as the Messiah. Remember, the Jews were expecting the Messiah around this time and there were a number of people who made claim on the title before Jesus. Archelaus’ own army was unable to successfully quell these uprising and Rome had to step in and Two thousand people were crucified as a result.

Archelaus’ was so unpopular that he accomplished some unity between the Jews and the Samaritans who jointly petitioned Rome for his being de-throned. Augustus acceded to this in 6 AD and Herod Antipas was made the King. Archelaus ended up banished to Gaul and died sometime before 18 AD.

No wonder Joseph hesitated to return to Bethlehem from Egypt. He was once again warned in a dream not to go there, but to take the family to Nazareth in Galilee.

They returned into the parts of Galilee and he came to and dwelled in their own city, a city called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene”.

Note this states “the prophets”, not “a specific prophet”. What is being said is that various prophets predicted Jesus would be despised or considered common. A Nazarene was a person looked down on, a prejudice of the time. Look to Nathanael’s question in John 1:46 (NIV): “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?) But don’t look for the quote in any particular prophet. However, keep in mind the Gospel writers, as well as the religious scholars of that day did have interpretations about the Scriptures (Old Testament books) and this reference could be to such prophetic passages as Isaiah 4:2: In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. (NIV)

The name Nazareth can be translated as Town of the Branch. Jesus as the Son of God was the Branch of God. (Do not confuse Nazarene with Nazirite, who was someone that had taken a special vow to God, such as Samson.)

It is not clear how long Jesus was kept in Egypt, but he is described as a young child here. “Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.”

THE BOY JESUS AT THE TEMPLE

2010-03-20T20:22:00.000-04:00

The Boy Jesus in Temple by Adriaen van der Werff, date unknown

(Jerusalem 8 A.D.)

Luke 1:; 2:40-52

Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.

We see again the dutifulness of Joseph and Mary. Their going to Jerusalem yearly for Passover is not akin to us going yearly to Easter service. As the crow flies, it is approximately 65 miles between Nazareth and Jerusalem. Today we would hop in the car, get on an interstate and be from one to the other in around an hour. We’d probably grumble about having to make that drive every year just to go to church with our parents on Easter. But in those times the journey wasn’t on a superhighway and the distance wasn’t straight. The distance would be more like ninety miles given you probably wouldn’t take the direct route through Samaria. Plus you didn’t have cars, trains and airplanes. You had to walk or ride a donkey or be pulled in a cart by some beast of burden.

It was a production and a hassle. You had to be dedicated to do it every Passover.

Some people find it strange that Joseph and Mary traveled a day before they realized they had left their son behind in the city. There is nothing odd about it. Passover was a giant festival in Jerusalem. It was crowded, confusing, and Joseph and Mary had obviously traveled with a large contingent of Pilgrims from Galilee. Their band was made up of family, friends and others they probably didn’t know, all traveling together for security on the journey. It is easy to believe your child is with someone else in such situations. Perhaps they last saw him with his Aunt or with a group of his friends and assumed he came along with them.

When our children were young, we use to take them to a place called Sesame Place. It was an amusement park aimed at children, more like a giant playground than a Disneyland, built on the themes of Sesame Street on TV. It was jammed with people. My wide had went ahead of me at one point and when we met up again our oldest daughter, then around eight years old, was missing. We had each though she was with the other. Obviously we panicked and went searching for her. Fortunately we located her quickly.

But Joseph and Mary didn’t find him quickly. Can you imagine the panic they must have felt? This was no amusement park. There was no security personal to contact, no public announcing systems to ask people to be on the look out for a lost child. They had no choice but to retrace their steps, a whole day’s worth, and then search for him in the big city. It took them three days, three long days.

And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him, they were amaze, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you thus dealt with us? Behold, your father and I have sought you sorrowing.”

And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Wist [Knew] you not that I must be about my Father's business?”

And they understood not the saying that he spoke to them.

They found him in the temple amid the learned men. He was twelve years old. Now think somewhat, but not totally in terms of the Bar Mitzvah, which recognizes a Jewish boy’s passage from childhood to manhood on his thirteenth birthday. The ceremonial aspects of the Bar Mitzvah did not develop fully until the Middle Ages. However, much of the distinction of childhood to adulthood was in place by the First century. In the Ages of Man by Samuel ha’Katan (written circa 100 AD) it basically places the end of age 13, rather than it’s beginning, as the time of the commandments. Many early Midrashs (interpretations) of the Torah and Talmud in the Mishna (circa 200 AD) further define 13 as the age of responsibility and bestow certain rights and duties of adulthood on the person along the lines of the Bar Mitzvah: reading from the Torah (Pentateuch- first five books of the Bible) and be part of the Minyan (a quorum of men required to be present for the practice of certain religious obligations), accountability under the Law of Moses, own property and marry. At this age the parents no longer are responsible or punishable for the child’s sin.

There are some who look at Jesus’ behavior here and wonder if this was a sin. Did he dishonor his parents? Was he irresponsible? No, because he was a child and this was done in innocence, not disobedience. He wasn’t running away from home, he was eager to learn “his Father’s business”. If there was sin involved it was on the part of Joseph and Mary for not keeping better account of their child. Note he went home and “was subject to them”. Like any child, he learned from this instance and his parents were probably a bit more diligent as well. Should we assume Jesus, as a child was different from other children in normal development? He probably got his good clothes dirty, probably came home late to dinner, probably whined about doing his chores occasionally. These lapses and maturing of childhood are not sin. What Jesus probably didn’t do as a child is steal, cheat, and lie or bully others, those types of things.

Notice, too, after this incident, he “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” Not long after this instance he reached the age of accountability and he put away childish things.

(We tend to be amazed at Jesus being where he was, too, but not for the reason his parents and the doctors were. They were amazed at his knowledge. We are amazed at some little sixth grade kid being there and not told to go away or asked where are your folks. Remember, though, he was a bit more than a year from being acceptable taking part in such activity. We also have to remember marriage among teenagers in those days was fairly common. Some scholars believe Mary was only around 13 when Gabriel appeared to her. Boys of very young age were often accepted as men in that society.

And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them, but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

I want to go back to Jesus conversation with his parents when they found him in the temple.

“Son, why have you thus dealt with us? Behold, your father and I have sought you sorrowing.”

And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Wist [Knew] you not that I must be about my Father's business?”

And they understood not the saying that he spoke to them.

We can see how upset they were, “sorrowing”. If you didn’t know where you child was for three days you would be sorrowing too. You might think he or she was gone forever from your life.

He asks, “Why? Didn’t you know I have to be about my father’s business?”

I think we simply see the mind of a child here, anxious to grow up. It is interesting that several years later, at a wedding in Cana, Jesus says to Mary, “Why do you involve me? My time has not yet come.” At 12, he acted with the impulsion of a child; afterward, he waited on the will of God. Where here he questions his parents why he should not be doing his Father’s business, at Cana he explains it is not time yet, but he honors his mother by providing wine.

One wonders how much Mary and Joseph knew. They obviously knew Jesus was the Son of God and the Messiah, but did they understand his role as the Christ anymore than other Jews of the time? Mary pondered the things that happened at his birth, she and Joseph don’t quite understand what he is talking about at the temple and later we find passages that support the idea Mary did not yet understand this was a First Coming and what its end purpose was to be.

And the child [John the Baptist] grew, and waxed strong in spirit and was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel.

And the child [Jesus] grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

PART II

2010-03-20T20:21:00.002-04:00

PREPARATIONS

From Spring to Autumn 26 A.D

JOHN THE BAPTIST PREPARES THE WAY

2010-03-20T20:19:00.000-04:00

John the Baptist by Leonardo da Vinci, 1513-16

Judea spring of 26 A.D.

Matthew 3:1-6, Mark 1:1-6, Luke 3:1-6 and John 1:6-8

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar [Tiberius Claudius Nero BC42-AD37], Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, [AD 26-36 Died AD39], Herod [Antipas] being tetrarch of Galilee [BC 4-AD 39 Died AD39], and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, [BC 4-AD 34 Died AD34], and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene [AD 29 – see Note 1]. Annas [AD 6-15, President Sanhedrin AD15-66] and [Joseph, son of Annas, see note 2]and Caiaphas [AD18-37] being the high priests, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

Note 1. An inscription was found on a temple from the time of Tiberius (the Roman emperor from 14 - 37 AD), which named Lysanias as the Tetrarch of Abila near Damascus, just as Luke has written.

The temple inscription reads:

Huper tes ton kurion Se[baston] soterias kai tou sum[pantos] auton oikou, Numphaios Ae[tou] Lusianiou tetrarchou apele[utheors] ten odon ktisas k.t.l

Translation:

"For the salvation of the August lords and of all their household, Nymphaeus, freedman of Eagle Lysanias tetrarch established this street and other things."

The reference to August lords is a joint title given only to the emperor Tiberius (son of Augustus) and his mother Livia (widow of Augustus). This reference establishes the date of the inscription to between A.D. 14 and 29. The year 14 was the year of Tiberius' accession and the year 29 was the year of Livia's death.

Therefore the 15th year of Tiberius is the year 29 A.D., and it lies within the reign of the August lords. This evidence supports Luke's reference that Lysanias was a tetrarch around the time of John the Baptist (29 A.D.).

Note 2. Annas, who’s name means "The grace of Jehovah" was the son of Seth and appointed high priest of the Jews in 6 A.D in his 37th year. He was high priest from 6 to 15 A.D. but as long as he lived he was the virtual head of the priestly party in Jerusalem. He was chosen to the high priesthood by Quirinius, the imperial governor of Syria; obliged to give way to Ismael by Valerius Gratus, procurator of Judaea, in the beginning of Tiberius' reign, 14 A.D. Eleazar, the son of Annas, followed Ismael; then Simon; then Joseph Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas (John 18:13).

In the time of Christ high priests were appointed and removed at the command of the Roman governors. Although removed from office, Annas' power and influence was so great that five of his sons, as well as his son-in-law Caiaphas and his grandson Matthias, also became high priests. Years afterward he lost the high priesthood, but even then he was popularly considered as still in office and was called "high priest"; even after Pentecost his name appears first in the list of priestly leaders:

Acts 4:5-7 "And it came to pass, on the next day, that their rulers, elders, and scribes, as well as Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. "

In John 18:19, 22 the high priest is undoubtedly Annas, although in vs. 13 and 24 Caiaphas is mentioned as the high priest. Annas is referred to in connection with the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry, which took place "in the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas" (Luke 3:2 ), as though father and son-in-law were joint holders of the office.

It seems clear that due to his ability and force of character he was virtually high priest, although Caiaphas had the title. When Jesus was arrested, He was first brought before Annas (John 18:13). It was apparently Annas who questioned Him about His disciples and His teaching, and who gave orders to one of the officers standing by to strike Jesus with his hand (18:19-22). After the questioning, he sent Jesus "bound" to Caiaphas.

John 18:19-24 "The high priest then asked Jesus about His disciples and His doctrine. Jesus answered him, "I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who have heard Me what I said to them. Indeed they know what I said." And when He had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, "Do You answer the high priest like that?" Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?" Then Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest."

He was undoubtedly the ruling voice in the council that condemned Jesus, although nothing is said about his part in the proceedings that followed the preliminary questioning. He was present at the meeting of the Sanhedrin before which Peter and John defended themselves for preaching the Gospel of the Resurrection (Acts 4:6).

Annas is called "high priest," Caiaphas, John, and Alexander are called "of his kindred." He lived to old age, and he had five sons appointed as high priests.

Source: http://www.bible-history.com/HighPriests/NTHIGHPRIESTSAnnas.htm

In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, and saying, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias [Isaiah], saying, as it is written in the book of the words of Esaias [Isaiah] the prophet, as it is written in the prophets, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth. And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.

Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her  that her hard service has been completed,  that her sin has been paid for,  that she has received from the LORD's hand  double for all her sins.

A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare  the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.

Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain.

And the glory of the LORD will be revealed,  and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken." Isaiah 40: 1-5 (NIV)

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John and he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

And John was clothed with his raiment of camel's hair, and with a leather girdle of a skin about his loins; and his meat he did eat locusts and wild honey.

And then there went out to him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem and all the whole Judean countryside, and all the region round about Jordan, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

JOHN’S FASHION AND DIET TIPS

2010-03-20T20:06:00.000-04:00

Perhaps we should talk about John’s appearance and diet here. I have seen several artists’ renderings of John the Baptist and some present a character out of the Flintstones, a Neanderthal of a man in a brief costume of fur. All he needs is a thick club resting on his shoulder and he could be Ally Oop. It others and some films, he is presented in an unruly long beard and a great bush of untamed hair as if performing a Wild man of Borneo act in the circus sideshow. Why would throngs of people come out to be baptized by such a creature? They’d more likely flee the other way thinking him possessed.

Scripture simply says he wore clothing made of camel hair and a leather belt around his waist. His clothing wove from camel hair didn’t necessarily have to look much different from what others wore. Some Bible historians believe he wore a simple robe similar to and recognized as that worn by many Old Testament Prophets, for indeed, he was the last of these.

I rather imagine John was pretty clean; after all, he spent most of his day in water. His hair and beard may have been kept smoothed down by that element. Besides, nowhere in scripture does it say he was anymore hairy than anyone else. Some suppose he was a Nazirite because Gabriel had told Zechariah, “He is never to take wine or other fermented drink”. But it is never said a razor will never touch his head. John MacArthur is one who claims John was a Nazirite, but nowhere in Scripture does it say John took such a vow. He may have had a well-trimmed beard and been bald for all we really know.

PORTION OF THE NAZIRITE VOW

The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite, he must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or from other fermented drink. He must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. As long as he is a Nazirite, he must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins.

" 'During the entire period of his vow of separation no razor may be used on his head. He must be holy until the period of his separation to the LORD is over; he must let the hair of his head grow long. Throughout the period of his separation to the LORD he must not go near a dead body. Even if his own father or mother or brother or sister dies, he must not make himself ceremonially unclean on account of them, because the symbol of his separation to God is on his head. Numbers 6:1-7 (NIV)

The other question about John concerns that Breakfast of Champions, locusts and wild honey.

We probably have no difficulty with the honey part. Honey is one of our oldest known foods, being mentioned as far back as 2100 BC; that’s BC, folks. Honey is “an organic, natural sugar alternative with no additives that is easy on the stomach, adapts to all cooking processes, and has an indefinite shelf-life.”

John the Baptist is living in the wilderness and is going to eat what is available and plentiful there. Grasshoppers or Locust (there is a difference, but most people wouldn’t make the distinction*** on seeing one, nor do the Gospel writers necessarily make one and translations sometimes say grasshoppers) are a common food in certain regions of the world. John probably found them delicious when sweetened by honey. The word translated as locust is “akris”.

Akris: a locust, particularly that species which especially infests oriental countries, stripping fields and trees. Numberless swarms of them almost every spring are carried by the wind from Arabia into Palestine, and having devastated that country, migrate to regions farther north, until they perish by falling into the sea. The Orientals accustomed to feed upon locusts, either raw or roasted and seasoned with salt (or prepared in other ways), and the Israelites also were permitted to eat them.

There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest. Leviticus 11:21-23 (NIV)

This all seems pretty clear, so why any question?

There are some who argue the word “Akris” was really “enkris”. This mistake seems unlikely given the number of preserved Septuagint texts and all the many scholars who have translated and studied it. Surely, they would have picked up this error. Enkris means, “cake”. There was a Greek delicacy called Enkris, but John was in the desert, not at an Athens’ Starbucks having his latte and enkris.

Others argue what John was eating the fruit of the Locust Tree. This is an evergreen tree that grows as high as fifty feet and in the spring produces a huge quantity of pods called Carob. These pods are sweet inside (lot of sweet piling up here with the honey). In some parts of the East, these pods are called “St. John’s Bread” and people there believe this is what John the Baptist ate. And Carobs are dried and used as food for both cattle and people.

But I don’t think John was out there harvesting and drying Carobs, I think he was catching and nibbling the insect, perhaps roasted with a little salt or eaten raw with a dab of honey. There is nowhere in the Septuagint where Akris means pod or anything other than the insect. When you read the Bible, stick to the simplest exclamation. Why make this a cause for vegetarianism?

There is nothing in the statement that “his food was locust and wild honey” that precludes John eating other things. At the time of his ministry he was pretty busy and these things were handy and easy to prepare. Growing up he probably ate the traditional kosher meals of his parents and even as an adult might have had occasion to supplement his regular limited diet. And since John would have been very exact in trying to obey God in all things, he surely took part in the required Ceremonies and Feasts, and eaten the Passover lamb. So, lets focus more on his purpose and his ministry than his mealtimes.

***It is very common for people in my area to call the cicada a locust, and to call actual locust, grasshoppers, since locust and grasshoppers look very similar. A cicada does not resemble either though.

JOHN FACES DOWN THE PHARISEES AND PROCLAIMS THE COMING MESSIAH

2010-03-20T19:56:00.000-04:00

John and the Pharisees, Public Domain

Matthew 3:7-12, Mark 1:7-8 and Luke 3:7-18

We Christians have learned of Baptism in the church and some have heard about it all their life. Even most people in America are familiar with the practice, even if they don’t go to church. And we tend to think of it as very Christian. It is easy to grow up thinking of John the Baptist doing some new radical thing of his own design. But it was actually a very old, and very Jewish, practice by the time Yochanon ben Zechariah (John son of Zechariah) came along.

It had its roots in the purification and cleansing rituals given in the Law of Moses (Exodus 19:10; Leviticus 8:6; Leviticus 16:4; Numbers Chaper19 and Numbers 31:21-24). Beyond the Scriptures, baptism as a practice became part of Jewish tradition long before the New Testament and was a key ingredient of the Mikveh, the conversion rites to become a Jew. This was tevillah, the complete immersion of the convert’s body in a pool of water. Contemporary with the times of Jesus were arguments over the importance of Baptism recorded between the rabbinic schools of Shammai and Hillel. (The Hillelites prevailed in the end.)

In the 12^th century, the Jewish Scholar Maimonides, wrote of the Talmudic tradition:

"By three things did Israel enter into the Covenant: by circumcision, and baptism and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt, as it is written: 'No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof' (Exodus 12:48) (NIV). Baptism was in the wilderness, just before giving of the Law, as it is written: 'Sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes' (Exodus 19:10) (NIV). And sacrifice, as it is said: 'And he sent young men of the children of Israel which offered burnt offerings' (Exodus 24:5) (NIV). …When a gentile is willing to enter the covenant…He must be circumcised and be baptized and bring a sacrifice…And at this time when there is no sacrifice, they must be circumcised and be baptized; and when the Temple shall be built, they are to bring a sacrifice…The gentile that is made a proselyte and the slave that is made free, behold he is like a child new born. [Emphasis mine –LEM]"

Therefore, what John was doing wasn’t entirely strange to the Jews. Submersion in water represented a change of soul and rebirth to the Jew. It was a commitment to a new life and a preparation for life with a reborn spirit and fresh eyes. It was a step toward reaching a higher plane toward God, purification, a cleansing away of the sins and old life. This was just what John was offering, much as great evangelists offer the Gospel in the present age. John the Baptist was the Billy Graham of his day.

It isn’t surprising Pharisees and Sadducees would come out to see the phenomena. Note that they did not condemn John or claim he was breaking any of the Law or traditions, as they were to accuse Jesus of doing on several occasions. They must have been somewhat taken back by his greeting (“You brood of vipers!)”, though.

But when he [John] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, he said unto them. “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say and think not to say within yourselves, ‘We have Abraham to our father’: for I say to you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

“And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”

It is worthy of note here that many of these allusions will reappear in parables and talks given by Jesus in his own ministry: brood of vipers, producing fruit, stones, cutting down of nonproductive trees to be thrown in the fire. The same as with John’s answer ("The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.") to their question, with prefigures part of the Sermon on the Mount.

And the people asked him, saying, “What shall we do then?”

He answered and said to them, “He that has two coats, let him impart to him that has none; and he that has meat, let him do likewise.”

Then came also publicans [contractors who hired out to Rome as tax collectors, suppliers to the military, overseers of public building projects and collectors of port fees] to be baptized, and said to him, “Master, what shall we do?”

And he said to them, “Exact no more than that which is appointed you.”

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, “And what shall we do?”

And he said to them, “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.”

And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he was the Christ, or not.

This too was not unexpected. People knew the prophesies of a coming messiah, and because of certain prophesies, especially those of Daniel, they were looking for the Messiah at this particular time. There were a number of false Messiahs in and about all ready. What they failed to understand was the two rolls of the Messiah and the two comings. John was here to prepare the way for the first coming.

John answered, saying to them all and this was his message, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance”. And preached, saying “But one that comes after is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire, and whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and will gather his wheat into his garner, but he will burn up the chaff with fire unquenchable.”

And many other things in his exhortation preached he to the people.