Truth About Birth of Jesus Christ

Many Biblical scholars have argued from time to time that December 25th was not the actual birth date of Christ. It was just adopted as a day to celebrate the birth of Christ as a Christian substitute to the Roman festival Saturnalia in the third century. Saturnalia was celebrated as the Feast of Sun and was actually considered the birth date of the Sun God of the Romans. Catholic priests held a special mass that day for Christ and thus, it came to be known as 'Christ-mass' or 'Christmas'.

Along with the date, several other pagan traditions, rituals and customs followed the way to become associated with Christmas such as decorating fir trees and burning yule logs. According to these scholars, Christ was most probably born on September 11, 3 B.C., which was Wednesday, according to the Bible. There are several other inaccuracies that we can see in the Nativity plays that are popular these days. Here are the arguments that are given to prove this fact:

* Luke 2:1 says, "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed [registered]." Here, 'taxed' means 'to register'. Caesar Augustus was planning to celebrate his 25th anniversary as Roman emperor in 2 B.C. but he wanted that all his subjects are accounted for and there is official declaration of political allegiance before that. 'All the world' indicates that the Roman Empire was very vast. Such registrations as these were typically conducted during the time when the season was mild enough for traveling.
* Luke 2:2 says, "And this taxing [registration] was first made when Cyrenius was governor [commander] of Syria." The 'governor' means 'commander' here. Cyrenius had been sent to Syria to command the registration process in 3 B.C. and this was the time when the registration was first made.
* Luke 2:6-7 says, "And so it was, that, while they were there [in Bethlehem], the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." While Jesus was the 'only begotten son' of God, Mary had other children too and Jesus was her 'firstborn'. It also indicates that Jesus was born in the manger not because Mary and Joseph were poor but because there was 'no room in the inn' as there were lot of people who had come to be registered.
* Bethlehem was the city of David and Joseph and his wife Mary were David's descendants and had to go there to be registered. 'Swaddling clothes' also indicate that Mary and Joseph were not poor for they were used for princes and people of noble blood and royal lineage. They consisted of fine linen cloth and the child was covered by them only for a short time until the parents took time to pray to God and promise Him for good upbringing of the child.
* Luke 2:8 says, "And there were in the same country [the vicinity of Bethlehem] shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night." In Biblical times, the farmers used to hire shepherds in the late summer and early fall to keep their flocks in his field overnight as the manure of the cattle acted as a fertilizer for their fields. This indicates that Jesus Christ was born in early September.
* Revelation 12:1-2 says, "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered." In 3 B.C., it was on Wednesday, September 11th, which was the only day when the constellation Virgo (represented as a woman) clothed with the sun as it entered the mid-body in its ecliptic course had the moon under her feet. Thus, it was during this day, when Jesus Christ was born.

read more

Ministry of Jesus Christ

Introduction

When I was a youngster my family observed the practice of opening Christmas presents on Christmas Eve. The positive side of this was that we got to open our presents one day sooner than others. The one drawback to this arrangement was the torture of enduring the preliminaries. First of all, we waited for my grandmother—to my recollection, she never did arrive either early or on time. Then there was dinner. Of course, we children choked our food down only to have to suffer the wait for our elders to finish eating at a more sensible pace. Then there were the dishes to wash. Then finally we had to wait until all the presents were passed out, each of us with a small pile at our feet.

As I approach this study on the life of Christ, I feel much as I did as a child years ago, watching the driveway for the first signs of my grandmother’s arrival, itching for the preliminaries to be done with so the real pleasures could be enjoyed. The distressing fact is that now I am grandpa and it is I who am holding up the proverbial show. Nevertheless, there are some preliminaries which must be gotten out of the way before we begin to immerse ourselves in the text of the gospels themselves.

The Importance of

the Study of the Life of Christ

I can honestly say that I approach the study of the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus with more eagerness and expectation than any study I have ever attempted from the Word of God. Before we look into this ‘one solitary life,’ let me mention some of the reasons why it is such a significant topic for study.

(1) When we come to the Christ of the Gospels we are at the fountainhead of the New Testament and the fulfillment of much of the Old.

David Brown has written, “The Fourfold Gospel is the central portion of Divine Revelation. Into it, as a Reservoir, all the foregoing revelations pour their full tide and out of it, as a Fountain, flow all subsequent revelations.”1

Even better put are the inspired words of the apostle Paul who wrote, “For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16-17).

To put the biblical revelation together concisely, Jesus Christ is the focal point of all history. He is the fulfillment of Old Testament hopes; He is the source of all New Testament revelation and expectation. He is all in all. To study the life of Christ is to study the fountainhead of all New Testament revelation.

(2) To relive the pages of Scripture recorded by the gospel writers is to walk with our Lord in His earthly ministry.

There is much interest these days in “walking where Jesus walked,” that is, in visiting in the Holy Land. I could wish that every Christian might have that privilege. But far greater is the privilege which every Christian does have to walk the dusty roads of the Holy Land with our Lord Jesus through the eyes of the inspired Gospel writers. It is in these pages that we encounter the greatest personality of all history.

Harnack once said,

“The man who can read the first three Gospels … without being sensible that a mighty personality is at work in them—a personality swaying the hearts of men and far beyond the power of men to invent—must be denied the capacity to distinguish between fiction and the documentary evidence to a historical and personal life.”2

(3) To study the life of Christ is to behold God in human flesh. No gospel writer has said it more clearly or concisely than John:

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness of Him, and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” For of His fulness we have all received, and grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (John 1:14-18).

Throughout the Old Testament men were forbidden to attempt to represent the living God by means of graven images.3 The fundamental reason for such a prohibition was that no man-made image could properly reflect the majesty and perfection of the infinite God.4 In the Old Testament period, God was to be worshipped on the basis of His words (revelation) and works. With the invasion of Jesus Christ into human history, man may now worship God in the person of His Son. In that sense, Jesus Christ is the only image of God acceptable to God. He is the full disclosure, without any blemish or distortions, of God Himself. “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). If we wish to know more about God, especially as He relates to the day-to-day matters of life, we need simply learn more of Christ. As Godet has written, “Jesus is God lived by man.”5

(4) When we study the life of Christ in the Gospels we meet the “real” Jesus.

In spite of all of the bizarre and incredible acts of men, few have been so candid as to admit that God was not on their side. It is easy to comprehend why so many have made Jesus the leading proponent of their cause. As a result we have been bombarded with nearly every type of ‘Jesus.’ I mention but a few.

There is, for example, the gentle Jesus, hero of the pacifist cause. This is the Jesus meek and mild who instructs us to turn the other check, even as he submitted, non-violently, to the abuse of men.

Then we have the humanitarian Jesus. He is the Jesus whose high calling was to relieve the world of misery and suffering. Just as he devoted Himself to battle suffering, pain and misery, so must we.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, there is Jesus the revolutionary. Here is the hero of the anti-establishment movement. Just as this Jesus rocked the boat of the status quo, so should we. Just as He, they allege, sought to overthrow corrupt and unjust institutions of His day (even by use of violence), so should we.

There is also the broad-minded Jesus, whose love (we are told) seems to permit, or at least tolerate, the sins defined by ‘wooden literalists,’ ‘fundamentalists,’ and other narrow minded bigots. He would welcome women into positions of church leadership as well as homosexuals.6 He would take a more tolerant view of divorce, sexual morality and such.

The liberals would introduce us to the misled and mundane Jesus. This individual, from what little truth we could ferret from the ‘mythical’ accounts of the gospels, was one who was misled as to His true identity and mission, and who surely could have performed no miracles.

Some of these views (though not all!) contain elements of truth. Jesus did manifest compassion and concern for the physical needs of people. But generally even where some truth is present, there is an improper emphasis placed on one aspect of Christ’s teaching or example. Rather than seeing our Lord as a whole person equal to and greater than the sum of His biblical portraits, we perceive Him only in those areas which support our own hang-ups.

The ‘real’ Jesus is not the figment of our imagination Who comforts us in our errors and confirms our prejudices and preconceived notions. The real Jesus is the Christ of the Gospels, the full manifestation of deity in human flesh. It is this Jesus Whom we shall meet in the gospels. The Jesus of our imaginations has little to offer, but the Jesus of biblical history is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

(5) The life of Christ confronts us with a personality which forbids indecision and neutrality.

The unreal Jesus, who is the product of human imagination, is not a very commanding figure. At best He requires a mere ‘tip of the hat’ or a few words of polite praise. Men can easily sidestep commitment to the Jesus which men have reshaped into their own image. But the real Jesus leaves man no such option. His life and teaching demands decisive decision. He was either God or He was not. If He was not God’s Messiah, He was either a deceiver or self-deluded. In John chapter 7, we see just one instance of the way Christ divided men. The reactions of men were decisive and extreme. They were either willing to die for Him or that He should die.

As R. T. France has so well said it, “Those who understand who Jesus is and what he stands for are still today given to extreme reactions … It is only those who do not understand who can be indifferent, and dismiss Jesus with a well-meant but patronizing word of praise.”7

Those who resist Christ are as zealous about it as those who receive Him as Savior. To face the person and the work of Christ in the gospels is to forever leave the middle ground of neutrality and non-commitment.

I will never forget a Bible study we conducted in our home several years ago. We decided, with another neighbor, to study the gospel of John. Our neighbor ended up inviting virtually everyone in the neighborhood. One couple came for the first time when we were dealing with chapter 3. Then we left for vacation. I urged our neighbor to continue the study in our absence. The next week when he was teaching the study, the unsaved woman blurted out, “You know, it almost appears that Jesus was claiming to be God.” My good friend and neighbor wisely replied, ‘Why don’t we keep that in mind as we continue our study.” Somewhere in the study of John, both this woman and her husband were converted.

Perhaps as you are confronted with the person of Jesus Christ in this series, you will be compelled by the sheer weight of the evidence to the kind of commitment some would call fanatical. If so, you would be in the company of many who beheld Him in the flesh, and multitudes more who have believed yet have not seen, save through the eyes of faith and the testimony of those among whom He tabernacled.

(6) When we study the life of Christ we learn of God’s pattern and provision for our Christian experience.

T. W. Manson once wrote, “To the two questions: What does God offer to man? and What does God require of man? the New Testament returns one answer: the life of Christ.”8

First and foremost, the Lord Jesus Christ is God’s provision for man’s sin. Jesus Christ died in the sinner’s place. He Who was sinless took man’s sin upon Himself, and suffered the penalty of God’s wrath for all who believe (2 Cor. 5:21). He provides every believer with His righteousness so that we may spend eternity in fellowship with God (Rom. 3:21-26). But in addition to this He is the example, He is the standard of righteousness for all who believe. The trials and tests which we face are not unknown to Him, for He was tempted in all points, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). His life is the pattern for Christian conduct (1 Pet. 2:21).

Thank God Jesus Christ is not only the standard of righteousness, He is also the source of it. He is both the pattern and the provision for the Christian walk. It was the death of Christ which saved us from sin in the past; it is the life of Christ which delivers us from sin in the present and future.

Paul wrote in Romans chapter 5,

“Much more, then, having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (Rom. 5:9,10).

Again in Romans chapter 6 we are told,

“Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection” (Rom. 6:4,5).

The teaching of the New Testament is that the Christian life is one in which Jesus Christ lives His life out in us. Orthodox Christians have taught much on the death of Christ (although much more should be done), but we have not given sufficient emphasis to the life of Christ. It is in this study of the life of Christ that we shall learn more of our Lord as the pattern and provision for Christian living.

(7) Further, the study of the life and teachings of Christ is foundational to a proper understanding of the dispensational distinctions between God’s program for Israel in the Old Testament, and His program for Gentiles in the New.

Even a casual reading of the Old Testament leaves us with the impression of incompleteness. That which God had promised, that for which Israel hoped, had not yet been fulfilled. Israel awaited the literal fulfillment of God’s promise both of a king who would reign eternally with peace and glory for the nation and anxiously awaited the coming Messiah and His reign.

Yet when we turn to the epistles of the New Testament, little is said of this kingdom. And more puzzling yet, God’s interest and activity seems focused upon the Gentiles more than the Jews. We read much about the church and little about Israel. Some have understood this transition to mean that God will fulfill His promises to the nation Israel through the church and that Israel as a nation has no literal earthly kingdom to which she can look forward.

But the Apostle Paul explained in Romans chapters 9-11 that although God’s purposes for Israel have been temporarily postponed, they are still certain, for Israel’s unbelief is neither total nor permanent (cf. especially 11:25-32). God will literally fulfill His promises to His people.

Our study of the life of Christ will help us understand just why this delay has occurred. First of all, we can now look back upon the Old Testament prophecies and discern two distinct lines of prophecy. One line predicted the first coming of Messiah as the suffering Savior, Who would forever put away the sins of His people by His death on the cross (cf. Psalm 22; Isaiah 52:13–53:12). The other line of prophecy foretold the kingdom that Messiah would establish after atonement had been made for His people (cf. Isaiah 9:6-7; Daniel 7:13-14).

These two comings of Messiah were not perceived by Old Testament saints. We now understand because of the gospel accounts and their explanation by the Apostle Paul. When the Lord Jesus Christ presented Himself to the nation Israel, He did so as their promised Messiah. In Luke chapter 4, He presented Himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa. 61:1-2). By His works, He validated His power and authority to make such a claim. By His teaching, He revealed that true nature of His kingdom.

Most Israelites had a different kind of Messiah in mind, and a different concept of the kingdom. Consequently, they began to withdraw from Him and Jewish leadership quickly began to resist Him as a real threat to their aspirations.

None of this caught our Lord by surprise, for the Messiah must first suffer before He could reign. Our Lord began to withdraw from ministry to the masses and pour His life into His disciples. He began to teach the crowds in the veiled language of parables and to explain in detail only to His intimate followers and friends. He began to speak less of His earthly kingdom and more of His interim program for the church. He dealt less with Jews and more with Gentiles. Our Lord began to more openly and aggressively attack the Jewish leaders, showing their error and provoking their anger. He strategically retreated when things became prematurely volatile. He literally engineered His own death by the hands of His opponents.

All of this, as Paul makes clear in Romans 9-11, was a part of God’s marvelous master design to save both Jews and Gentiles. Jewish unbelief and rebellion brought about the death of Christ for the sins of men, whether Jew or Gentile. It also made possible the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles. In God’s program for the church, He saves Jews and Gentiles precisely the same way He has always saved men, by faith in Christ. It is not the Gentiles who must be saved by becoming Jews (and thereby submitting to circumcision, self-baptism, and the Law), but the Jew who must enter by the door the Gentile Christians have passed through, the door of faith.

The life of Christ, then, records the authentication of Jesus Christ as Israel’s Messiah, His presentation of Himself, and His rejection by His own people. All of this fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies concerning Messiah. Israel’s rejection of Messiah (not only by putting Jesus to death, but by rejecting the apostolic presentation of the gospel after His resurrection) necessitated the parenthetical church age in which we live. For this we Gentile Christians can greatly rejoice, for it has meant our salvation.

(8) Jesus Christ is the determining factor between life and death, heaven and hell.

I am well aware that many people sincerely believe that God has provided many ways to Heaven. Some will enter God’s heaven, we are told, by faith in Buddha, others by good works, still others by the way of Islam. If man were responsible for such matters, this might be the case. But Jesus Christ is unique in that He makes an exclusive claim to be God’s own provision for eternal life. Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6).

Such is the teaching of Peter, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

With Peter, John agrees: “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18).

Jesus Christ is the most important person in all of recorded history. When you stand before the judgment bar of God, God will not ask you what church you joined, or how many attendance buttons you earned, or how much money you gave, or whether or not you were baptized. God will ask you but one question, “What have you done about My Son, Jesus?” Have you trusted in Him as your Savior? Do you believe He died for your sins? Are you resting in His righteousness for God’s approval? To have Him, is to have eternal life. “He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life” (1 John 5:12).

The Approach of This Study

Perhaps my greatest struggle in preparing for this series in the life of Christ has been the decision as to how I should approach the study. Some have endeavored to deal with the subject chronologically, but there is little agreement on such matters, for chronology was not a great concern to the gospel writers.

Others have approached the gospels harmonistically. Such a study seeks to look at the life of Christ through the eyes of the gospel writers collectively. There is great value to such a study, but this would necessitate a lengthy analysis of the gospels. In our study we will deal with the major events in the life of our Lord, expounding (generally) the passage that most fully depicts that event. We will begin with the crucial events at the birth of our Lord and the early parts of His ministry. Then we will deal with some of the more prominent themes of His teaching.9 Finally, we will return to a more chronological approach toward the end of our Lord’s earthly ministry, focusing upon His last week of ministry.

May God use this study to enable us to know Him more intimately and to serve Him more devotedly.

1 David Brown, The Four Gospels (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1969), p. iii. Brown goes an to say (pp. iii, iv),

“In other parts of Scripture we hear Christ by the hearing of the ear; but here our eye seeth Him. Elsewhere we see Him through a glass darkly; but here, face to face. The orthodox Fathers of the Church well understood this peculiar feature of the Gospels, and expressed it emphatically by their usages—some of them questionable, others almost childish. Nor did the heretical sects differ from them in this; the best proof of which is, that nearly all the heresies of the first four or five centuries turned upon the Person of Christ as represented in the Gospels. As to the heathen enemies of Christianity, their determined opposition was directed against the facts regarding Christ recorded in the Gospels. And it is the same still. The battle of Christianity, and with it of all Revealed Religion, must be fought on the field of the Fourfold Gospel. If its Credibility and Divine Authority cannot be made good—if we must give way to some who would despoil us of its miracles, or to others who, under the insidious name of ‘the higher criticism’ would weaken its historical claims—all Christianity is undermined, and will sooner or later dissolve in our hands. But so long as the Gospels maintain their place in the enlightened convictions of the Church, as the Divine record of God manifest in the flesh, believers, reassured, will put to flight the armies of the aliens.

2 Adolf Harnack, as quoted by Everett F. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), p. 11.

3 Cf. Exodus 20:4,5.

4 For a fuller and more thought-provoking discussion of the Second Commandment, cf. J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press), pp. 38-44.

5 F. Godet as quoted by Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, p. 11.

6 Note, for example, this letter to the Editor, printed in the Wittenburg Door (I do not believe they endorse his view, however):

“You have often supported the cause of the Christian feminists with a compassion for them and their struggle with the Apostle Paul. It is my hope that you have the same compassion for the Christian gays which we represent. Homosexuality can be sinful, but it can be Christian as well. Any form of sexuality (homo or hetero) can be abused, but it can also be used for the glory of God and the blessing of God’s people. I would be interested in sharing more if you are interested. I only hope that you have some compassion for the gays who struggle with Paul and who love the Lord Jesus Christ. John Martin, Evangelical Concerned, Chicago, IL.” “Letters,” The Wittenburg Door, April-May, 1977, p. 6.

7 R. T. France, I Came to Set the Earth on Fire: A Portrait of Jesus (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), p. 15.

8 T. W. Manson, as quoted by Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, p. 11.

9 Here I follow the approach of R. T. France in his excellent little book, I Came to Set the Earth on Fire: A Portrait of Jesus (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), as defended on pages 44-45.

read more

The Birth of Jesus Christ

Preface

The following is part of a short series of devotional items related to the birth of Christ. For some, such material is hardly devotional because it primarily focuses on history. But we must keep in mind that the Jesus we worship was truly born in time-space history. And that babe in the manger was truly crucified--and just as surely rose from the dead. The Bible is different from the sacred books of other religions because it invites historical investigation. And when it has met the test--as it surely always, inevitably does--it inculcates a greater devotion in the heart of the believer for the one we call the Son of God.

The Year Jesus Was Born

In the western hemisphere, we split time by the birth of Jesus Christ. But did he really even live? If so, when was he born?

Sometime ago, I struck up a conversation with a man who claimed that God did not exist. He was an atheist. But not just a run-of-the-mill atheist, you understand. He also insisted that Jesus Christ never existed! This fellow was hard core.

Now my atheist friend had incredible faith--blind faith, I might add. His religious fervor, in fact, would put many evangelists to shame. But the evidence that Jesus Christ invaded history is not just shut up to the testimony of the New Testament--as irrefutable as that might be! The very enemies of Christianity claimed that he lived--and that he performed miracles! Early Jewish documents such as the Mishnah and even Josephus--as well as first-century Gentile historians--such as Thallus, Serapion, and Tacitus--all testify that the one called Christ lived in Palestine and died under Pontius Pilate. As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar" (NT Documents, 119).

Now it logically follows that if Jesus Christ lived (need it be said?), he must have been born. The Gospels tell us that his birth was shortly before Herod the Great died. Herod's death can be fixed with certainty.

Josephus records an eclipse of the moon just before Herod passed on. This occurred on March 12th or 13th in 4 B.C. Josephus also tells us that Herod expired just before Passover. This feast took place on April 11th, in the same year, 4 B.C. From other details supplied by Josephus, we can pinpoint Herod the Great's demise as occurring between March 29th and April 4th in 4 B.C.

It might sound strange to suggest that Jesus Christ was born no later than 4 B.C. since B.C. means 'before Christ.' But our modern calendar which splits time between B.C. and A.D. was not invented until A.D. 525. At that time, Pope John the First asked a monk named Dionysius to prepare a standardized calendar for the western Church. Unfortunately, poor Dionysius missed the real B.C./A.D. division by at least four years!

Now Matthew tells us that Herod killed Bethlehem's babies two years old and under. The earliest Jesus could have been born, therefore, is 6 B.C. Through a variety of other time indicators, we can be relatively confident that the one called Messiah was born in either late 5 or early 4 B.C.

My atheist friend scoffs at such flexibility. He says, "If you don't know exactly when Jesus was born, how do you know that he really lived?" That is hardly a reasonable question! The other day I called my mother to wish her a happy birthday. "Mom, how many candles on this birthday cake?" I inquired. "I don't know, son--I don't keep track any more," she sighed. After a few minutes of pleasant conversation, we hung up.

Now, of course, I can't be certain, but I do believe that that was my mother on the other end of the phone. She can't remember how old she is (and she's neither senile nor very old), but that doesn't make her a figment of my imagination, does it? Because if she's just a phantom, then for the last three minutes, you've been reading absolutely nothing!

The Day Jesus Was Born

This coming December 25th most parents will be lying to their children about old St. Nick. Some of us will be celebrating the birth of our Savior. But was he really born on this day?

Was Jesus really born on December 25th? Virtually every month on the calendar has been proposed by biblical scholars. So why do we celebrate his birth in December?

The tradition for December 25th is actually quite ancient. Hippolytus, in the second century A.D., argued that this was Christ's birthday. Meanwhile, in the eastern Church, January 6th was the date followed.

But in the fourth century, John Chrysostom argued that December 25th was the correct date and from that day till now, the Church in the East, as well as the West, has observed the 25th of December as the official date of Christ's birth.

In modern times, the traditional date has been challenged. Modern scholars point out that when Jesus was born, shepherds were watching their sheep in the hills around Bethlehem. Luke tells us that an angel appeared to "some shepherds staying out in the fields [who were] keeping watch over their flock by night" (2:8).

Some scholars feel that the sheep were usually brought under cover from November to March; as well, they were not normally in the field at night. But there is no hard evidence for this. In fact, early Jewish sources suggest that the sheep around Bethlehem were outside year-round. So you can see, December 25th fits both tradition and the biblical narrative well. There is no sound objection to it.

Now admittedly, the sheep around Bethlehem were the exception, not the rule. But these were no ordinary sheep. They were sacrificial lambs. In the early spring they would be slaughtered at the Passover.

And God first revealed the Messiah's birth to these shepherds--shepherds who protected harmless lambs which would soon die on behalf of sinful men. Whey they saw the baby, could they have known? Might they have whispered in their hearts what John the Baptist later thundered, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

Now, of course, we can't be absolutely certain of the day of Christ's birth. At least, not this side of heaven. But an early winter date seems as reasonable a guess as any. And December 25th has been the frontrunner for eighteen centuries. Without more evidence, there seems no good reason to change the celebration date now.

We can blame the ancient church for a large part of our uncertainty. You see, they did not celebrate Christ's birth. At all. To them, it was insignificant. They were far more concerned with his death . . . and resurrection.

But modern man has turned that around. A baby lying in a manger is harmless, non-threatening. But a man dying on a cross--a man who claims to be God--that man is a threat! He demands our allegiance! We cannot ignore him. We must either accept him or reject him. He leaves us no middle ground.

This Christmas season, take a close look at a nativity scene once again. Remove your rose-colored glasses--smell the foul air, see the cold, shivering animals. They represent the Old Testament sacrificial system. They are emblems of death. But they are mere shadows of the Babe in their midst. He was born to die . . . that all who believe in him might live.

The Visit of the Magi

When Jesus Christ was born, men--known as magi--came from the east to worship him. Were they wise men . . . or astrologers?

Matthew begins his second chapter with these words: "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east, and have come to worship him.'"

Who were these wise men from the east? Matthew tells us next to nothing about them--he doesn't mention their names, nor how many there were--not even which country they came from. As mysteriously as they come on the scene, they disappear. . .

Though Matthew doesn't tell us much, over-zealous Christians throughout church history have dogmatically filled in the blanks. By the 6th century A.D., these dark strangers were given thrones and names: Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthazar were the alleged names of these alleged kings. But this has nothing to do with the biblical story: we really have no idea what their names were--nor even their number. There could have been 3 or 300 as far as we know! But one thing we do know for sure: they were not royalty. The ancient magi were reilgious and political advisors to eastern kings--but there wasn't a drop of blue blood among them.

But isn't it true that the magi were astrologers? And didn't God prescribe death to astrologers in the Old Testament? 'Not always' and 'yes' are the answers. In Deuteronomy 17, God commands his people to execute all astrologers by stoning. Jean Dixon wouldn't stand a chance in such a theocracy! The fact that she--and others like her--are so comfortably tolerated--even well respected!--in modern America ought to show us that the U.S.A. is a post-Christian country--at best . . .

But what about these ancient magi? Were they astrologers? After all, they followed a star to Bethlehem.

We might answer this in three ways: First, not all magi were astrologers, for Daniel the prophet was the chief of the magi in Nebuchadnezzar's court. Through his influence, undoubtedly many of the magi carried on their religious and political duties as worshippers of the One true God.

Second, there are some biblical scholars who believe that Isaiah predicted that a star would appear when the Messiah was born. If this interpretation is correct, then the magi who worshipped the newborn king were clearly following in Daniel's train, for he almost surely taught them from Isaiah.

Third, although a few believe that the 'star' they saw was a natural phenomenon--such as a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter--this cannot explain how the star stood right over Bethlehem. Clearly, the 'star' was completely of supernatural origin. If so, it probably had nothing to do with astrology.

Therefore, the magi most likely did not subscribe to such superstitious folly. If so, they were truly wise men . . .

I saw a bumper sticker the other day, which read, "Wise men still seek him." Actually, that's not quite accurate. The Bible tells us that "no one seeks God, not even one." But if he has led us to himself, then we have become wise. For it is true that "wise men still worship him."

The Boys from Bethlehem

One of the most heinous atrocities in human history was the murder of Bethlehem's babies by Herod the Great. But did it really happen?

In the second chapter of Matthew's gospel, we read that when Herod the Great heard of the Messiah's birth, "he was troubled--and all Jerusalem with him." Later, when the wise men did not report back to him, he became furious and ordered all the baby boys up to two years old in and around Bethlehem to be slaughtered!

Three questions come to mind as we consider this cruel incident: First, how many babies did Herod actually kill? Second, how old was Jesus when this happened? And finally, why does no other ancient historian record this outrage? In other words, did it really happen?

How many babies did Herod murder? Some scholars have suggested as many as 200! But most reject such a figure. Bethlehem was a small community--almost a suburb of Jerusalem. The village itself--and the surrounding countryside--would hardly have more than 30 male infants under two. Most scholars today place the number between 20 and 30.

But that's if only the boy babies were killed. Actually, the Greek text of Matthew 2:16 could mean 'babies'--not just 'boy babies.' And psychologically, Herod's henchmen might not have bothered to check the gender of their victims. The number might be as high as 50 or 60.

Second, how old was Jesus when this occurred? According to the best chronological evidence, he could not have been more than three or four months old. He was more than likely born in the winter of 5 or 4 B.C.--Herod died in the early spring of 4 B.C. So why did Herod slay all children up to two years old? The answer to the third question might help to answer this one. . .

Third, why is this event not recorded outside the Bible? Specifically, why did Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, fail to mention it?

Josephus tells us much about Herod. The best word to describe his reign is 'overkill.' He murdered his favorite wife's father, drowned her brother--and even killed her! He executed one of his most trusted friends, his barber, and 300 military leaders--all in a day's work! Then he slew three of his sons, allegedly suspecting them of treason. Josephus tells us that "Herod inflicted such outrages upon (the Jews) as not even a beast could have done if it possessed the power to rule over men" (Antiquities of the Jews 17:310). Killing babies was not out of character for this cruel king. And killing them up to two years old--to make sure he got the baby Jesus lines up with his insane jealousy for power.

Josephus might have omitted the slaying of the babies for one of two reasons: first, he was no friend of Christianity and he left it out intentionally; or second, just before Herod died he locked up 3000 of the nation's leading citizens and gave orders that they were to be executed at the hour of his death. He wanted to make sure that there would be mourning when he died. . . Israel was so preoccupied with this that the clandestine murder of a few babies might have gone unnoticed. . .

Herod thought that he had gained a victory over the king of the Jews. Yet this was a mere foreshadowing of the victory Satan thought he had when Jesus lay dead on a Roman cross. But the empty tomb proved that that dark Friday was Satan's worst defeat!

Conclusion

We've been looking at several aspects of the birth of Jesus Christ in this short study. Now, we want to put it all together.

In the winter of 5 or 4 B.C., God invaded history by taking on the form of a man. He was born in a small town just south of Jerusalem. Bethlehem, which means 'the house of bread,' indeed became worthy of its name one lonely winter night. For there, in that town, was born the Bread of Life . . .

His mother placed the infant king in a manger--or feeding trough--because the guest room where they were to stay was occupied. The birth of this king was celebrated that night only by his mother, her husband, and a handful of shepherds. The shepherds had been in the fields around Bethlehem, guarding the lambs which would die at the next Passover. An angel appeared to them and gave them the birth announcement: "today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11). In their simple faith, they rushed to see their newborn king.

Shortly after the birth of the Messiah, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem and inquired of king Herod where the real king of the Jews was to be born. The theologians of Herod's court knew the Scriptures well--in 'Bethlehem' they recited. Ironically, though they knew the Scriptures, they did not believe them! They did not even bother to travel the five or six miles to Bethlehem to see their Messiah.

But Herod believed the Scriptures! That is why he sent a corps of butchers to Bethlehem to slaughter innocent children, in hopes of destroying this rival to his throne. But he was too late. The magi had come and gone and Jesus was by now safe in Egypt.

And the magi believed the Scriptures. They had traveled several hundred miles to worship this Babe. They were guided to Bethlehem by a supernatural celestial phenomenon--and by the Scriptures. Apparently, their ancestors had been instructed by Daniel the prophet about the coming Messiah. . . When they saw the child, they fell down and worshiped him. This was God in the flesh. They could do no other.

And they gave him gifts--gold, frankincense, and myrrh. This was an unusual present--by any standards. The gold, of course, we all can understand--but the frankincense and myrrh were odd. Perhaps they had read Isaiah's prophecy that "nations will come to your light, and kings to your rising . . . They will bring gold and frankincense, and will bear good news. . . " (Isa. 60:3, 6). This explains the frankincense, but not the myrrh.

Now myrrh, like frankincense, was a perfume. But unlike frankincense, myrrh smelled of death. In the ancient world, it was used to embalm a corpse. Jesus himself would be embalmed with this very perfume (cf. John 19:39).

If the magi were thinking of Jesus' death when they brought the myrrh, they no doubt knew of it from Daniel's prophecy (9:24-27). In the ninth chapter of Daniel we read that the 'Messiah will be cut off' and this 'will make atonement for iniquity' and ultimately 'bring in everlasting righteousness' (9:26, 24).

Even at the birth of our Savior, the shadow of the cross is already falling over his face. . .

The theologians of Herod's court did not believe the Scriptures. They were fools. Herod believed, but disobeyed. He was a madman. The simple shepherds and the majestic magi believed in this infant Savior--and it was reckoned to them as righteousness. May we follow in their train.

read more

message for enternal life

: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [Joh:3:16]

read more