Two events are celebrated by the church more than any others. They are the birth of Christ, aka Christmas, and the resurrection of Christ, aka Easter. I was one of the many who only attended church during those two times of the year, and sometimes not even that. One would think that with so much significance the events and facts surrounding those two events would be uniform and clear.
Let's start with the events surrounding the birth of Christ. The events surrounding the resurrection of Christ will have to wait for a few months.
The word Christmas is not mentioned in the Bible, unlike the word Easter. Also, the day that Christ was born is not mentioned in the Bible, unlike the time of year that Christ was crucified and resurrected. The word Christmas comes from Christ's mass. I am not even going to pretend to be qualified to discuss the details of a mass, but from what I gather the term comes from the Roman Catholic church practice. There is also the term Xmas, which some, including myself, have taken offense to. Isn't that taking Christ out of Christmas. Well yes, and no. Apparently X, which would not be pronounce "ex," is the first letter of Christ in the Greek. One would not say "X"mas, but it is okay to write. And there is historical usage of X in the place of Christ. So for those who know their Greek, Xmas is suitable. Another explanation that I heard was that X was a symbol for the manger that Jesus was laid in since there was no room at the inn. Still nothing Biblical to mention here regarding the word Christmas.
The Biblical accounts...
Matthew 1, the genealogy and birth of Christ.
Matthew 2, the wise men visit.
Luke 1, the conception of Jesus
Luke 2, the birth of Jesus
Luke 3, the genealogy of Christ
That's it. Maybe that is why there is so much tradition mixed in. So here are some questions to answer about the events surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ.
Who is Jesus' Father? God. Ah, the perfect Sunday School question. It is not Joseph. That is somewhat clear from the genealogies presented also...
In Matthew, after fourteen verses of "father begat son," comes verse 16
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." Note that Joseph did not begat "...Jesus, who is called the Christ." But that Joseph is called "the husband of Mary."
The genealogy in Luke 3 is even more interesting in that is starts at the end, and is introduced by verse 22
"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." The next verse "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"
I could only find one instance where Joseph is mentioned as Jesus' father and that is in Luke 2:48 after Jesus remains at the temple, and his parents panic, like all good parents would.
"And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Note that his mother is speaking. The next verse clears up any misconceptions...
49 "And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?" Jesus is clearly referring to God.
Was Mary a virgin or just a young woman?
It is pretty clear that she was a virgin and a young woman.
Matt 1:22-23 "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." This is from Isaiah 7:14.
Luke 1:26-27 "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary."
Were Joseph and Mary married before the conception of Jesus Christ? According to many, no. They were simply engaged. So why does anybody get upset if couples become pregnant out of wedlock? The Bible makes it clear that they were married, or considered to be husband and wife. In Luke 1:27, included above, it says Mary was "...espoused to a man whose name was Joseph..." To be espoused is to be legally declared a husband and wife. It is much different than being engaged in today's western culture. Matthew 1:18 makes it clear that although they were legally married, they had not yet come together, so Mary should not have been pregnant by a man, but she was by the Holy Ghost. "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. For more on espoused, look also at 2 Samuel 3:14 "And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines." This payment was actually Saul's idea on how to potentially get rid of David, but by the grace of God David prevailed. 1 Samuel 18:27 "Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." Another place where espoused is used is 2 Corinthians 11:2-3 "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." The sense from here is being committed. Verse 3 is interesting because the example is Eve. She was Adam's wife, no question there. More evidence, Matthew 1:19 "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." The phrase "put her away" is used six other times in the Bible and always refers to an action between a husband and a wife. And lastly Matthew 1:20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Note the phrase "fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:" This is the best translation because it is consistent with all the events surrounding the birth of Christ, and with the rest of the Bible. God works by the book.
Who were Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar? I heard this question at a Christmas party for children. The children were then separated into groups based on these three names. Who were they? They were the three kings who visited Jesus at the time of his birth, as most nativity scenes depict. Leave it at that? No. Biblically speaking there is no mention of the number of kings that visited Jesus. In fact, they are not even called kings. Also, they didn't visit Jesus and see Him lying in a manger, but came to a house. Let's look at the account starting in Matthew 2:1-2 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod 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." Wise men from the east came to find Jesus with the question, "Where is he that is born...?" Not will be born, but has been born. Also, there is no mention of how many wise men came. They are called wise men, not kings, and they are not called Magi (in this version). By the way, what are Magi? You could say, "wise men or kings" but what usually follows the term Magi, in an effort to define it, are astrologers, "magi"cians, and scientists. That could be, but in general it makes more sense to say, "wise men seek Jesus." One does not have to be knowledgeable in the sciences or occult to seek Jesus, but those who do seek Jesus are considered by God to be wise, no matter how simple. The traditional view of there being three kings, comes from the gifts that were presented when they met the Christ child. Matthew 2:11 "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." The gifts indicate wealth of kings and noblemen, right? Not necessarily, maybe some of the wise men gave out of their wealth, but maybe some gave all that they had. Like the widow in Luke 21:2-4 "And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had." Wise men seek Jesus, period.
What about "the star?" Isn't there documentation of some astronomical event, like the aligning of planets or a supernova around the time of the birth of Christ that could explain the star? Even if there was there are some things that we know about stars (including planets). They follow a normal path from East to West. They do not stand still in the sky. Most everyone can see them. Now "the star." Matthew 2:2 says, "...we have seen His star in the east..." Where was the star that the wise men saw? Did they see it while they were in the east, or did they see it in the east. It seems redundant to say that the wise men were from the east and saw the star while they were in the east; however, there is significance to seeing a star in the east. Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." Where would you look to see a "bright and morning star?" East, because anywhere else you probably could have seen the star already since stars appear to move east to west across the sky. So maybe the wise men, who were seeking Jesus, received a supernatural sign from God, the bright and morning star, that was their signal to travel to Jerusalem. Am I giving the wise men too much credit? They received at least one other vision from God and obeyed. Matthew 2:12 "And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way." Most normal people would not be looking for a star in the morning, other than the sun. Perhaps the wise men had another dream in which God revealed a star to be seen by them, and them alone. Note that there is no indication that the star led the wise men to Jerusalem. In fact, if they saw it in the east, and they came from the east the star would not have led them to the east. And if it was a normal astronomical event it would have led them in circles, rising in the east and setting in the west. It could be that the wise men said they saw his star in the east, because after they saw it, it went away. That would explain Matthew 2:7 where Herod inquires when the star appeared. The next mention of the star comes a few verses later. Matthew 2:9-10 "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." To travel from Jerusalem to Bethlehem one needs to go south. This passage says, "the star...went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was." The movement of the star was in a southerly direction, the star then stopped over where the young child was. Not a normal things for stars to do. It also appears that only the wise men saw the star. All this is miraculous and consistent with the nature of God. He leads those that seek Him, and hides truth from those who have hardened their hearts. It appears that the star was a supernatural sign for the wise men to confirm the birth and identity of the Messiah.
Why does it matter if we get the details right or not?
Because as Jesus says in Mark 7:13 "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." When tradition trumps what the Bible teaches, the Bible becomes just another tradition or a collection of stories.
Should we celebrate the birth of Christ?
Is there anything in the Bible that suggests a celebration of the birth of Christ? Does "a multitude of the heavenly hosts praising God" count (Luke 2:13)? How about the shepherd's coming in haste to see the babe lying the manger (Luke 2:16)? Or how about Simeon's and Anna's reaction later in Luke 2? And what about the wise men who came from the east to worship Him. Yes, there is plenty of reason to celebrate the birth of Christ. But is that what Christmas is all about? That is what Christmas should be all about. But through the years the meaning has changed to be more of a secular event, even for many of the Christians who "celebrate" Christmas. Could it be because through the telling of stories it has become more of a myth and the events have taken a life of their own, rather than the focus being on the event of God becoming flesh and dwelling among us? The reactions of the shepherds, Simeon, Anna, and the wise men were acts of worship and giving glory to God. Setting apart a day a year to celebrate God becoming flesh and dwelling among us is not a bad thing. No the exact day of Christ' birth is not known, but we can rejoice, remember, and celebrate this special event throughout the year with the focus on December 25th.
Luke 2:11 "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Let's start with the events surrounding the birth of Christ. The events surrounding the resurrection of Christ will have to wait for a few months.
The word Christmas is not mentioned in the Bible, unlike the word Easter. Also, the day that Christ was born is not mentioned in the Bible, unlike the time of year that Christ was crucified and resurrected. The word Christmas comes from Christ's mass. I am not even going to pretend to be qualified to discuss the details of a mass, but from what I gather the term comes from the Roman Catholic church practice. There is also the term Xmas, which some, including myself, have taken offense to. Isn't that taking Christ out of Christmas. Well yes, and no. Apparently X, which would not be pronounce "ex," is the first letter of Christ in the Greek. One would not say "X"mas, but it is okay to write. And there is historical usage of X in the place of Christ. So for those who know their Greek, Xmas is suitable. Another explanation that I heard was that X was a symbol for the manger that Jesus was laid in since there was no room at the inn. Still nothing Biblical to mention here regarding the word Christmas.
The Biblical accounts...
Matthew 1, the genealogy and birth of Christ.
Matthew 2, the wise men visit.
Luke 1, the conception of Jesus
Luke 2, the birth of Jesus
Luke 3, the genealogy of Christ
That's it. Maybe that is why there is so much tradition mixed in. So here are some questions to answer about the events surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ.
Who is Jesus' Father? God. Ah, the perfect Sunday School question. It is not Joseph. That is somewhat clear from the genealogies presented also...
In Matthew, after fourteen verses of "father begat son," comes verse 16
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." Note that Joseph did not begat "...Jesus, who is called the Christ." But that Joseph is called "the husband of Mary."
The genealogy in Luke 3 is even more interesting in that is starts at the end, and is introduced by verse 22
"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." The next verse "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"
I could only find one instance where Joseph is mentioned as Jesus' father and that is in Luke 2:48 after Jesus remains at the temple, and his parents panic, like all good parents would.
"And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Note that his mother is speaking. The next verse clears up any misconceptions...
49 "And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?" Jesus is clearly referring to God.
Was Mary a virgin or just a young woman?
It is pretty clear that she was a virgin and a young woman.
Matt 1:22-23 "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." This is from Isaiah 7:14.
Luke 1:26-27 "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary."
Were Joseph and Mary married before the conception of Jesus Christ? According to many, no. They were simply engaged. So why does anybody get upset if couples become pregnant out of wedlock? The Bible makes it clear that they were married, or considered to be husband and wife. In Luke 1:27, included above, it says Mary was "...espoused to a man whose name was Joseph..." To be espoused is to be legally declared a husband and wife. It is much different than being engaged in today's western culture. Matthew 1:18 makes it clear that although they were legally married, they had not yet come together, so Mary should not have been pregnant by a man, but she was by the Holy Ghost. "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. For more on espoused, look also at 2 Samuel 3:14 "And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines." This payment was actually Saul's idea on how to potentially get rid of David, but by the grace of God David prevailed. 1 Samuel 18:27 "Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." Another place where espoused is used is 2 Corinthians 11:2-3 "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." The sense from here is being committed. Verse 3 is interesting because the example is Eve. She was Adam's wife, no question there. More evidence, Matthew 1:19 "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." The phrase "put her away" is used six other times in the Bible and always refers to an action between a husband and a wife. And lastly Matthew 1:20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Note the phrase "fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:" This is the best translation because it is consistent with all the events surrounding the birth of Christ, and with the rest of the Bible. God works by the book.
Who were Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar? I heard this question at a Christmas party for children. The children were then separated into groups based on these three names. Who were they? They were the three kings who visited Jesus at the time of his birth, as most nativity scenes depict. Leave it at that? No. Biblically speaking there is no mention of the number of kings that visited Jesus. In fact, they are not even called kings. Also, they didn't visit Jesus and see Him lying in a manger, but came to a house. Let's look at the account starting in Matthew 2:1-2 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod 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." Wise men from the east came to find Jesus with the question, "Where is he that is born...?" Not will be born, but has been born. Also, there is no mention of how many wise men came. They are called wise men, not kings, and they are not called Magi (in this version). By the way, what are Magi? You could say, "wise men or kings" but what usually follows the term Magi, in an effort to define it, are astrologers, "magi"cians, and scientists. That could be, but in general it makes more sense to say, "wise men seek Jesus." One does not have to be knowledgeable in the sciences or occult to seek Jesus, but those who do seek Jesus are considered by God to be wise, no matter how simple. The traditional view of there being three kings, comes from the gifts that were presented when they met the Christ child. Matthew 2:11 "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." The gifts indicate wealth of kings and noblemen, right? Not necessarily, maybe some of the wise men gave out of their wealth, but maybe some gave all that they had. Like the widow in Luke 21:2-4 "And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had." Wise men seek Jesus, period.
What about "the star?" Isn't there documentation of some astronomical event, like the aligning of planets or a supernova around the time of the birth of Christ that could explain the star? Even if there was there are some things that we know about stars (including planets). They follow a normal path from East to West. They do not stand still in the sky. Most everyone can see them. Now "the star." Matthew 2:2 says, "...we have seen His star in the east..." Where was the star that the wise men saw? Did they see it while they were in the east, or did they see it in the east. It seems redundant to say that the wise men were from the east and saw the star while they were in the east; however, there is significance to seeing a star in the east. Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." Where would you look to see a "bright and morning star?" East, because anywhere else you probably could have seen the star already since stars appear to move east to west across the sky. So maybe the wise men, who were seeking Jesus, received a supernatural sign from God, the bright and morning star, that was their signal to travel to Jerusalem. Am I giving the wise men too much credit? They received at least one other vision from God and obeyed. Matthew 2:12 "And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way." Most normal people would not be looking for a star in the morning, other than the sun. Perhaps the wise men had another dream in which God revealed a star to be seen by them, and them alone. Note that there is no indication that the star led the wise men to Jerusalem. In fact, if they saw it in the east, and they came from the east the star would not have led them to the east. And if it was a normal astronomical event it would have led them in circles, rising in the east and setting in the west. It could be that the wise men said they saw his star in the east, because after they saw it, it went away. That would explain Matthew 2:7 where Herod inquires when the star appeared. The next mention of the star comes a few verses later. Matthew 2:9-10 "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." To travel from Jerusalem to Bethlehem one needs to go south. This passage says, "the star...went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was." The movement of the star was in a southerly direction, the star then stopped over where the young child was. Not a normal things for stars to do. It also appears that only the wise men saw the star. All this is miraculous and consistent with the nature of God. He leads those that seek Him, and hides truth from those who have hardened their hearts. It appears that the star was a supernatural sign for the wise men to confirm the birth and identity of the Messiah.
Why does it matter if we get the details right or not?
Because as Jesus says in Mark 7:13 "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." When tradition trumps what the Bible teaches, the Bible becomes just another tradition or a collection of stories.
Should we celebrate the birth of Christ?
Is there anything in the Bible that suggests a celebration of the birth of Christ? Does "a multitude of the heavenly hosts praising God" count (Luke 2:13)? How about the shepherd's coming in haste to see the babe lying the manger (Luke 2:16)? Or how about Simeon's and Anna's reaction later in Luke 2? And what about the wise men who came from the east to worship Him. Yes, there is plenty of reason to celebrate the birth of Christ. But is that what Christmas is all about? That is what Christmas should be all about. But through the years the meaning has changed to be more of a secular event, even for many of the Christians who "celebrate" Christmas. Could it be because through the telling of stories it has become more of a myth and the events have taken a life of their own, rather than the focus being on the event of God becoming flesh and dwelling among us? The reactions of the shepherds, Simeon, Anna, and the wise men were acts of worship and giving glory to God. Setting apart a day a year to celebrate God becoming flesh and dwelling among us is not a bad thing. No the exact day of Christ' birth is not known, but we can rejoice, remember, and celebrate this special event throughout the year with the focus on December 25th.
Luke 2:11 "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
No comments:
Post a Comment