Why Bethlehem?

Why Bethlehem?

Picture

Every Christian knows that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, but many do not know why.    There are actually two reasons why Jesus was born in that tiny Judean village, and both can be found in Scripture. 

First, it was foretold that the Messiah was to come from the house of David – to be a descendant of the young shepherd who became king of ancient Israel 1,000 years before the time of Christ. This was promised to David himself:
 
“When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom … and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son … Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:12-16).

This prophecy could not have been completely fulfilled by David’s physical descendants, but only by a Messianic king who could rule “forever” (vss. 13, 16).  That is why in the New Testament it was foretold of Jesus:  “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:32), and why, of course, Jesus is called the “Son of David” throughout the Gospels.

So the Davidic sonship of the Messiah was one reason for his eventual birth in Bethlehem – the place where David was born (and crowned) and his ancestral home (1 Samuel 17:12).   As a descendant of David, Joseph, the husband of Jesus’ mother Mary,  was required to travel to Bethlehem for a Roman census: 

“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 their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David” (Luke 2:1-4).

But there is another reason for the Bethlehem nativity. The Old Testament Book of Micah contains a fascinating prophecy of what was to occur in the fulfillment of God’s promise of the Messiah:

“And you, O tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, to you shall it come, the former dominion shall come, kingship for the daughter of Jerusalem … But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. … And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. And he shall be their peace” (Micah 4:8, 5:2-5).

This prophecy tells us that the Messianic ruler who would shepherd his people was, like David, to come from Bethlehem and that he would eventually reign “to the ends of the earth.”  But notice another detail.  The prophecy begins “And you, O tower of the flock …” for which the Hebrew is migdal eder, literally “Tower of Eder.” This tower is first mentioned in the Book of Genesis.  It stood on the outskirts of Bethlehem  where  the patriarch Jacob’s wife Rachel (Genesis 35:18-19) gave birth to her son “Ben-Oni” (meaning “son of sorrow”), whose name was changed to Benjamin (“son of the right hand”).  In New Testament times, the tower was a watchtower used to guard the flocks of sheep that were pastured in that area.

The Jewish Mishnah (Shekalim vii. 4) indicates that sheep in the fields around Migdal Eder were controlled by the Temple in Jerusalem and were used to provide the animals sacrificed in the temple rituals.   A number of biblical scholars have pointed out that if the prophecy of Micah 4:8 was fulfilled literally, then Jesus may well have been born in some building in this general part of the outskirts of Bethlehem.  The word translated “manger” where the infant Jesus was placed (Luke 3:7) could also be translated as “stall” or any holding area for animals.

More importantly, have you ever wondered why the Gospel of Luke tells us that at the Nativity, angels appeared to shepherds? The heavenly host could have appeared, of course, to a group of soldiers, priests, travelers, or any other individuals, but we are told that they appeared to shepherds who were grazing their flocks in the area where Jesus was born (Luke 2:8-15).  If Jesus was born in the area of Migdol Eder, the area where the sacrificial lambs were born and raised, the shepherds would naturally have been the people present in that area.

But regardless of the details of its fulfillment, the intent of the prophecy of Micah is clear.  The promised Messiah who was the Lamb who would be sacrificed for his people (John 1:29) would also be their future Shepherd (Matthew 2:6).  We see this principle throughout the Gospels, which speak of Jesus in both his initial human and later divine roles – as both the Servant and the future promised King, the Captive and the future Warrior, the Judged and the future Judge (Matthew 25:32, etc.).  In every case, at his first coming Jesus fulfilled the lesser role, and at his second coming he will fulfill the greater role.
 
And there is a lesson in this for us.  As we read the Gospel accounts and reflect on the life of Jesus, we should look carefully at how he carried out the lesser roles he fulfilled as a human being.  These roles are recorded so that our present lives may be modelled on his – just as he promises to eventually share his greater roles with us  if we are faithful in the lesser ones we have now (Luke 16:10).


The Temptations of Jesus:Lessons from the Wilderness

The Temptations of Jesus:Lessons from the Wilderness

Picture


​T
he first three Gospels tell us that after he was baptized, Jesus fasted for forty days and nights in the Judean wilderness and that at that time Satan appeared to him and tried to tempt him (Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-13).  The three temptations aimed at Christ (to turn stones to bread, to throw himself from the pinnacle of the temple, and to worship Satan) have been interpreted in various ways.

But there is one way in which Jesus’ wilderness temptations can be viewed which is directly grounded in the biblical record – as a reflection of the temptations of ancient Israel in the wilderness.  Just as the people of Israel went into the wilderness after their figurative baptism in the Red Sea (1 Corinthians 10:2) and were there forty years, Christ spent forty days in the wilderness (the Bible frequently uses the equivalency principle of a day for a year) and communed with God just as Moses (a type of Christ – Deuteronomy 18:15) did during Israel’s own time of wilderness wandering.

Notice the further important parallels between the two wilderness accounts. First, we see the Israelites gave into temptation regarding their physical desires in not trusting God for bread and their rebellious complaining in the incident where God supplied manna for them to eat because of their lack of faith (Exodus 16:2-3 and Deuteronomy 8:2–4). 

We also see the Israelites giving in to the temptation to argue or try to work out God’s plan for them in their own way, when they did not see evidence of God’s presence despite what He had done for them. We see this sin of tempting God repeatedly (Ex. 17:1–7, notice particularly verses 2 and 7 and Deuteronomy 6:16).

Finally, we see the Israelites falling to the temptation to worship something other than God in their bowing down to the golden calf and other idols and pagan gods (Exodus 32:1-4, Deuteronomy 6:13–15).

We know that these three failures of ancient Israel directly paralleled the temptations endured by  Christ  in the wilderness because  Jesus quoted specific references to exactly the same stories from the Book of Deuteronomy in response to each of the three temptations he underwent.  Jesus resisted the temptation to turn stones to bread by quoting Deuteronomy 8:3:  “… man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord” – which comes from the section of Deuteronomy talking about the Israelites’ sin regarding food.   He resisted the temptation to tempt God by throwing himself from the temple pinnacle by quoting from Deuteronomy 6:16, in which Moses rebukes the Israelites for putting God to the test.  Finally, he resisted the temptation to worship Satan by quoting from Deuteronomy 6:13-15 – the section faulting the Israelites for worshipping other gods.

In all his temptations in the wilderness, the responses of Jesus – in his words and actions – were directly opposite those of ancient Israel in their failure to handle temptation.  In fact, we see in these verses from Deuteronomy the very core of what Jesus’ testing was all about – that the temptation to push God and his way aside and to choose our own desires over his lies at the heart of all temptation.   We see this in the temptation to not trust God with our physical needs, the temptation to tempt God regarding the fulfillment of our emotional desires, and the temptation to elevate something other than God in fulfilling our psychological desires.

Falling to these three types of temptation was a mistake that ancient Israel made repeatedly.  But Jesus did not make this mistake and overcame Satan’s deliberate and carefully calculated attempts to destroy him.   Jesus overcame temptation in the Judean wilderness not only by knowing and quoting precisely relevant scriptures, but also by understanding the nature of temptation and by acting on that knowledge through the power of the Spirit of God. We see this underlying truth in the words of Jesus himself:  “By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me” (John 5:30). Unlike the ancient Israelites in the wilderness, Jesus’ response to temptation was based on his desire to please God more than himself.

If, with God’s help, we are to successfully overcome temptation in our own lives, we too must know God’s word, must want to please God more than ourselves, and must understand what lies behind the choices every temptation offers.


The Three Offerings of the Cross

The Three Offerings of the Cross

Picture

Many Christians know that the death of Christ took place at the “ninth” hour of the day – about 3:00 pm – at exactly the time of the afternoon sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple. Christ’s death was, of course, what the physical sacrificial system had pointed to, but relatively few Christians have noticed the extent to which the sacrifice of Jesus tied to those Temple offerings.

According to the Law of Moses, sacrifices were made in the Jewish Temple three times each day – at the third, sixth, and ninth hour of the day. The daylight part of the day was reckoned to start at 6:00 a.m., so these are the hours we would call  9:00 a.m., 12 noon, and 3:00 p.m.  When we look closely at the Gospel accounts, we see certain events at the death of Jesus corresponded exactly with these three times of offering.

1) The Gospel of Mark tells us that “ … it was the third hour when they crucified him” (Mark 15:25 ESV). This is when the actual crucifixion took place when Jesus was nailed to the stake or cross  on which he offered up his body – at the exact time of the morning sacrifice – although it was a number of agonizing hours before Christ died.

2) Mark also tells us “And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour” (Mark 15:33 ESV). This darkness – that began exactly at the time of the mid-day sacrifice and lasted till about 3:00 pm – symbolized the weight of all sin that was placed upon Christ, as he temporarily was separated from God, sacrificing his relationship with the Father. This separation was expressed “about the ninth hour” in his anguished words “My God, my God, Why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46).

3) Finally, Luke tells us, at the ninth hour or 3:00 pm, at the time of the so-called “evening prayers” and the last sacrifice of the day:  “Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!’ And having said this he breathed his last” (Luke 23:46) – he gave up his very life.

So the sacrifice of Jesus literally spanned all three of the sacrificial offering times of the day of his death – the morning, noon and evening offerings.  At the third hour he was crucified and offered up his body. At the sixth hour  he was cut off – he temporarily sacrificed his relationship with God.  At the ninth hour he died – he gave up life itself.
Interestingly, in his epistle to Titus the apostle Paul tells us, regarding Christ’s sacrifice, that “He gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to cleanse for Himself a people for His own possession, eager to do good works” (Titus 2:14).   Although Paul was not speaking directly of the three aspects of the sacrifice of Christ in saying these three things, his words are relevant in reminding us of how the three aspects apply to us.

When Paul writes that Christ “… gave himself to redeem us…” we should remember that, biblically, redemption is accomplished by  substituting one person or thing for another. In offering up his body, Christ acted as a substitute and redeemed us – the first point Paul makes.  In the same way, when Paul says it was to “cleanse for Himself a people for His own possession” we should remember that Christ temporarily sacrificed his relationship with his Father because of the burden of sin placed upon him, in order that we could have a relationship with God – to be a part of the people of God. Finally, when Paul says the people of God would be “… eager to do good works” we see a result of the third sacrifice – of Christ’s life – and we see how this applies to us in Paul’s words in his letter to the Romans:

“Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness” (Romans 6:13). 

In saying we should sacrifice ourselves as “an instrument of righteousness” Paul means, of course, to do good works – exactly as he writes in Titus 2:14 (and see Titus 3:8, and Ephesians 2:10).  It is a command that is clearly echoed in the Book of Hebrews: “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (Hebrews 13:16).

So while Paul’s mention, in his letter to Titus, of the three aspects of the sacrifice of Christ are not tied directly to the three sacrifices of the day of the crucifixion, his words give us cause for reflection and remind us of our own responsibilities in accepting the three parts of Christ’s offering. We too need to offer our bodies as a sacrifice to God, we too need to do whatever we can to help others find fellowship with him, and we too need to offer the sacrifice of our lives – the time we are given – to the cause of good works.  To the extent that we are following him, the three aspects of Christ’s sacrifice will be reflected in our lives also.


Did Jesus Address His Mother Harshly?

Did Jesus Address His Mother Harshly?

PictureFilling the wine jars with water. From an ancient mosaic.

Scripture in Focus: John 2:3-4 

In the story of the wedding at Cana when Jesus performed the miracle of turning water into wine, readers sometimes think that he addressed his mother somewhat harshly or even disrespectfully.  Look at the exchange:

“When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, ‘They have no more wine.’  ‘Woman, why do you involve me?’ Jesus replied. ‘My hour has not yet come’” (John 2:3-4).  Jesus’ words sound perhaps even harsher in the KJV:  “Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?” But there is no harshness or disrespect here at all.  Actually, “woman” was a standard form of address in the ancient world –  just as Jesus often addresses males as “Man” (Luke 5:20, etc.) – and the expression carries no lack of respect any more than saying “lady” or “ma’am” would for us today.

Remember that we don’t know the actual words Jesus used in this circumstance.  He probably spoke to His mother in Aramaic which was the commonly used language in Palestine at that time, but in the Greek in which the  New Testament was written, the word “woman” guné  (from which we get our word “gynecologist”) is in the ‘vocative’ case which was reserved for addressing others, even in the most formal speech.  Jesus used the same form of address when speaking to other women (Matt. 15:28, etc.).  At his crucifixion,  when he lovingly delivered his mother into the care of his disciple John as his last act of kindness before his death,  this was the form of the word he used in saying to her “Woman, behold your son!” (John 19:26).

Another detail of the wedding story which might sound harsh to our ears is the fact that Jesus said: “…why do you involve me?” (John 2:4), or as the KJV has it:  “…what have I to do with thee?”  But in the original Greek, the expression  is literally “What [is that] to me and to you?” – in other words he includes his mother with himself in saying, in effect, “Is this our responsibility?” or perhaps even “Does this situation need to involve us?”

But the story itself shows us that there was no tension between Jesus and his mother. Immediately after he answered her, note that “His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you,’” showing that she had not been rebuffed and that Jesus was about to help as she had requested –  as, of course, he did.

Although the turning of water into wine is usually said to be Jesus’ first miracle, we do not know that to be the case. The New Testament does not say it was his first, it is just his first recorded miraculous deed.  The fact that Mary turned to Jesus and asked him to help in the situation suggests that he may have already quietly done deeds of healing and help before this point. In saying his time was not yet come (John 2:3-4), Jesus may have meant not the performance of good deeds, but that the time for public display of such deeds – as in a wedding before many guests – was not necessarily yet.

The “IF” Mentality

The “IF” Mentality

Picture

Have you  ever tried to make a deal with God?  I don’t mean in a blatant way, such as “If you give me what I want, I will obey you,” as most of us understand this would  be wrong. But there are more subtle ways in which we can sometimes unknowingly stumble because of what might be called the “If” mentality. 

“If” is a small word with a great potential for misuse.  In fact, according to the four Gospels, many of the spiritual attacks against Jesus were based on this diminutive word.  Satan’s temptations of Jesus at the beginning of His ministry show us one of the ways in which we can be lured by an “If” mentality. Notice the wording: “If you are the Son of God command that these stones be made bread … if you are the son of God throw yourself down … if you will fall down and worship me” (Matthew 4:3-8). 

When we study these temptations in detail we see Satan repeatedly used the word “if” with the implication that if some action would be for a good purpose, then it is justified.  This is the underlying attitude that we too may have in suggesting that God do something for what we feel is a good and necessary goal.  We should always remember  that even if it is for a good purpose, the ends do not justify the means unless they conform  to God’s will.

Later in the ministry of  Jesus we see the word  “if” used in response to him in numerous other settings. We see it, for example, in the demands of the Jewish leaders: “If you are the Christ, tell us plainly” (John 10: 24), and we should be careful not to fall into this particular “If” trap, also.  Jesus had performed many miracles and signs throughout Judea, yet the Jewish leaders wanted him to confirm the signs for them – to see them with their own eyes. We need to be careful to be attuned to what God is doing in our lives and the things he is wanting us to be aware of. We should not tell God how to get a point across to us any more than we should suggest that we will only hear if the message is conveyed in a manner we think is “proof” to us.

The Gospels record the “Ifmentality manifesting itself all the way down to the end of Jesus’s life.  Some of those present at his crucifixion, including some of the rulers and chief priests, said:  “If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him” (Matthew 27:42 NKJV). Here, we see the attitude of “if” in its most raw and rebellious form – “If God does what I think is necessary, I’ll respond as I should.”  This is not far from the attempts to make a deal with God that we mentioned as we began this discussion. There may seem to be “nothing in it for us” in some of these circumstances – but we still try to make God conform to our will, our conditions for obedience.

In every one of these cases and many more in the ministry of Jesus, the word “if” was used in a manner which sought to impose another will, another viewpoint, on that of God.  We see it in the attitude of the self-righteous Pharisee  who  said “if he were a prophet, he would know who and what manner of woman … touched him” (Luke 7:39) and in dozens of other places.  We must always remember that God’s way is not one of a number of options for which we can negotiate. There is truly only one kind of “If” mentality that is right and proper in our relationship with God:  the attitude that Jesus himself exhibited throughout his earthly life – the attitude of “If it is your will…”  (Matthew 26:42).


The Blood and the Water

The Blood and the Water

Scripture in Focus:  John 19:34  

“… one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water” (John 19:34).

This small but graphic detail of the crucifixion of Jesus carries more meaning than we might presume, and there are both historical and scriptural reasons why we need to understand it.

John’s account makes it clear that the Roman soldiers wanted to make sure the crucified individuals did not continue alive into the Sabbath day. When they came to Jesus, they found him apparently already dead – so one of the soldiers pierced his side, doubtless with an intent to puncture his heart,  to make sure he was no longer alive (John 19:31-33).

John’s account of the event is important in our knowing that Jesus was truly dead and that the imaginative reconstructions of those who surmise Jesus was perhaps not killed by his crucifixion are not based on fact.  But what John records is important in another way.

First, we should understand what the blood and water were.   Anyone mercilessly whipped by “flogging,” as Jesus was, could go into hypovolemic shock caused by loss of blood. The medical symptoms of this condition are exactly consistent with John’s description of the crucifixion. For example, the victim could collapse due to low blood pressure (John 19:17); the kidneys could shut down and the victim would experience extreme thirst as the body could not replenish lost fluids (John 19:28). 

There is also another symptom of the body’s natural reaction to the extensive laceration by flogging that we should understand.  The hypovolemic shock Jesus inevitably experienced would cause sustained rapid heartbeat and fluid would gather within the pericardium, the membrane forming a sack around the heart.  This gathering of fluid, called “pericardial effusion,” explains why, after the soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side to reach his heart, blood and water came out as John recorded (John 19:34).

But the significance of this careful recording by John goes beyond establishing that Jesus was, in fact, dead.  The Book of Hebrews tells us, regarding the establishment of the Sinai covenant between God and ancient Israel:

“Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people…”  (Hebrews 9:15-19).

The scarlet wool and hyssop branches were not sprinkled on the congregation.  They were the instruments – symbolic of sacrifice and cleansing respectively – used to sprinkle the blood and water on the people. It was the sprinkling of the blood and water that ratified the Old Covenant.  In the death of Jesus, the blood and water that flowed from his side were the manner in which the new covenant was inaugurated – a covenant made not just with one nation, but with all of humanity.