A Harmonius Advent

[Soulfyre]

During this Advent season, I thought it more than appropriate that we should consider the birth of Jesus Christ, or, more properly, Y'shua Ha Moshiach, and what the Bible teaches us concerning this pivotal event of history. The reason for my title is a play on words. Since the birth of Y'shua is dealt with by two gospels, Matthew and Luke, with two distinct purposes, I shall be "harmonizing" their accounts, dealing with what seem to be contradictory geneologies, reconstructing events, and demonstrating how each complements the other.

Understanding the advent of Y'shua is crucial the laying a foundation for establishing the identity of this otherwise obscure peripatetic rabbi, whose coming changed the world. But we must not confuse the coming of Y'shua with our "Advent" season. As most historical evidence will demonstrate, it is highly unlikely that Ye'shua was born during the Northern Hemisphere's winter season. The celebration we have come to know as Christmas, or the Nativity, occurs at the time of year it does largely out of convenience, and was not even acknowledged by the earliest church, since the the remembrance of the birth of our Savior was not commanded by Ye'shua, as was the remembrance of his death (as celebrated in the Eucharist, or Communion). And this observance was not limited to an annual event, but in many early communities was done at their weekly meeting. For a history of the celebration of the Nativity by the church, as well as related information, I suggest the following weblinks:

• The Catholic Encyclopedia: Christmas
• Christianity Today: the History of Christmas
• New Life Community Church: A History of the Celebration of Christmas
• Wikipedia: Christmas
• Pagan Claus: The Real History of Christmas Customs

These are fairly representative, and provide much helpful and interesting information. The latter article is not as cynical as the title might suggest.

What we will be concerned with is not the celebration, festive as it may be, but what, in fact, we are puporting to celebrate: the birth of our Savior and Lord, Y'shua. My next article will deal a brief understanding of the Gospels, their and their themes. Following that, we will focus on the accounts of the birth of Y'shua as recorded by Matthew in Luke, and show how the differnces between the two are not contidictions, but rather two facets of a multifaceted gem, for it is the skillful work of the gemologist in faceting the gem that gives it fire and brilliance for all to see. G_d, in the Bible has presented us with multiple facets breathed our in words, written brilliantly be the Gospel writers that we may come to know Y'shus in his glory.

God bless and keep you all,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Soulfyre]

In this whirlwind before the day we celebrate the Birth of Jesus to our ears, but more probably, in the Hebrew of the time, the birth of Y'shua. His name, similar to Joshua, would mean "the God of the covenant saves", or "salvation in the God of the covenant". Jews of today do not write out God. Rather, they use the symbol G_d out of repect, not wising to use the name of the Lord in vain. The multiple vulgarities which inadvisedly use the word "god" are too numerous and embarassing to mention. Perhaps if we did the same, the habit would remind us that God, although our Abba Father, is still Lord of all Creation, and his name, even in the generic, is holy.

Many already are aware that the "Y'" in Y'shua and the "Jo" in Joshua refer to the beginning of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, the revealed covenant name of God, perculiar to his chosen people. The Name (in Hebrew, Hashem) was pronounced only once a year by the high priest selected by lot to enter into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. When the name appeared in scripture, it was pronounced "Adonai" (the word of "Lord"). This practrice scribes used in writing the tetragrammaton so that it would be alternatively pronounced is called "qethib qere", which literally means, "what is written (thus) shall be read (or pronounced as this)". Now how did they go about doing this, if the Hebrew language is only consonantal, having no vowels? More simple than you might expect. The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (often referred to as the Tanakh) uses a convention known as "vowel-pointing" and other diacritical marks to indicate how a text is to be read of even chanted. When the scribes would come upon the Tetragrammaton, since a devout Jew would not speak the covenenant name of God outside of its purposed usage in the Holy of Holies, the scribe would use the vowel pointing peculiar to the word "Adonai". The reader would immediated recognize that what was written YHWH was to be pronounced Adonai, and all was well. Elsewhere, as a practice, orthodox Jews use the word Hashem (literally, "the Name"), avoiding the word "God". As an aside, you may already be aware that it is has been a common mistake to attempt to vocalize the tetragammaton by combining the four consonants YHWH with the vowel pointing of Adonai, i.e. a-o-a, and coming up with YaHoWaH, then, introducing J for Y and V for W, we have, JaHoVah, or with vowel reduction, Jehovah. In spite of its mulitiplicity of references in lyrics of otherwise excellent hymns, it is, in fact, no a name at all. God has never been called Jehovah, accept by those unable to propery read it. So I fear we must give up our romance with the word Jehovah. The word is a figment of our "literal" imagination.

For the rest of our discussion, I will be frequently adopting Jewish convention, primarily using Hashem (The Name), and when referring to Jesus Christ I will frequently use the Hebraicised form of Y'shua Ha Moshiach (notice the similarity of Moshiach, the Messiah, to Moses...it is intentional). For too long we have forgotton that as wild olive branches, we have been grafted into the cultivated vine, God's people Israel. We do not support the Olive Tree. Rather the Olive Tree, beginning with the Abraham, the Partiarchs, and the Prophets, support us. If we fail to make this profound connection, our Christianity flails about, out of context, searching for meaning. We are rooted in the people of Hashem, and Jewish history. We forget so at the peril of our Christian lives and communities.

It was in purpose of Hashem that four accounts of the gospel, or good news, of Ye'shua Ha Moshiach be written. Undertanding their differenced, and what aspect of Ye'shua Adonai was being emphasized for what target audience allows us a much broader context within which to understand this Very Man who was also Very God. Why, you might ask, were their four gospels? And why were they not all written by apostles? Neither question has a completely satisfactory answer, aside from the fact that given that Hashem had awaited the perfect time and place within history to send his Son, and that one who had made such perfect preparation has also prepared the appropriate people to write about it. The Lord of Creation leaves nothing to time plus chance.

As a tradition aside that may be instructive, the four Gospels are represented by the four creatures standing about the throne of God in the Book of Revelation, and the four-headed creatures pulling the chariot of Hashem in Ezekiel. These four beings, or heads, included the lion, the ox, the man, and the eagle. The Gospel according to Matthew is generally represented by the lion, for in it Y'shua is portrayed as the Jewish Moshiach, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, heir to the throne of his father David. The Gospel of Matthew begins with a heraldic geneology, beggining with Abraham, through David the King, to establish the birthright of Y'shua to the throne of Israel. The account of the birth of Jesus Christ is replete with Messianic prophecy, and kings and kingdoms take note. When Herod is visited by the Magi from Persia to ascertain the location of the baby born to be King, events are immediately set in motion to establish the conflict between the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdoms of the world, and the rulers among "his own", by whom he will be rejected.

The ox, a beast of burden among the Jewish people, is identified with the Gospel according to Mark, which portrays Y'shua as ebed, or Servant (a common illustration of Hashem as helper to his people Israel in the Old Testament). Hence, activity establishes identity. Mark does not refer to geneology, as it is not immediately relevant. Y'shua is declared to be the Beloved Son of Hashem, in whom he is will pleased at the baptism of Y'shua by John the Baptizer. It is this identity that is relevant. From this point on, a simple picture is painted of Y'shua hastening from one act of obedience to another, from one act of service to another. Y'shua is, as the Son of Hashem, to be the suffering servant who will die for his people. This gave his final statment the High Priest in the meeting before the Sanhedrin before his condemnation and crucifixion explosive impact. In Mark 61, the text says: Again, the High Priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are you the Christ [i.e. ha Moshiach], the Son of the Blessed One [another euphemism used to refer to Hashem]?" And Jesus said, "I AM, and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Yet he was led as a lamb to slaughter. Jesus was the Servant of Hashem who, in the human absurdity of the Gospel, sat aside His prerogatives as the Son of Hashem, to humble himself, taking the form of a bondservant and being made in likeness of man, he further humbled himself by becoming obedient to death on a cross (cf. Phippians 2:5-8).

Luke, the physician and the New Testament historian best says in his own words: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly acount for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know with certainty what you have be taught." His is perhaps the most human of the Gospels. The Gospel according to Luke uniquely presents Y'shua Ha Moshiach as the "seed of the women" predicted by God at the Fall, "who, although bruised in the process, would crush the serpent with his heel." Y'shua was to be the Second Adam, in whom creation would be redeemed and renewed, by whom the church, his chosen bride, would be presented spotless...blameless before him...arrayed in white at the bridal bower." It is not surprising, then, that Mary should play a more prominent role here as the vessel selected by Hashem to bear this Holy seed. The geneology of Luke, rather than working from ancestors forward to Y'shua, reads more like a baptismal record, beginning with Y'shua and working all the way back, beyond David and Abraham, to Adam, the Father of the race that Y'shua, as the New Adam, would redeem, adobt, and transform.

Finally, we come to the Gospel according to John, by some called John the Evangelist, by Orthodox referred to as John the Theologian. Not considered one of the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who look at very similar instances in the life of Ye'shua). Like its symbolic creature, the eagle, it soars above the other Gospels, presenting Y'shua as the Word made flesh. The eagle was commonly used as a majestic illlustration of both the power and the care of Hashem, who bears us up, like egrets learning to fly, on the pinions of his mighty wings, and shelters us safely beneath their shadows to protect us. The geneology is simple in its brevity, the Word, who is with, and indeed is, God, through whom all things were created, this same Word became flesh and "tabernacled" among us (referring to the skins laid over the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle in the wilderness. Yet we (the author and the others present at the transfiguration) beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father. John describes that the Creator of the Word came into the world, but the world did not recognize him; he came to his own people, but contrary to even the customs of hospitality of the period, his own did not receive him. But to those who receive him, he gave the authority to become the sons of Hashem...just by turning to him in faith and belief.

The Lord bless you and keep you,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Soulfyre]

I don't know if you enjoy the vicarious thrill of tracking down geneological information, or if the whole topic just sort of makes you yawn, causes your eyes to roll back in their sockets, and saliva to dribble out of your mouth and glisten on your chin. Frankly, that's how most geneologies affect me. My aunt (on my father's side) was thrilled to find out we had relatives on the Mayflower and on the bridge with the Minutemen at Concord. Frankly, I was just glad they found the boat and didn't get lost at sea and end up somewhere in the jungles of Brazil. I was relieved I wasn't related to the Mayflower Madam! But geneologies just are not a great source of interest to me.

Of course, this was not true at the time of Jesus. Being true sons of Abraham, having as predecessors the patriarchs of the people of Hashem, was not to be treated like day-old lentil soup. Priesthood was determined based on lineage, and there were still Messianic hopes that the Davidic throne would be re-established and justice would be restored for those who had suffered so long under the yoke of tyrants from among the goyim (Gentiles). Hence, the geneologies of Y'shua (ben Yoseph, as it was supposed) are crucial to understanding the identity of Y'shua and providing a foundation for his audacious claims.

What becomes baffling to many readers of Matthew and Luke are the apparent disparities between the two geneologies. Yet, the points of departure between the two geneologies are nearly as instructive as the points of similarity. For example, Matthew traces the geneology of Y'shua to Abraham and Luke goes back to Adam. This difference can be easily explained by the fact that Matthew, in defending the Messianic identity of Y'shua (Y'shua ha Moshiach), chose to emphasize that the human lineage of Y'shua could be traced both to David, and from David back to Abraham and the Patriarchs. Matthew also used a Hebraic convention in numerical scheme to the geneology of Y'shua, whereas Luke simply list the progenitors. That this numerical division was essentially artifice is not significant, since in Hebrew custom, reference to geneologies was often selective, listing as of primary importance those predecessors significant to the argument being advanced, doing so according to a numerical scheme. Matthew assigned fourteen generations to each "leg" of the geneology (massaging the data to omit names where necessary)--from Abraham to David, from David to Jeconiah (alt. Jehoiachin) and the deportation to Babylon, and thence from Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) to Joseph, and then to Y'shua. Y'shua was undeniably Jewish, and heir to the throne of David the King.

It is also notable that Matthew was at pains to mention the women in the lineage of Y'shua, something that one might have expected from Luke (although it would be tangential to Luke's purpose). One is immediately stricken by the fact that rather than mention great matriarchs like Sarah, Rebekah or Leah, Matthew includes Rahab (the harlot of Jericho), Tamar, who enticed her father-in-law Judah into an incestuous relationship, and Bathsheba (whose name is not even mentioned), who had an adulterous relationship with King David that resulted in the murder of her faithful husband, Uriah. Matthew, who was undoubtedly familiar with the common objections to the pregnancy of Mary as casting suspicion and aspersion upon Y'shua, deftly argues that it is the intervening act of a Providential God, the elective work of Hashem, that brings blessing and salvation to the people called by His Name. Such doubts alone are insufficient to deny the legitimate claim of Y'shua to the Davidic throne. Matthew then proceeds to address the birth of Y'shua, and deny all doubt.

For Luke, however, these milestones were significant, but incidental to the point which he wished to make. Y'shua was infinitely more than conventional Messianic prophecy would suggest. Y'shua was the Second Adam. He was the Seed of Woman, prophesied by God at the Fall. Y'shua was not simply heir to the throne of his father David, he was the Lord of the New Creation, in whom the fallen world would find redemption and restoration. Hence, Luke extended the geneology of Y'shua back to Adam. I believe, however, this emphasis also explains Luke's more extended treatment of Elizabeth and Mary. Luke extended Lordship back to the womb, as the unborn John the Baptist leapt in the womb of Elizabeth, in recognition of the presence of Y'shua in the womb of Mary. The Seed of Woman, existent in utero, was recognizable as Lord. His office was not something conferred at baptism, where liberal theology infers a human Jesus was "christed" (essentially a re-warming of the Arian heresy). The full identity of Y'shua, as fully man and fully God, was present in the fertilized ovum. The smallest of seeds contained the One whose Infinite Presence was larger than the universe.

Much is often made of the fact that in Matthew, it is asserted that Jacob was father to Joseph, while Luke indicates that Joseph was "of Heli". Various theories have been advanced to explain this. One of the more common was that Luke's statement in Luke 3:23, that Y'shua was "the son, as supposed, of Joseph, of Heli..." could indicate that the line of descent was actually that of Mary, whom Luke did not mention in the geneology out of convention. The further emphasis on Mary in Luke could support this interpretation, but it is not the most natural interpretation of the Greek text (which lacked punctuation). The Greek would simply have read that Y'shua was "the son as supposed of Joseph of Heli...", and the more natural interpretation was that while Joseph was the son of Heli, it was only supposed that Y'shua was the son of Joseph. The interpretation considered more likely by many was that a previous Levirate marriage would have allowed Joseph to be considered the son of both Heli and, according to Matthew, Jacob. This is certainly a more polished and elegant solution, linguistically.

I must admit, I am torn between these two explanations. Neither would, of necessity, offend the Greek. And I tend to lean to the first on a theological basis. If Luke was indeed at pains to establish that Y'shua was "ben Adam", and by implication, the Second Adam, it would make sense that he might insert the geneology of Mary to establish the direct ancestry (although the fact that Mary was human would decide that issue for most of us anyway). Certainly it could be argued that 1:32 establishes Mary's Davidic heritage (Gabriel said that the "Lord God will give him the throne of his father David", perhaps implying a direct human lineage, rather than a lineage by marriage). That Luke is emphasizing Y'shua as the Second Adam is inference, however. And it is dangerous to impose a personal theological preference upon the original text. However, as was pointed out by Walter Liefeld, who penned the commentary on Luke from the Expositors Bible Commentary, possible satisfactory explanations for such variations of these suffer from an embarrassment of riches. There are many that do not offend the text, reason, or custom. Hence the minimal variations between the geneologies do not invalidate either (no serious contradiction occurs), but enhances our wonder at the Providence of Hashem (the Lord God) in bringing forth our salvation.

God bless and keep you,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Soulfyre]

Drawing together the events that led to the birth of Y'shua Ho Moshiach--Immanu'el--from Matthew and Luke and placing them in fully chronological order can be challenging. Matthew, in fact, deals only cursorily with the birth of Y'shua, except to relate specific facts that were immediately relevant to the point he wished to emphasize--that the birth happened according to the prophecy made by Isaiah, who proclaimed in Isaiah 7:14, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanu'el". The Hebrew word translated "virgin" ('almah) could also mean "young woman" as it could also apply to one newly married. The root, in masculine and feminine forms, simply spoke of one who had reached sexual maturity. It was predominantly used, however, of one who was inexperienced sexually, that it, a virgin. To argue for another understanding would be to let a naturalistic world view take precedence over linguistic considerations and context. Luke goes into more detail, and provides us with a prologue to the announcement by the messenger of God to the young woman concerning the central event of the God's redemptive plan.

Luke begins with Zechariah, a priest of God, and his wife, Elizabeth, both of whom were descendants of Aaron. The work of liturgical service in the temple was assigned to one of twenty-four groups of priests, originally divided by families and structured as laid out by I Chronicles 23-24. The Exile had interrupted the original lines of descent, so when the divisions were restructured, few corresponded to the actual line of descent, which makes Luke's observation concerning Zechariah and Elizabeth more noteworthy. Each group ministered only two weeks out of each year. The one to offer the incense at the daily sacrifice was chosen by lot, and could do so only once in his lifetime. Some never had this high and holy duty. But Zechariah had been chosen by lot to go into the temple of the Holy Place of the Temple and burn incense before the Lord.

That this was a solemn duty is indisputable, and would have been a high-water mark in the life of the priest so chosen. The common practice was to tie a rope around the ankle of the celebrant, for one deemed by the Lord unworthy to approach His presence would be in peril of his life. The rope would allow the other priests to remove the body of a priest stricken dead in his unworthiness without themselves entering the Holy Place unbidden. Such was the peril of coming before the Holy God presumptuously or with hidden sin. Like any ritual, however, some had probably come to consider this liturgical chore rather casually, in spite of its solemnity. The glory had long since departed the temple, and it is doubtful than anyone expected anything particularly out of the way to happen. Even the most pious, who might be more moved in spirit by the work at the altar of incense in the Holy Place, probably merely anticipated the awe of the duty. Yet it was to happen that the work of Zechariah this day was to be awe-full indeed!

While offering the incense with his prayer (probably part of the liturgy, beseeching God for the redemption of Israel, Gabriel, the "God's Mighty One" as his name implies, and the messenger of God most identified with God's people, appeared at the side of the altar of incense. The extent of Zechariah's reaction is difficult to fathom: "startled" and "gripped with fear", while accurate, probably do not convey the depth of his emotion. Gabriel states simply:

To what prayer was God responding? Was it that the Lord might be gracious to remove the barrenness of his wife, Elizabeth, that her scorn might be lifted and that she bear a child? Or was it a standard liturgical prayer for the redemption of Israel? In either case, both were to be dramatically answered.

Zechariah's response was interesting. It is not recorded by Luke that Zechariah actually questioned the identity of the one speaking to him. No other human was allowed to appear in the Holy Place with the priest, and the security surrounding the inner temple (which had its own guard) was formidable. It appears that Zechariah accepted that the one he saw was indeed a heavenly messenger. But his question demonstrated that although Zechariah knew of the great miracle granted Abraham and Sarah, yet Zechariah doubted the veracity of Gabriel's announcement. As a result, Gabriel (lit. "Mighty One of God") said:

The many people surrounding the temple when sacrifices were offered, waiting patiently for the priest to come out and offer the Aaronic benediction, were undoubtedly murmuring nervously, wondering why this element of the temple service was taking more time than usual. One can only imagine the effect on the people when Zechariah stepped forth, unable to speak! When he returned home, his wife Elizabeth became pregnant, and went into seclusion.

God bless you and yours,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Soulfyre]

In the sixth month of Elizabeth's seclusion, another incredible event occurs. Gabriel is sent to a virgin named Mary (probably after Miriam, the prophetess and sister of Moses), who was living in the small town of Nazareth, and had been betrothed to Joseph, identified as a descendant of David. The meeting was extraordinary by all accounts. The greeting of Gabriel can be recited by heart by nearly every Christian: "Hail Mary, full of grace! The Lord is with thee," or "Greetings, Mary, you who are highly favored [or "filled to the fullest by God's grace"], the Lord is with you." Gabriel's announcement was probably not one in which he recognized some inherent merit in Mary, but was stating simply that God, in His Good Providence, had bestowed His unmerited, unlimited grace upon Mary (cf. Ephesians 1:6). He then assured her that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was "with" her. These words echoed the words the Angel of the Lord had spoken to Gideon on the threshing floor, and indicated God's presence and help in relationship to a special appointment of God for a particular service. That Mary was greatly troubled may indicate that she was well aware of the previous context of these words.

Mary is again reassured by Gabriel, who tells her not to be afraid. [Just as an aside, this always reminds me of the cogent reminder by C. S. Lewis that the appearance of an angel, a messenger of God, in the Bible was invariable accompanied by the words of assurance, "Fear not!" How dreadful--how truly awe-full--these appearances must have been. Yet our more modern depiction of angels either as fat-faced infants or beautiful (if somewhat insipidly sweet) women seems to make us thing that our "angel" would more likely have said, "There, there, dear." Perhaps we need to readjust out thinking!] Gabriel repeats that Mary has indeed found favor with God (cf. the description of Noah in Genesis 6:8). Suddenly his words flow forth, reminiscent of those spoken to comfort Hagar (Genesis 16:11), and reiterating the prophecy made in Isaiah 7:14, saying: "You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name of Jesus [prb. "Y'shua]. 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, and he will reign over the house of Jacob; his kingdom will never end."

The willing and submissive attitude of Mary's heart is manifested in her response to this shattering announcement. She did not weep and wail in grief, in a manifestation appropriate to the culture of the times, given that she was just told that she was to be with child our of wedlock. While nowadays, such an announcement is often treated as an inconvenience "remedied" by a quick trip to an "abortuary", at that time it could have been considered the promise of a slow and painful death. Perhaps we should view this in the manner an Arab woman of a devout Muslim family might respond to being raped. Those misfortunate women are often painfully executed to regain the honor of the family. Mary would be clearly guilty of adultery, being betrothed, and would have been stoned. Yet her response was a simple question: "How can this happen, since I have not known a man with sexual intimacy? (i.e, "I am a virgin.") When Gabriel explains how this is to happen, Mary responds: "I am the Lord's handmaiden. May this occur as you have said." Essentially, she said the same as our members of the Cabinet must say: "We serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States." Mary, who knew the true impact of Gabriel's announcement, responded in a similar manner--to paraphrase, "I serve at the pleasure of the Lord." One must not mistake this submission as passivity. Mary, in a supreme act of the will, chose to be obedient to God--obedient at the possible cost of all she held dear.

At this point in the narrative, Luke indicated that Mary got ready and hurried to the home of Zechariah and Elizabeth. It strikes me as interesting that there is no mention that Mary went first her immediate family regarding her condition. It would seem unusual that a young, marriageable girl, betrothed to another man, should simply rush away by herself without consulting her family. That she would not have gone to Joseph, however, would not be surprising, for talks of such intimacy would have been unusual between a young marriageable girl and her betrothed. Marriages were generally arranged, even among the poorer families. So such intimate communications between a man and woman would not generally occur until after marriage. I would propose, although it is not specified clearly in scripture, that Mary did consult with her family (as would have been anticipated of a young girl at the time), who would have, in turn, spoken of the situation to Joseph.

It is a tribute to the righteous sensibilities of Joseph that he did not demand Mary publicly humiliated, and stoned, to vindicate his honor. Rather, his first impulse was one of love--to preserve his intended from public disgrace. It is not clear whether Mary's travel to see Zechariah and Elizabeth was in reaction to Joseph's initial desire to divorce Mary in a private manner, so as to avoid her public humiliation and possible execution (cf. Matthew 1:18-19), but I believe that it logically fits the scripture. It was not until later that the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, admonishing the distraught man to "not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:20). Matthew states that when Joseph woke up from this dream, he did as the Lord commanded and took Mary to his home, but did not consummate the marriage "until she gave birth to a son."

This, however, could have taken place before or after Mary had returned from Elizabeth's, upon the birth of John (to be the Baptizer, the forerunner of Jesus). Her travel may have been an initial result of the desire to keep her from public disgrace while negotiating the divorce. Or it may simply have been a customary reaction from close family to assist in a birth, especially given the advanced ages of Zechariah and Elizabeth. It is interesting to note that Luke mentions the recognition by John, in utero, of being in the presence of his Lord and Messiah, also in utero, scarcely having been conceived. Such testimony should be cautionary to those who wish to argue that a fetus is simply a parasite in the mother's body prior to birth, and that an abortion prior to the third trimester is a simply a matter of conscience and the health of the mother. Mary stayed with Elizabeth for three months, and then returned home. Since the annunciation to Mary occurred within Elizabeth's sixth month, it is likely that Mary remained to assist Elizabeth with the birth of John, and then returned home.

Luke is perhaps the most "musical" of the gospel records, for in it one finds the Magnificat (the song of Mary), the Benedictus (the song of Zechariah), and later, the Nunc Dimittis (sung by Simeon). Yet before these, one can hear the words of the first verse of "Ave Maria", written from the combined words of Gabriel and of Elizabeth. "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." That Mary was well-acquainted with the Holy Scriptures is evident, for her beautiful song of praise to God reads like a Psalm. It is often compared with the Song of Hannah, at the promise of her son, Samuel (I Samuel 2:1-10), whose prophetic ministry saw the anointing of David, the King. The theme of Mary was the mercy of God, which bypasses the rich to rest upon the poor and humble. The theme of salvation is taken up by Zechariah. Most interesting is the contrast between the words of Gabriel about Y'shua, "He will be called the Son of the Most High," and the words of Zechariah concerning John, "He will be called a prophet of the Most High." In Luke, the announcement of the coming King is worthy of voices lifted in songs of praise.

God bless you and yours,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Soulfyre]

You may consider this discussion of the birth of Christ to be late, considering that many Christian churches are in the habit of celebrating the birth of Jesus on December the 25th. But the actual time of the birth of Jesus Christ is a source of frequent error among Christians for a variety of reasons. The first is that the early church did not find the birth as significant as the baptism or death and resurrection of our Lord, so it was not uniformly celebrated until later in the formation of the church. The year of the birth of our Lord has also been demonstrably mistaken. In fact, it is likely that Jesus was born around 4 B.C., which sounds a bit strange, since the terms B.C. and A.D. mean "before Christ" and "Anno Domine", i.e. "in the year of the Lord", respectively. And the time of year in which we celebrate the birth of our Lord was not selected because of any correspondence with the actual time of the year in which Christ was born. Rather, the choice of date was symbolic. Many religions, including that of the Romans, attached particular spiritual significance to such seasonal demarcations as the summer and winter solstices, and the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. The winter solstice, being the longest night of the year, marked the slow return of the sun. Various celebrations of this event included the Saturnalia among the Romans. That the church should grasp upon this as an evangelistic opportunity to preach the dawning of the Light of the World is not surprising. After all, Paul had set a precedent for this type of approach when he offered to tell the philosophers on Mars Hill about the "unknown god" they worshipped, using their practice as a jumping off point to tell them about God, the Creator, whom they did not know.

So...when was Jesus Christ born? One of the most fascinating professors I was privileged to study under was Dr. Harold Hoehner, currently of Dallas Theological Seminary. At the time, we used to refer to him as "Herod" Hoehner, because of his magnum opus, Herod Antipas. He also wrote another book that has been the help of many a seminary student, entitled Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Dr. Hoehner is an excellent logician and chronologist, among his prodigious capabilities, and his reasoning concerning the birth of Jesus Christ is quite succinct. Using Matthew and Luke, Dr. Hoehner quickly sizes up various relevant points:

• Jesus Christ was born during the reign of Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1), which would require a date between March 15, 44 B.C. and August 19, A.D. 14.
• According to Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, Jesus was also born during the reign of Herod the Great. Herod was made King of the Jews by the Roman Senate in 40 B.C., having been nominated by Antony and Octavian, and took possession of the kingdom (with the help of the Roman army) in 37 B.C. Josephus indicated that Herod the Great died after an eclipse of the moon on March 12/13, 4 B.C. He also indicated that the Passover celebration was subsequent to the death of Herod, which would have begun on April 11 4 B.C. So we may assume that Jesus could not have been born before 40 B.C. or after April 11, 4 B.C.
• A census for the purpose of taxation, decreed by Augustus, was being taken at the time of the birth of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Luke 2:1-5. The passage also indicates that the census was taken "while" or "before" Quirinias was governor of Syria. While many scholars argue that it was not the regular practice of Rome to take censuses of their holdings, this is not necessarily true. Censuses were taken of recalcitrant provinces, and Herod fell into disfavor with Augustus around 8/7 B.C. This likely occurred after Herod executed his two sons Alexander and Aristobulus, resulting in an intense power struggle between his other sons. Herod first drew up a new will making Antipater sole heir. Later, in 5 B.C., he drew up a will making Antipas sole heir. Finally, four days prior to his death, Herod killed Antipater, and made Archilaeus king of the realm. Since Herod would have to have asked the emperor each time he wanted to change his will, it is entirely conceivable that Augustus, aware of Herod's increasing paranoia and erratic activity, required a census to assess the situation, at which time the people in Herod's domain were required to take an oath of allegiance to Augustus. And while the only immediate record we have of a census in the area of Palestine during the governorship of Quirinius in Syria was the one in A.D. 6 (also mentioned by Luke in Acts 5:37), it is likely that the Greek adverb should be understood as "before" (certainly grammatically possible), although some manuscript evidence exists that Quirinius may have served in Syria twice, once during the birth of Jesus, and then later during the reign of Herod Archilaeus. Here, I believe, that understanding the adverb as "before" is the more plausible and elegant solution. Thus we now have a terminus a quo (earliest date) being around 8/7 B.C. and the terminus ad quem (latest date) being April 11, 4 B.C.
• Luke indicated that Jesus started his ministry when he was about thirty years old (Luke 3:23). John the Baptist began his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, around A.D. 27 to A.D. 29. If we use the age thirty-three as the upward reckoning of "about thirty", Jesus' birth could have been no earlier that 5 B.C. Hence a range from 5 B.C. to early 4 B.C. would be accurate.

Concerning the time of year Christ was born, much discussion has been raised. Perahps the most popular passage concerning the birth of Jesus Christ is found in Luke 2:8-16. It was spoken by the Charles Schulz character Linus in "A Charlie Brown Christmas", and will be used here:

Now many argue that the most likely time for shepherds to be "abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night" would be during the spring lambing season, not only that they might watch over the delivery of the lambs, but that they might provide the ewes and their newborns protection from predators during this particularly vulnerable time. They were generally taken into their enclosures between November and March. And it is certainly plausible that the church may have simply chosen to celebrate the birth of Christ at the time of year that many pagan religions (including the prevailing religion of Rome) celebrated the return of the sun, which was at or near the winter solstice. This would be similar to Paul utilizing the worship of an "unknown god" as an evangelistic tool to preach about God, the Creator, to the pagans on Mars Hill. But Dr. Hoehner provides some interesting observations:

• The traditional date of December 25 was provided by Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 165-235), and was reaffirmed by Chrysostom in A.D. 386.
• It could have been a mild winter, and it is not at all certain that the sheep were kept in their enclosures throughout the entire winter months.
• Although the sheep were brought in from the wilderness during the winter months, Luke records that the shepherds were around Bethlehem, not in the wilderness.
• The Mishnah implies that the sheep around Bethlehem were kept outside all year, and, in the words of Dr. Hoehner, "those that were worthy for the Passover offerings were in the fields thirty days before the feast--which would be as early as February--one of the coldest and rainiest months of the year. Therefore, a December date for the nativity is acceptable." Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, p.26.

Sometimes, in spite of what we consider our scholarly aptitude and attitude of rational detachment from church tradition (a mere 2000 odd years after the event), we are simply forced to admit that the early church may have actually been correct. Surprised? I'm not.

OK, so perhaps my post IS a little late....

God bless and keep you always,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Soulfyre]

Just a final note about the record of the birth of Jesus Christ in Luke 2 before continuing to the Visitation of the Magi in Matthew 2:

• The Son of Man, who would later say that "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head," [Matthew 8:20, Luke 9:58] was be born in a cave or stable, since there was no room at the inn.
• Jesus, who identified himself as the "Good Shepherd", was first announced to shepherds who were watching their sheep in the area of Bethelehem.
• Jesus, the "Bread of Life", was laid to rest in a "manger", a feeding trough for animals, and born in a village whose name meant "House of Bread".
• The angels sang at the birth of Jesus. Now how do we know this, since most translations of Luke 2:13-14 describe activity of the heavenly host as "praising God and saying..."? Well...primarily because of the word translated as "praising" was used only of praise to God, and was used by the LXX (the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Old Testament) to translate "halel" (remember "halelujiah"?), used particularly of sung praise to the Lord. Please forgive the speculative in me when I say that I sometimes think of the suddenness of the appearance of the heavenly host as coincident with the very birth of our Savior, who, when his cry pierced the night sky announcing his birth, was answered immediately by the host of heaven.
• The song of praise, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men", is poorly translated. The choir was not pronouncing a general peace and good will to all men, warm and fuzzy though it may seem. At the Triumphal Entry, Luke records (19:38) the crowd as saying, "Peace in heaven and glory in the highest." The heavenly choir sings something decidedly different. "Peace in heaven" is not in view, but "Peace on earth". But the next phrase is not appositional (saying the same thing in different words, i.e. "Peace on earth" = "Good will towards men"). Rather, the proper construction is "Peace on earth to men upon whom God's favor rests." Compare this to Luke 10:21, "At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, 'I praise you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes Father, for this was your good pleasure.'"
• When the shepherds responded, "Let's go to Bethlehem and see this thing which has happened, which the Lord has told us about," the word for "thing" is "rhema", elsewhere used as another expression for a prophetic "word" from God. It was used again by Simeon in Luke 2:29, generally translated as "as you have promised...". The shepherds were immediately obedient to the prophetic word of God.

This passage should remind us of the words of John 1:11-12, "He came to that which was his own [i.e., the temple of Jerusalem and its religious authorities, who were "shepherds" of the nation Israel, but acted as mere "hirelings"], but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or of a husband's will, but born of God." The similarity to Jesus himself, who was born of God while Mary was still a virgin, should not miss us. For our rebirth, God's unique gift of peace to us on whom his unmerited good pleasure rests, is from above, and places us in a family as God's children, for Jesus Christ was the firstborn among many brethren.

Gloria in excelsis Deo!

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Soulfyre]

Now concerning the final event which often marks the celebration of "Christmastide" or the "twelve days of Christmas", the Visitation of the Magi or the Feast of the Epiphany (the "Appearing"; ascribed to the baptism of Jesus Christ by John the Baptizer) on January 6, there are a few notes of interest. Of course, by now most people realize that the "three kings" were not kings. The term "Magi" was used a the time of Daniel to refer to Persian astrologers, possibly Zoroastrian in belief. Zoroastrianism was one of the great religions of Central Asia. Some incorrectly describe it as monotheistic, but in fact, Zoroastrians had a developed pantheon. Yet at its pinnacle was Ahura Mazda, Lord of Lords and Lord of Creation. The Magi were originally a priestly tribe, of the six Median tribes described by Herodotus. They were considered indispensable for the practice of sacrifice, which was made to the heavens on the highest peaks of mountains (they also made sacrifice to the sun, moon, earth, fire, water, and winds). That they would be assiduous observers of the heavens is no surprise. At the time of the birth of Jesus Christ, however, the term "magi" was no longer so technical, and could be used of , in the words of D. A. Carson in his commentary on Matthew in volume 8 of the Expositor's Bible Commentary, p. 85, "a wide variety of men interested in dreams, astrology,magic, books thought to contain mysterious references to the future, and the like." They could be honest inquirers after truth or self-seeking charlatans. But in this case, I favor the more specific connection to the Zoroastrians, who likely would have come "from the East", possibly Babylon.

Yet how do we explain the star, and their recognition of its significance? Theories abound, but several may be worthy of some interest. According to Kepler, in the Roman year A.U.C. 747 (747 years since the founding of Rome, corresponding to approximately 7 B.C.), an interplanetary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn occured in the zodiacal "house" of the constellation Pisces. This zodiacal constellation was often associated in ancient astrology with the Hebrews, and the planets Jupiter and Saturn could be construed as associated with royalty. This conjunction occurred in May, October, and November of 7 B.C., and given the time it would take to travel from the vicinity of Babylon, would account for the birth of Jesus Christ in 5 B.C. While interesting, two questions remain. First, are we to say that God approves of such heavenly "soothsaying" as astrology? God forbid, for the Bible forbids pagan astrology (Jeremiah 10:1-2). Nevertheless, I would remind you of four verses of interest:

• Genesis 1:14,15 - "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse if the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.' And it was so." Now while this verse may arguably be speaking merely of the designations of seasons and determination of later Jewish celebrations, a wider understanding is possible.
• Numbers 23:7 - "A star will come out of Jacob; a sceptre will rise out of Israel".
• Psalm 19:1 - "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands."
• John 1:14,15 - "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only [or, "Only Begotten"], who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
• II Corinthians 4:6 - "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made His light to shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."

Is not possible that the very heavens would declare Jesus Christ, the glory of God? But please, don't use this as an excuse to rush out and consult your favorite astrologer!

The second problem is more interesting. Matthew indicates (2:9b) that "the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was." Now I think I may speak with some authority that the lights fixed in the heavens do not generally move, then settle over a specific location. And not being a fan of Erich Von Daniken (who wrote The Chariots of the Gods, asserting that the dazzling appearance of the movable throne of God in Ezekiel was evidence of a UFO), I do not speculate that a glowing space craft traveled accross the sky and hovered over the place where Jesus was born. So how may this phenomenon be explained? Initially, one must say that the wise men didn't follow the star "from" the east, but had seen the star "in" the east. They undoubtedly knew the way to Jerusalem, and to Herod's castle. After all, where else would one look for one "born King of the Jews" [NOTE: the phrase does not say "born to be King of the Jews", as though this is something that the baby would one day become, but "born King of the Jews", emphasizing the baby's identity at birth as King of the Jews] but in Jerusalem, the city of the Great King, and at the palace? Rather, when they left the throne room of Herod, after Herod had consulted the chief priests (Sadducees) and teachers of the Law (Pharisees) concerning the birthplace of the Messiah, the star appeared and led them to the place in Bethlehem where Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus had taken up temporary residence shortly after the birth. So the star need not refer to the phenomenon seen previously. Some have speculated that this may have been a comet, but I think a more likely explanation is that this was, in fact, a miraculous appearance. In the Old Testament book of Job (38:4-7), in which most translators believe the sons of God (angels) are depicted as stars: "Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?", God asks Job regarding the creation of the Earth. I believe it more likely that this appearance was, in fact, an angelic event, although not like that of Luke 2, where the angels were announcing the birth to Israelite shepherds.

That the wise men were three is not evident from the text, but was probably extrapolated from the number of gifts. Their identification as kings goes as far back as Tertullian (who died c. A.D. 225), and may likely have developed from Old Testament passages indicating that kings would come and worship the Messiah (cf. Psalm 68:29,31; Psalm 72:10-11; Isaiah 49:7; Isaiah 60:1-6). It was not until the sixth century that the kings received their names, Melkon (later, Melchior), Balthasar, and Gaspar. The identity of the gifts--gold, frankincense, and myrrh--has much more recently been referenced as symbolic of the royalty of Jesus Christ (gold), the divinity of Jesus Christ (frankincense), and the Passion of Jesus Christ (myrrh). It is extremely dubious that the Magi were aware of this significance. However, it was not uncommon that the birth of Kings was marked by visiting dignitaries with the offering of gifts, and perhaps we may conclude that their significance is made evident to us, on whom the end of the ages has come. the primary significance, however, was the obedience of these men, probably Gentiles, to the simple truth to which they had access. Unlike the response in Jerusalem at the court of Herod, theirs was one of simple faith, not unlike that displayed by the centurion or the Syrophoenician woman to Jesus. "His own received him not, but to those who received him..." How can we then, knowing all that we do, fail to bow in worship and obedience to our Lord and Savior, and give him all that is precious to us...even our very lives?

Romans 12:1,2 - "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God--this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the word, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing, and perfect will."

God bless you in this coming new year, may you present yourselves as living sacrifices to Him whose Son became a sacrifice for us, and may you be daily transformed by the renewing of your mind, through the power of the Holy Spirit and the word of God, to know and do His perfect will.

Matthew (soulfyre)