Notes on the birth of Jesus

Notes on the birth of Jesus

The World Into Which Jesus Was Born

We possibly understand what the journey to Bethlehem was like this year, better than at any time in the past one hundred years. I was watching the TV news of Iraqi refugees. Among them was a pregnant woman on donkey with a carpet to sleep upon, blankets, pots and pans, bags of food for the journey, precious belongings, all piled on the small beast whose sure feet trotted on the stony tracks.

An anxious man, with more belongings upon his back, was taking his wife and family to safety. They were leaving their homeland to flee to another country, then another, always being turned away; encountering crooks who charged them to help move them on.

Tribal chiefs were at war with each other and the most powerful country in the world. Well-equipped soldiers from many nations tramp their country in search of the enemy. Decisions affecting their personal future were made in marble buildings half a world away.

It was like that at the first Christmas! Iraq and Judea have a lot in common. The barren Judean hills look exactly like the barren hills of Iraq. The same winter snow on mountain tops in Iraq is falling upon the mountain tops of Judea as it was when Mary and Joseph first came. A heavily pregnant Mary together with her sleeping carpet, blanket, pots and pans, bags of food and precious possessions loaded on an uncomplaining donkey.

Joseph carried tools and his remaining valuables on his back. Their destination was their tribal city. After that, who knows?

They were to flee for their lives as refugees from the murderous King Herod, not stopping until the three of them were in the safety of Egypt that accepted them as refugees. Bethlehem was the place of birth. But it was only a stopping point for registration and birth. Then the refugees moved on until they ended in Egypt.

Did they meet thieves along the way who demanded a heavy price for their safety? Did the gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh end up in the hands of middle men in exchange for the promise of safety?

The tribal chiefs are mentioned in the Bible. Luke recorded their names (Luke 2:1) “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register.” And a little later: 3:1-3 “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.”

These tribes are the descendants of Isaac. The tribes of Iraq are descendants of his brother Ishmael, both sons of Abraham.

The international force today comes from many countries of origin including soldiers from Australia. It was similar in the world into which Jesus was born. Then the Romans pressed men from conquered countries into their armies and marched them far across the face of the empire. They were under the control of Italian centurions and commanders in the same way as American generals direct the war today.

At the time of Jesus, the foot soldiers of the Romans included Huns and Gauls, Kurds and Syrians, Picts and Celts – these were the northern alliance that marched over Judea under Roman leaders. The decisions were made far away in the centre of a vast empire. “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.” Ordinary people, like the carpenter of Nazareth and the carpet weaver of Baghdad, fleeing on donkeys because of the decisions made half a world away. This was the world into which Jesus was born!

The birthplace of Jesus in Bethlehem was in all probability a cave. The Judean hills are riddled with caves that are used for storage, as stables, and for living as we see in Iraq today.

Where Jesus was born was significant. It was not the Innkeeper’s fault there was no room in the inn. That was all part of the plan of God. The Shepherds were told: “This very day in David’s town your Saviour was born Christ the Lord! And this is what will prove it to you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” (Luke 2:12) The proof was a baby wrapped in cloths, lying in a manger. Seven hundred and fifty years before, Micah had foretold that a ruler for Israel would be born in Bethlehem even though it was only a small village. That was forgotten until some astrologers came following a bright moving star and asked King Herod where a new ruler would be born.

The scriptures nowhere mention a stable, just a manger. The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is built over a cave identified in the second century as the birthplace of Jesus. The birth of Jesus in such a place was no accident; it was a sign. Of what?

1. A SIGN OF HIS POVERTY.

No birth could have so identified Jesus with the poor than His birth. We spend billions of dollars to celebrate the birth of Christ, but Jesus was born in surroundings known only to the absolutely poor. God cares for the poor. He identifies Himself with the poor when His Son was born in a cave. His whole life would be one of poverty. They fled to Egypt possessing nothing.

At His presentation at the Temple His parents offered a dove sacrifice, the gift of the poor. As a workman in Nazareth He spoke about patches in garments, of a woman sweeping the house to find a little lost coin, and of having to borrow food when unexpected guests arrived. As a preacher He owned nothing but His cloak that served him as a coat by day and a blanket by night. When His disciples each went to his own house, Jesus went out and spent the night on the Mount of Olives for He had “no where to lay His head.”

The Apostle Paul said simply: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.”(2 Cor 8:9) “With the poor and mean and lowly, lived on earth our Saviour Holy.” His birth place was a sign of His poverty.

2. A SIGN OF HIS HUMILITY.

Being born in a manger signified that quality of character that marked Jesus: His humility. The life of Jesus, helped change the world’s attitude towards humility. What was considered a weakness in men, is now considered an essential for greatness.

Jesus said: “For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” (Matt 23:12) The life of Jesus was of a great man who never exalted Himself.

Paul once quoted a hymn: “Christ Jesus, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. Being found in appearance as a man he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross!” (Phil 2:6-8 )

How we proud moderns need to learn this aspect of the Christian message: that greatness is seen in humbly serving others. The manger reminds us that greatness lies in humility.

3. A SIGN OF HIS IDENTITY.

The shepherds were told they would recognize the Saviour when they found a newborn babe, wrapped in strips of cloth lying in a manger. That was the sign of His identity. The sign of the Saviour was a manger.

The reason for this runs through the Old Testament over every generation: After Adam and Eve sinned their son Abel brought a lamb from his flock and sacrificed it as a sin offering to God. Noah took a lamb after the flood had subsided and the animals and birds were multiplying, and sacrificed to God. Abraham built an altar and sacrificed a ram that had been prepared for Him as a sign of His dependence upon God. The Israelites sacrificed lambs in Egypt and smeared the doorposts with blood that death would pass over them. Moses gave the people of Israel instructions how they were to sacrifice a lamb for their sins each year. John the Baptist looked at Jesus coming for baptism and said: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” whom Isaiah had foretold would be without spot and blemish as our sacrifice. Palaces were proper places in which princes would be born, but a cave in Bethlehem was the proper place for the Lamb of God.

The shepherds identified the Lamb of God. One thing a Temple Shepherd could do, was recognize a sacrificial lamb!

Archaeologists have helped us understand where Jesus was born because they have discovered special fields for the sacrificial lambs. Lambs were sacrificed in the Temple in Jerusalem for the sins of believers. So the Messiah would suffer and die as a sacrificial Lamb for the sins of the world. Flocks of suitable lambs, specially selected and bred without defect or flaw were kept five miles south west from the Temple in Jerusalem in fields called Migdal Edar, which means “the Tower of the Flock”.

These fields are outside Bethlehem. Here the Temple shepherds watched over them 24 hours a day. This was why the shepherds were keeping watch over their flocks by night in the midst of winter! The Wise Men had to be guided to the place of His birth by a star, but the shepherds had no need of a star to guide them. They knew the manger in the fields of Migdal Edar! The place of His birth tells of His death and of His identity.

4. A SIGN OF HIS REJECTION.

The story of Christmas has Christ born in a manger as the Lamb of God, to be the Saviour of the world and to take away the sins of the world. This would involve sacrifice. Bethlehem cannot be understood without Calvary. The manger must be seen in the light of the Cross. Birth would also involve death.

The true story of Christmas is tough, real, factual. Angels and bright star, shepherds and wise men, yes! But also whips and nails, soldiers and a betrayer, thorns and a Cross. Jesus was to be despised and rejected throughout His life. “There was no room for them in the inn”. That was a symbol of what would happen in many places.

Bethlehem rejected Him as a baby when Herod murdered all the male children. Nazareth rejected Him and cast him out of their city. Decapolis rejected Him when he healed a mentally ill man and some pigs drowned in the process. Israel rejected Him when He would not fit their concept of a military leader to throw off the Roman yoke. He came “to his own people and they received Him not”. Jerusalem rejected Him and cast him out and crucified Him.

No room for Him in the Inn foreshadowed that throughout His life there would be many rejections. He said: “Was it not necessary that Christ should suffer all these things”. The Cross of Jesus was no accident. That rejection was a necessity to accomplish the redemption of mankind. It was foreshadowed even at the time of His birth when the world first had no room for Him.

Today multitudes go on their way careless of the news that One has come into the world to redeem them and give them the free gift of sins forgiven, of eternal life and the hope of heaven. They remain caught in the computer beep of a million cash registers and the charging of billions of dollars to commercialism.

They are too busy to see in the Christ Child the hope of mankind. The purpose of His coming is lost under a pile of discarded Christmas wrapping paper, and the urgency of being ready for after Christmas sales.

We can reject Him, not with cruel nails, but more cruelly, by ignoring Him. If you have not accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour, make that greatest of all decision at the best of all times. When you think of Jesus coming into the world to save sinners, invite Him into your heart to save you! Do that now!

Wise men

The term “wise men” appears 44 times in the Bible, and the meaning varies somewhat.

The first mention of “wise men” is in the account of Jacob's son, Joseph, in Genesis 41:8 where it says that the pharaoh "called for all the magicians of Egypt and all its wise men" [Hebrew: chakam] to interpret his dream. Chakam means intelligent, skillful, artful or cunning man. This same word is used throughout the rest of the Old Testament, except in the Book of Daniel.

In Daniel, the word used in the original language is chakamim or chakkiym from a root corresponding to chakam. The first of these “wise men” is mentioned in Daniel 2:12. At this time, “wise men” apparently consisted of three different types: (1) astrologers, (2) Chaldeans, and (3) soothsayers.

In the New Testament, three different words are translated as “wise men.”

The Magi who worshipped Jesus. The first word translated “wise men” is the Greek word magos. This is the same as magus, an old Persian word equivalent to the chakam of the Old Testament (above). Magi is the plural of magus.

The first and only mention of magi in the New Testament is in the story of Jesus Christ's young life. In Matthew 2, it is recorded that they came from the East to Jerusalem looking for “he that is born King of the Jews.” These were magi, a priestly caste of learned men. The only known Magian priests East of Palestine (at the time of Christ's birth), were in ancient Media, Persia, Assyria, and Babylonia. There is no proof of what country these men came from, and there is no consensus among the early Church Fathers.

Although the word magic is derived from the same root as magi, and magi are generally associated with occult studies, even in our modern world. However, these magi seem to be different. There is no indication that they practiced sorcery or claimed magical powers. Their recorded conduct is sincere and worshipful. They appear to have researched the Old Testament and believed its prophecies about the Messiah. They apparently gained nothing material from their long journey.

The record does not specifically say that there were three, or that they were kings; this is assumed by some from the number and types of gifts that were given to Jesus (gold, frankincense, and myrrh). The gifts reflected the aspects of Christ's nature: gold to a king, myrrh to one who will die, and incense, as homage to a God. None of the Church Fathers suggested that these men were kings, but there was obvious wealth involved. It is possible that the wealth was theirs, or that they were religious or scholarly envoys of royalty in a distant land.

These magi did not arrive until possibly almost two years after Christ's birth, certainly sometime after his presentation in the Temple (Luke 2:22-39). (Immediately after the visit of the magi, Mary and Joseph fled with Jesus to Egypt, where they probably stayed till after Herod's death in 4 B.C.)

There is no mention of camels or any mode of transportation in the biblical record. There is also no mention of their names. The traditional names adopted in the West are Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthazar . The Syrian tradition uses the names Gushnasaph, Hormisdas and Larvandad. Others use Hormizdah, Perozdh and Yazdegerd, or Basanater, Karsudan and Hor, or various other names.

A quite different type of learned man is referred to in Acts 8:9 which describes the evil Simon who practiced “sorcery.” The Greek word was mageuo, meaning to practice magic, use sorcery. Mageuo is derived from the same root as magi.In Acts 13:6-12 a false prophet named Barjesus or Elymas is described as a magos, translated in all versions as “sorcerer” or “magician.”

Note: Isaiah 60:6 mentions kings coming to praise the Lord with gold and incense. However, in context, it is clear that the prophecies involved in this section of Isaiah have not yet come to pass. Also, the land of Sheba mentioned does not fit the record; the magi came from the East. The magi who came to the young Jesus were a precursor of the fulfillment, but not the fulfillment itself. If you read all the prophecy, it is clear that these things have not fully happened yet. Isaiah 60:1-9, 19-20 are referring to events in the Millennium.

The Greek word sophos appears in Matthew 23:34 which is translated as “wise” men by all versions except the NRSV , "…I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes…" The New Revised Standard Version translates sophos as “sages,” while other versions say “wise men.” The same word is used in 1 Corinthians 1:26, "…not many wise men… are called."Greek: Phronimos appears in 1 Cor 10:15, "I speak as to wise men…" This word means thoughtful, i.e. sagacious or discreet (implying a cautious character).

The normal practice was to keep the flocks in the fields from Spring to Autumn. Also, winter would likely be an especially difficult time for pregnant Mary to travel the long distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem (70 miles).

📷 This would mean, then, that His conception took place in late December. Thus, it might well be that when we today celebrate Christ’s birth at what we call Christmas (i.e., ‘Christ sent’), we are actually celebrating His miraculous conception, the time when the Father sent the Son into the world, in the virgin’s womb. This darkest time of the year—the time of the pagan Saturnalia, and the time when the sun (the physical ‘light of the world’) is at its greatest distance from the Holy Land—would surely be an appropriate time for God to send the spiritual ‘light of the world’ into the world as the ‘Savior, which is Christ the Lord’ (Luke 2:11)” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible (notes for Luke 2:8,13)].

Illustration of the man and the winter birds.

Cancel Christmas - Jesus was born June 17, say scientists

By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 9:57 AM on 9th December 2008

Comments (92) Add to My Stories

Researchers tracked the 'Christmas star' to a reveal the date of Christ's birth as June 17

It may not be too late to send the presents back, as astronomers have calculated that Christmas should not be celebrated on December 25 - but on June 17 instead.

Researchers tracked the appearance of the 'Christmas star', which the Bible states three wise men followed to find Jesus.

Australian stargazer Dave Reneke used complex computer software to chart the exact positions of all celestial bodies and map the night sky as it would have appeared over the Holy Land more than 2,000 years ago.

He discovered that a bright star really did appear over Bethlehem 2,000 years ago - but pinpointed the date of Christ's birth as June 17, and not December 25.

Scientists claim the Christmas star was most likely a magnificent conjunction of the planets Venus and Jupiter, which were so close together they would have shone unusually brightly as a single 'beacon of light' which appeared suddenly.

Mr Reneke says the wise men probably interpreted it as the sign they had been waiting for, and they followed the 'star' to Christ's birthplace in a stable in Bethlehem, as described in the Bible.

Generally accepted research has placed the nativity to somewhere between 3BC and 1AD.

Using the St Matthew's Gospel as a reference point, Mr Reneke pinpointed the planetary conjunction, which appeared in the constellation of Leo, to the exact date of June 17 in the year 2BC.

Mr Reneke, who is editor of Sky and Space magazine, said: 'We have software that can recreate the night sky exactly as it was at any point in the last several thousand years.

'Venus and Jupiter became very close in the the year 2BC and they would have appeared to be one bright beacon of light.

'We are not saying this was definitely the Christmas star - but it is the strongest explanation for it of any I have seen so far.

'Astronomy is such a precise science, we can plot exactly where the planets were, and it certainly seems this is the fabled Christmas star. There's no other explanation that so closely matches the facts we have from the time.

'This could well have been what the three wise men interpreted as a sign. They could easily have mistaken it for one bright star.'

He added: 'December is an arbitrary date we have accepted but it doesn't really mean that is when it happened.

'This is not an attempt to decry religion. It's really backing it up as it shows there really was a bright object appearing in the East at the right time.

'Often when we mix science with religion in this kind of forum, it can upset people. In this case, I think this could serve to reinforce people's faith.'

Previous theories have speculated that the star was a supernova (exploding star) or even a comet.

But Mr Reneke says that by narrowing the date down, the technology has provided the most compelling explanation yet.

A leading theory behind why December 25 was chosen as the date to celebrate Christ's birth, was that it was selected by the church as it aligned closely with a major pagan festival, which allowed the church to claim a new celebration for Christianity.

However, if the findings are correct, it would mean a change from Christmas cards featuring traditional snowy scenes to sunny beach views in June.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1093053/Cancel-Christmas--Jesus-born-June-17-say-scientists.html#ixzz18ORVcxrc

A counting of the people, or Census; and that Census taken at the bidding of a heathen Emperor, and executed by one so universally hated as Herod, would represent the ne plus ultra of all that was most repugnant to Jewish feeling.2-398 I

The holy group only consisted of the humble Virgin-Mother, the lowly carpenter of Nazareth, and the Babe laid in the manger. What further passed we know not, save that, having seen it for themselves, the shepherds told what had been spoken to them about this Child, to all around 2-426—in the ‘stable,’ in the fields, probably also in the Temple, to which they would bring their flocks, thereby preparing the minds of a Simeon, of an Anna, and of all them that looked for salvation in Israel.2-427

For nearly a century and a half it continued the battle-field of the Egyptian and Syrian kings (the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae).

And so there were two worlds in Jerusalem, side by side. On the one hand, was Grecianism with its theatre and amphitheatre; foreigners filling the Court, and crowding the city; foreign tendencies and ways, from the foreign King downwards. On the other hand, was the old Jewish world, becoming now set and ossified in the Schools of Hillel and Shammai, and overshadowed by Temple and Synagogue. And each was pursuing its course, by the side of the other. If Herod had everywhere his spies, the Jewish law provided its two police magistrates in Jerusalem, the only judges who received remuneration.2-74 2-75 If Herod judged cruelly and despotically, the Sanhedrin weighed most deliberately, the balance always inclining to mercy. If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been understood and spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic.2-76 It seems strange, that this could ever have been doubted.2-77 A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms. We know, that the language of the Temple and the Synagogue was Hebrew, and that the addresses of the Rabbis had to be ‘targumed’ into the vernacular Aramaean—and can we believe that, in a Hebrew service, the Messiah could have risen to address the people in Greek, or that He would have argued with the Pharisees and Scribes in that tongue, especially remembering that its study was actually forbidden by the Rabbis?2-78 Indeed, it was a peculiar mixture of two worlds in Jerusalem: not only of the Grecian and the Jewish, but of piety and frivolity also. The devotion of the people and the liberality of the rich were unbounded. Fortunes were lavished on the support of Jewish learning, the promotion of piety, or the advance of the national cause. Thousands of votive offerings, and the costly gifts in the Temple, bore evidence of this. If priestly avarice had artificially raised the price of sacrificial animals, a rich man would bring into the Temple at his own cost the number requisite for the poor. Charity was not only open-handed, but most delicate, and one who had been in good circumstances would actually be enabled to live according to his former station.2-79 Then these Jerusalemites—townspeople, as they called themselves—were so polished, so witty, so pleasant. There was a tact in their social intercourse, and a considerateness and delicacy in their public arrangements and provisions, nowhere else to be found. Their very language was different. There was a Jerusalem dialect,2-80 quicker, shorter, ‘lighter’ (lishna qalila).2-81 And their hospitality, especially at festive seasons, was unlimited. No one considered his house his own, and no stranger or pilgrim but found reception. And how much there was to be seen and heard in those luxuriously furnished houses, and at those sumptuous entertainments! In the women’s apartments, friends from the country would see every novelty in dress, adornment, and jewellery, and have the benefit of examining themselves in looking-glasses. To be sure, as being womanish vanity, their use was interdicted to men, except it were to the members of the family of the President of the Sanhedrin, on account of their intercourse with those in authority, just as for the same reason they were allowed to learn Greek.2-82 Nor might even women look in the glass on the Sabbath.2-83 But that could only apply to those carried in the hand, since one might be tempted, on the holy day, to do such servile work as to pull out a grey hair with the pincers attached to the end of the glass; but not to a glass fixed in the lid of a basket;2-84 nor to such as hung on the wall.2-85 And then the lady-visitor might get anything in Jerusalem; from a false tooth to an Arabian veil a Persian shawl, or an Indian dress! While the women so learned Jerusalem manners in the inner apartments, the men would converse on the news of the day, or on politics. For the Jerusalemites had friends and correspondents in the most distant parts of the world, and letters were carried by special messengers,2-86 in a kind of post-bag. Nay, there seem to have been some sort of receiving-offices in towns,2-87 and even something resembling our parcel-post.2-88 And, strange as it may sound, even a species of newspapers, or broadsheets, appears to have been circulating (mikhtaḇin), not allowed, however, on the Sabbath, unless they treated of public affairs.2-89 Of course, it is difficult accurately to determine which of these things were in use in the earliest times, or else introduced at a later period. Perhaps, however, it was safer to bring them into a picture of Jewish society. Undoubted, and, alas, too painful evidence comes to us of the luxuriousness of Jerusalem at that time, and of the moral corruption to which it led. It seems only too clear, that such commentations as the Talmud2-90 gives of Isa 3:16-24, in regard to the manners and modes of attraction practised by a certain class of the female population in Jerusalem, applied to a far later period than that of the prophet. With this agrees only too well the recorded covert lascivious expressions used by the men, which gives a lamentable picture of the state of morals of many in the city,2-91 and the notices of the indecent dress worn not only by women,2-92 but even by corrupt High-Priestly youths. Nor do the exaggerated descriptions of what the Midrash on Lamentations2-93 describes as the dignity of the Jerusalemites; of the wealth which they lavished on their marriages; of the ceremony which insisted on repeated invitations to the guests to a banquet, and that men inferior in rank should not be bidden to it; of the dress in which they appeared; the manner in which the dishes were served, the wine in white crystal vases; and the punishment of the cook who had failed in his duty, and which was to be commensurate to the dignity of the party—give a better impression of the great world in Jerusalem. And yet it was the City of God, over whose destruction not only the Patriarch and Moses, but the Angelic hosts—nay, the Almighty Himself and His shekhinah—had made bitterest lamentation.2-94 The City of the Prophets, also—since each of them whose birthplace had not been mentioned, must be regarded as having sprung from it.2-95 Equally, even more, marked, but now for joy and triumph, would be the hour of Jerusalem’s uprising, when it would welcome its Messiah. Oh, when would He come? In the feverish excitement of expectancy they were only too ready to listen to the voice of any pretender, however coarse and clumsy the imposture. Yet He was at hand—even now coming: only quite other than the Messiah of their dreams. ‘He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become children of God, even to them that believe on His Name.’