Posts Tagged the nativity
Jesus the “Son of David” and heir to the throne of Israel
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical Scholarship, Theology on December 11, 2015
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7: 14
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ has been controversial topic for centuries. In the 2nd century, a Greek philosopher and a critique of Christianity named Celsus, claimed that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Pantera. This claim has sparked debate that Mary was the victim of a rape and that Jesus was the product of that. But the story has very little historic backbone to it.
In 1952, a Bible translation called the Revised Standard Version was published. This translation rendered “a virgin” of Isaiah 7: 14 as “young woman”.
The translation appeared to be in direct contrast to the KJV and caused considerable controversy in its day and gave zest to the King James only movement. One of the arguments presented by critics of the RSV was that the rendering of ‘a virgin’ could be traced back to the oldest translation of the Old Testament known to exist. This translation is the Septuagint (LXX) and is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating to the 3rd century BC.
likewise, we know the early Church believed Isaiah 7: 14 meant ‘a virgin’ since the ancient Apostles creed, puts the miracle of the Virgin birth this way:
- “Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary.”
The problem is that in the RSV, the text of Isaiah can be read to deny the virgin birth, however, Luke’s gospel according to the RSV may not appear to deny the virgin birth, since the claims are quite clear by exposition.
However, for many people today, the virgin birth is about as real as Rudolf pulling Santa’s sleigh, yet these views are nothing new. In fact, when we read the New Testament, we see Joseph and Mary wrestling a little with it too.
In Matthew 1: 20 we read that Joseph “thought about these things” and then had a dream. Clearly he was troubled by the situation and was logical, he must have thought Mary had been unfaithful to him and Matthew recorded that he planned to divorce her quietly (Matthew 1: 19). Likewise Mary’s response to the angel who told her she would give birth to a son was likewise logical and reasonable “how can this be, since I do not know a man” (Luke 1: 34. NKJV). The angel told Mary the miraculous conception would be of “the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1: 35. NKJV). Mary’s question was reasonable and shows that people can reason and ask questions concerning God and faith.
A question I often asked myself when I was a child was; why did the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel go to Joseph? And why do the genealogies of Matthew and Luke differ? Many years later, I learned there is a very distinct reason for the two genealogies. Matthew’s genealogy differs to Luke’s genealogy for very distinct reasons:
Matthew’s genealogy proceeds forwards from Abraham to Joseph. While Luke’s genealogy moves backwards from Jesus to Adam. Matthew’s genealogy represents the legitimate, legal, royal line unto Jesus’ legal father, as in stepfather, while the genealogy of Jesus recorded for us by Luke represents Mary’s lineage.
Matthew’s genealogy represents the legitimate, legal, royal line unto Jesus’ legal father, as in stepfather. The genealogy of Jesus recorded for us by Luke through Mary’s lineage. This connects all the way back to Adam, as needs must to connect Christ as direct decent from Adam that He in the likeness of flesh, might take upon Himself the sins of the world.
Research shows that King Jeconiah is mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy and thus reveals a very distinct reason for the virgin birth.
In Jeremiah 22: 30 the prophet wrote;
- “Thus says the Lord; Write this man down as childless, A man who shall prosper in his days; for none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.”
This is the reason why a virgin birth had to happen, because if Jesus had been the actual biological son of Joseph, then Jesus would have been part of this curse and thus could not be King of Israel.
If not for this curse, then Joseph, Jesus’ stepfather would have been the legitimate King of Israel. This is why the Angel referred to Joseph as “Joseph, thou son of David” Matthew 1: 20. The Angel did not refer to Joseph as ‘the’ Son of David, but ‘son of David’. Seventeen verses in the New Testament name Jesus as the Son of David and Matthew recorded that when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a Donkey, the people hailed “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matthew 20: 9) Jesus the King was clearly next in line for the throne and Paul also affirmed this claim in Romans 1: 3, 2 Timothy 2: 8.
This curse written by the prophet Jeremiah did not come upon Mary or her descendants because she was not a descendant in the lineage of Jeconiah.
The people of ancient Jerusalem and the Babylonian Kings (the wise men) knew these things and this is why they asked:
- “Where is He who is born King of the Jews”. Matthew 2: 2
The claim to the throne of Jesus as the true King of Israel was known not only by the Jewish people, but by Greeks and by Romans. The Gospels record that the claim of Jesus as King was written by Pontius Pilate and placed upon Jesus’ cross.
- Matthew 27: 37 “This is Jesus the King of the Jews”
- Mark 15: 26 “The King of the Jews”
- Luke 23: 38 “This is the King of the Jews”
- John 19: 19 “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews”
The claim of Jesus as King was written in “Greek, Latin and Hebrew” and in John 18: 34 Jesus questions Pilate on whether or not the claim that He Himself was King came from Pilate or from other people. “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”
That question should be asked by all of us; do we say things about Jesus because others tell us these things or do they come from ourselves? It must be a fact that since Christianity has impacted this world so strongly that every human being must at some point ask the question of who Jesus Christ truly was and is. If He was truly the Son of God, which I believe He was, then He is the most important person who has ever lived or ever will live. And if He wasn’t the Son of God then who was He and how strong a case can be assembled to make each and every individual wage eternity upon their answer?
I believe that Jesus was who He said He was and that is why I hold Him and His commands in such high royal esteem. I believe He is the only way to God and His miracles, healing’s and resurrection stand as firm proofs of that.
The question is; when He returns, will He take the throne in a literal sense?
The star of Bethlehem: The Star and the glory
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christianity, The Bible, Theology on November 26, 2011
“The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light” Isaiah 9: 2
One thing that strikes me about what is commonly called, ‘the Nativity story’ is how much of it is so often only recalled or referred to at Christmas time. Yet the above text demonstrates that the coming of Jesus and His incarnate birth is the light and life of all Christians for all seasons and times of the year. That charity towards man and the celebration of the birth of the incarnate Jesus should continue throughout the life of the Christian, not only at Christmas.
In the classic 1951 Alistair Sim version of ‘A Christmas Carol’ the so-called spirit of Christmas present when referring to the child born in Bethlehem makes a profound statement that, “He (Jesus) does not live in men’s hearts only one day of the year, but in all the days of the year”. Clearly this cannot be said of those outside of Christ but of those who are In Christ, the body whom is the Church. But this great light would as soon be put out by worldly hands as swiftly as it were revealed by heavenly hands. This is stated in the gospels. Herod when he gave out the command to slaughter all the children in Bethlehem (Matthew 2: 16) sought to put out the great light because he was not of the light. And many more would continue to do the same thing and put out the light of the gospel and let the darkness rule.
The given Isaiah text states that those “who walked in darkness have seen a great light”. Jesus being the light of the world cannot be denied as to whom the text is referring. Jesus is the light that shines in the darkness and those whom the Lord chooses to reveal His light to, can see the light. Those whom He chooses not to acknowledge, cannot see the light.
The familiar text states that ‘the wise men’ who came from the East saw a star in the East and came to Judea because they knew the meaning of the prophetic scriptures that would have included Micah 5: 2 (Matthew 2: 6) and maybe other texts that are no longer available to us? They knew that once this sign of the star appeared in the heavens, then the Messiah was soon to be born.
ASTROLOGERS OR PRIESTS?
Many believe the wise men to have been ‘Magi’ which could mean ‘astrologers’, but such views only present one side of the coin, for, astrology is not the only meaning being the word ‘Magi’ but the word is also an ancient word for ‘wisdom’. In other words the term ‘wise men’ literally means ‘they were wise’ and clearly this wisdom came from God. The translators are correct when they translate the Greek ‘Magi’ as ‘Wise men’. Solomon was a wise man, and full of Godly wisdom. Thus, it could have been that the wise men were indeed ‘Wise men’ in other words ‘Priests’ who knew the Word of God and the correct interpretation of His word. Thus, they clearly knew the Lord and must have been drawn to Christ by the father, for Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the father draws him” this was the case with the Magi, who were drawn by the father and guided by His light unto the baby Christ.
But, what actually was this light? Was it a star? A sign? An angel? Was it the glory of the Lord? Or was it more than one?
Well, before I get to my points, permit me to make a few distinctions first. Now then, if we were to review the scriptures through un-regenerate eyes, we would not be able to believe in the Virgin Birth or the miracles that surrounded Jesus’ birth. This is why so many deny and reject the virgin birth, because they do not know Christ, and have a false god in their heads who is not capable of doing such a thing and therefore has no Glory. But we who have seen the light believe it and know how wonderful and powerful the Lord really is. It is a mere plaything for Him to create the world in the beginning and to re-create the world at the incarnation of Christ, and if there was no virgin birth then the truth is erased and Christ is not Christ and the glory of God is removed. But we know that such is not possible, and yet sadly all too often we the church are often guilty of removing the glory of God and replacing it with our own sad opinions and objective arguments. The star of Bethlehem is such an example of how Christendom does not give glory to God and is not very well understood by modern scholars and ministers and Christians alike. Many merely look at the star of Bethlehem as an actual star and although there is evidence for an actual star over in the East around 7BC, the actual reality of Matthews narrative has become somewhat shrouded in myth and Christmas card images.
Now then, since the rise of the modern scholarship movement in the 17th century we have read and heard many claims in relation to the truth of scripture and many denials of plain Biblical truth due to over emphasis on intellectual reasoning by many who clearly do not have Christ within them but have more imagination than Godliness? Many modern scholars over emphasise intellectual explaination of certain Biblical statements when they search through astrology and the history of the stars of 2000 years ago, when they need not search the sky if only they were permitted to see the glory of the Lord and interpret certain passages correctly, which is not often the case. But, since many may not be permitted to see His glory, the problem sits within the lap of the church when ministers and commentators embrace the views and opinions of the unregenerate regarding matters of Biblical truth. The fact that historical commentators within Christendom have always believed that the star of Bethlehem was not an actual star, but rather an angel or
the Glory of the Lord is clear evidence of how modern scholarship has crept into the church and the ideas of the reprobate have been embraced by too many Christians.
It is only since the rise and influence of the modern scholarship movement that many have embraced the view that the Old Testament prophecies and the synoptic nativity texts are communicating an actual star appeared over Bethlehem, and many do not even question these claims?
Now, evidence contrary the many claims of modern scholarship regarding the star of Bethlehem can be found within the text of the New Testament and the Old Testament. And speaking within the context of the Synoptic gospels there are far too many details given to us by Matthew that do not match up with the idea that the light over Bethlehem at the birth of Jesus was an actual star in the heavens.
The following contains some points and objections to the star theory:
1. An actual star is much too large to direct anyone to a house and then rest over that place as described to us in Matthew 2: 9.
2. Why did the star that the wise men saw in the East suddenly seem to re-appear in Israel? (Matthew 2: 9)
Regarding objection 2 many think the star followed the Wise men from the East, but it did not. It only re-appeared when the wise men set off from Herod’s palace unto Bethlehem. Thus, the light they saw when heading from Jerusalem to Bethlehem was only in appearance like that of which they saw in the East, but in actual fact both of them may have been the same light, but it could be that the light they saw in the East was a star, but what they saw in Judea was not a star but rather an angel arrayed with the Glory of the Lord.
Regarding objection 1, permit me to state that a star does not go before people as a guide which could guide them to a house. A star is much too large to do that, and would merely stay in the night sky and appear to be over a massive area and not a tiny town such as ancient Bethlehem. However, there is a clear and more Biblical understanding and one that fits the context and the meaning with more clarity and truth. This understanding is to be found in an angelic appearance which was arrayed with the glory of the Lord. This is a far more Biblically accurate statement that angels arrayed with the glory of the Lord do guide the Lords people throughout the scriptures. Remember when the Children of Israel were guided out of Egypt into the promise land. That was Christ, who guided them. Remember when Paul met with a great light on the road to Damascus, well that light was Christ (Acts 9: 1-7).
Thus, it is more accurate to suggest that the light that guided the Magi to the baby Christ was like that of the light which went before the children of Israel to guide them out of slavery and into the promise land (Exodus 13: 21) But do I say this without Biblical evidence? No, for the entire life of Moses speaks wonders of typological referrences to the life of Christ.
TEN CHRISTOLOGICAL TYPES IN THE LIFE OF MOSES
The following Biblical evidence demonstrates the life of Moses as a type of the life of Christ, far too distinct to deny, unless you are a hyper critical sceptic? Here are 10 interesting types for the life of Christ being seen as typology within the life of Moses.
1. Moses was born an Israelite. Christ was born an Israelite.
2. The King of Egypt felt his kingdom threatened by the large number of Israelites and so ordered all new-born male children to be killed. (Exodus 1: 8-22). Moses’ however was not killed but was hidden in Egypt in an ark in the river. (Exodus 2: 1-3). King Herod also felt his kingdom threatened by the birth of the messiah, and so ordered all the new-born male children to be slaughtered. Christ however was not killed but was hidden in Egypt. (Matthew 2: 1-18).
3. Moses had a mother but no mention of an earthly father, he was adopted by Pharaohs daughter. (Exodus 2: 10). Christ had a mother but no earthly father, He was adopted by Joseph. (Matthew 1: 19-21).
4. Scripture tells us very little about the childhood of Moses. Scripture tells us very little about the childhood of Christ.
5. The Israelites were in slavery to the labour of Pharaoh and Moses delivered them out of the hand of slavery. The children of God were in slavery to sin and death, Christ delivered them out of the hand of both.
Pharaoh sought to kill Moses. (Exodus 2: 15). The Jewish priests sought to kill Christ.
6. Moses walked with the Israelites through the waters of the Red sea to get to the promise land. Christ walked with the nations through the waters of baptism to get to the promised land of salvation.
7. Moses was appointed to die before his people arrived at the promise land. (Deuteronomy 34: 5). Christ was appointed to die before His people arrived at the promised salvation.
8. Michael the archangel disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. (Jude verse 9). Joseph of Arimathea disputed with Pilate over the body of Jesus. (John 19: 38).
9. The body of Moses was buried and no one has ever found his body for he was buried by God. (Deuteronomy 34: 5-6). The body of Jesus was laid in a tomb and no one has ever found His body for He ascended into heaven.
10. Moses appeared alive again after his death on the mount of transfiguration with Christ. Christ appeared alive again after his death and resurrection with His disciples.
Thus it is clear that the life of Moses testifies to the very life of Christ, and that of His incarnate birth. So we can connect the two events and say that what the wise men saw was not a planet but the Lord Himself who is the light of the world, guiding them into the promise land of salvation. For, “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light” Isaiah 9: 2. Thus, we could claim that the light was in fact an angel of the Lord or the light was the Lord Himself.
It is clear either way that what the text is attempting to communicate is that the star was a great light that merely stood way up in the sky over the area where the house was, and since even the lowest appearance of a star would cover a wide area and not a single house, let us not claim that the scriptures present unreal tales of fantasy and not reality. The actual reality of the text cannot be presenting a case for a literal astrological star over the sky of Bethlehem, but an angelic manifestation arrayed with the glory of the Lord.
I repeat my objection once again when I point out that what the wise men saw in the east suddenly vanished and then re-appeared in Judea when the wise men were nearing Bethlehem and this fact is made clear in Matthew 2: 9,
“And behold the star that they had seen in the east went before them”
In other words if they had seen the star guiding them from the moment they first saw the light in the east until their journey was completed by their arrival in Judea, why then does Matthew employ the term “And behold”? The text implies that they had seen His star in the East, but have not seen it again until it re-appeared in Judea when the neared Bethlehem. Thus, if the star was a literal star in the heavens which remained in clear view, then why did Herod or other people not see it and come to the place where Christ was, for such a supernova would be visible to all of Judea. A proper reading of Matthew 2: 2 reveals this truth so clearly.
BUT WHAT DOES IT SAY IN THE GREEK?
No doubt many will add the question: “What does it say in the Greek?” or “Of what importance is this to us is it anyway, if it was a star then so be it, but if not, what matter is it? When what really matters is that Christ was born” Well yes that is true, but we are missing something that is vital and important and that is the ‘Glory of God’. For it is clear that what really appeared was the Glory of the Lord, that “shone round about them” (Luke 2: 9) Thus, in order to get to the glory, let us look further into this and see what we can find within Greek text of the gospel of Matthew.
Firstly the Greek ‘Aster’ translated star can be taken literally or figuratively and means a strown over the sky. It need not be taken as a literal star but as a Christ type light of the world. Christ said, “I am the light of the world and he who follows me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life” (John 8: 12) and if you compare this to Matthew 2: 9 and Isaiah 9: 2 the similarities can be staggering. It is clear that the light is of Christ and He has made Himself known to His people. In Revelation 22: 16 Christ is referred to as “the bright and morning star”. Thus, Christ is not a literal star and the prophetic text “a star shall come out of Jacob” Numbers 24: 17 confirms the connection, since the Hebrew of this text can be used figuratively of a prince or a blazing light and in this light we can connect it absolutely to Christ for in Isaiah 9: 6 He is referred to as “Prince of peace“. Thus, the true meaning of the star or light over Bethlehem is nothing to do with star gazing or astrology but is all about either an angel of Christ guiding the Lords people to the promise salvation being arrayed with the glory of Christ or the text is communicating that the light was the Lord Himself? We cannot be sure, but what we can be sure of is that the light was the light of the Lords glory which was shinning like the sun and full of power and beauty and spendour. Just as it was with the shepherds when “The glory of the Lord shone round about them“ Luke 2: 9 so it was when the Magi were guided by the Lord to the baby Jesus, the glory of the Lord shone in the heavens. How wonderful is that?
So then, in conclusion to this I would like to add that this article is not written for controversy or to argue that I am right and so many are wrong, it is not anything like that, I have written this article for the glory of God. For, if we do not give the Lord glory and deny His glory a place in our understandings and ideas, then we are wrong. For we are His people and we seek His glory. And if we embrace the ideas and views of those who are scholars of the Bible yet have not the Holy Spirit living within them, then we lose the Glory of Christ and miss the whole point of this given text. Sure, His creation speaks of His glory and the stars in the heavens are part of that, but I am certain that this is not what the text is communicating. The text is all about the glory of Christ.
So then, In conclusion I would like to add the following word that, you who belong to Christ are the light of the world. You are His people, so “let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works and glorify your father in heaven” (Matthew 5: 16) for, all the children of God, are truly the light of the world, as Jesus said, “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5: 14).
Thus, in closing I would like to add with the warmest of love for the Lords people, a word of advice: Seek the Lord and follow His light. If you walk, follow His light. If you travel, follow His light. If you read scripture and desire to teach souls from His word, search for His glory and His light and spirit will guide you and then you will know His true peace and good will. As it is written, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” Luke 2: 14
May the light of the Lord be with you always!