There are many days suggested as the day of Jesus’ birth.
December 25 comes to us primarily from the early Roman Church.
In seeking to determine the date of
Christmas, critics have tended to discuss the matter in one of two ways. Those
who would calculate the date seek to demonstrate that the Nativity of Jesus can
be determined by the chronology of the liturgical calendar. Proponents of an
historical approach, on the other hand, tend to interpret Christmas as a
substitution for the annual birth of Sol Invictus on December 25.
In the Julian reform of the Roman
calendar, December 25, the eighth day after the Kalends of January (VIII Kal.
Jan.), was recognized as the winter solstice. Nine months earlier, March 25 was
the vernal equinox, the eighth day before the Kalends of April (VIII Ka l. Apr.), which marked the beginning of
spring. This tradition of assigning the equinoxes and solstices to the eighth
day before the Kalends (the first day of the month) later was embraced by the
church in its calculation of the birth date of Jesus.[1]
The first recorded date of Christmas being celebrated on December 25th was in 336, during the time of the
Roman Emperor Constantine (he was the first Christian Roman Emperor). A few years later, Pope Julius I
officially declared that the birth of
Jesus would be celebrated
on the 25th December.[2]
The 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia:
Christmas states: "The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis
Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility
for our December date."
From the birth of Christ, therefore, to
the death of Commodus are, in all, a hundred and ninety-four years, one month,
thirteen days. And there are those who have determined not only the year of our
Lord’s birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the
twenty-eighth year of Augustus, and in the twenty-fifth day of Pachon. ….
Further, others say that He was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of
Pharmuthi…[3]
John's father, Zechariah, served as a
priest in the division of Abijah, [Luke 1:5]. His priestly duty entailed one
week of temple service every year plus three more weeks during the three yearly
festivals.
His division was the eighth so his
period of temple service began in the eighth week of the year, [I Chronicles
24:10]. The Hebrew year, being lunar, began in the spring around late March
early April. The eighth week would then generally fall around the first of June
the way we show the months of the year on our calendar.
Luke 1:23-24 tells us that Elizabeth,
John's mother, became pregnant right after Zechariah's service in the temple.
This would have been mid June....approximately. This means that John the
Baptist would have been born around mid March....or close to Passover. Jesus
would have been conceived in John's sixth gestational month by the Holy Spirit,
[Luke 1:26] which would have been December....so Jesus would have been born around
the middle of September. This event would have probably taken place about the
time of the last Hebrew Holiday of Sukkot, (Feast of Tabernacles). Since
everyone was expected to travel to Jerusalem for the three annual feasts this
is probably the real reason why there was no room in the inn.[4]
Against December 25 as the birthdate of Jesus:
a. The sheep were at pasture.
b. At this season of the year many roads in that region are impassable.
No government would have forced people to travel then to the places
where they must be registered.
c. The decision that Christ's birth occurred on Dec. 25 was reached in
the fourth century, i.e., during the reign of Constantine, the first Christian
emperor (period of reign: A.D. 306-337). It was then that the date of the
Savior's birth was made to coincide with Saturnalia, the orgiastic pagan
festival celebrating the return of the sun after days of constantly increasing
darkness. During that festival gifts were exchanged. Christians did not object
to the giving of gifts, especially if they were in the form of donations to the
poor. And as for rejoicing because of the sun's victory over the darkness, that
too was no problem. According to Malachi's prophecy, reaffirmed by Zechariah (Mal_4:2;
cf. Luk_1:78-79), is not Christ the Sun who illumines our darkness?
The third argument, then, amounts to this: since the determination of
the date of Christ's birth was influenced by the Saturnalian Festival, since
that date was not fixed until fully three centuries after the birth, and
finally, since Christmas, as a festival, was not generally observed
until the fourth or even fifth century, therefore the selection of Dec. 25 as
the date does not rest on a solid historical basis.[5]
No Room in the inn?
…the katalurna where he stayed would
not have been an Inn, but a guest room in the house of the family where Joseph
and Mary were staying. That could very well have been full with other relatives
who had arrived before them.
"The actual design of Palestinian
homes (even to the present day) makes sense of the whole story," Paul
writes. "Most families would live in a single-room house, with a lower
compartment for animals to be brought in at night, and either a room at the
back for visitors, or space on the roof. The family living area would usually
have hollows in the ground, filled with straw, in the living area, where the
animals would feed."[6]
κατάλυμα
From G2647; properly a dissolution
(breaking up of a journey), that is, (by implication) a lodging place: -
guestchamber, inn.
καταλύω
From G2596 and G3089; to loosen down
(disintegrate), that is, (by implication) to demolish (literally or
figuratively); specifically (compare G2646) to halt for the night: - destroy,
dissolve, be guest, lodge, come to nought, overthrow, throw down.[7]
When birthdays didn’t matter:
Unlike the Romans, however, Jews and
Christians tended not to recognize birthdays. Late in the first century AD,
Josephus remarks that "the law does not permit us to make festivals at the
births of our children, and thereby afford occasion of drinking to excess"
(Against Apion, II.26). Indeed, only two birthdays are mentioned in the
New Testament: that of Pharaoh (Genesis 40:20) and Herod Antipas, tetrarch of
Galilee, whose marriage to his brother's wife Herodias had been denounced by
John. When her daughter Salome danced before the king at his birthday feast,
she was promised whatever she might ask—which, at the instigation of her
mother, was the head of John the Baptist (Matthew 14:6ff, Mark 6:17ff; Luke
9:7ff;[8]
Not celebrating the day, but the purpose of Jesus’ birth:
In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields
and keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord suddenly
stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were
terribly frightened. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid; for
behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people;
for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ
the Lord. "This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in
cloths and lying in a manger." And suddenly there appeared with the angel
a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, "Glory to God in
the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased."[9]
There is no scriptural injunction for people to celebrate
the birthday of Jesus, but every reason to celebrate the good news of the
Saviour. In human terms his birthday was tainted in that an unwed Jewish woman was
pregnant. Jesus’ birth was low key, and as far as we know it occurred without
fanfare, in humble circumstances. Whether in a stable, or as the quote
suggested, in a room adjacent to, or, in the room where livestock was kept, what
does it matter? There was celebration with the announcement to shepherds; a
Saviour had been born – that brought real hope. A host of angels praised God
for initiating the salvation of people. Jesus told Paul that the Lord’s Supper
was a memorial of his death. There was emphasis on the death of Jesus because
it lead to salvation. Jesus’ birth was the initiation of God’s plan. Jesus’
death was the price of salvation, and the resurrection of Jesus was the
crowning glory of God’s assurance. The observation of days and seasons is
unnecessary and unspiritual. That said,
“Some judge one day to be
better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully
convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of
the Lord.”[10] The
question on my mind is, why do people need ceremonies and rituals? Why does spiritual
worship have to be dumbed down to ritual?
The veneration of icons:
Lastly something must be said about
Catholic principles concerning the worship of sacred images. The Latin Cultus
sacrarum imaginum may quite well be translated (as it always was in the
past) "worship of holy images", and "image-worshipper" is a
convenient term for cultor imaginum — eikonodoulos, as opposed to eikonoklastes
(image-breaker). Worship by no means implies only the supreme adoration that may
be given only to God. It is a general word denoting some more or less high
degree of reverence and honour, an acknowledgment of worth, like the German Verehrung
("with my body I thee worship") in the marriage service; English city
companies are "worshipful", a magistrate is "Your worship",
and so on. We need not then hesitate to speak of our worship of images; though
no doubt we shall often be called upon to explain the term.[11]
Despite great effort by Catholics and others to find support
for icon worship from the scriptures and elsewhere, their efforts fail. Whether
it is Mariology or relics from the past there is no place for “worship” of
people or things. Arguing over the semantics of “worship” does nothing to erase
the idolatrous nature of venerating icons.
Holy icons serve a number of purposes. (1) They enhance the beauty of a
church. (2) They instruct us in matters pertaining to the Christian faith. (3)
They remind us of this faith. (4) They lift us up to the prototypes which they
symbolize, to a higher level of thought and feeling. (5) They arouse us to
imitate the virtues of the holy personages depicted on them. (6) They help to
transform us, to sanctify us. (7) They serve as a means of worship and
veneration.[12]
It is amazing to me that considering the sufficiency of
Christ and the power of God’s word, that this mumbo jumbo is thought helpful by
believers. I have more patience with people who carry around a rabbit’s foot
for good luck than a believer who venerates anything except Jesus and God.
Veneration of icons is pagan.
(Hezekiah) did
what was right in the sight of the LORD just as his ancestor David had done. He
removed the high places, broke down the pillars, and cut down the sacred pole.
He broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days
the people of Israel had made offerings to it; it was called Nehushtan.[13]
It could be argued that the bronze snake fit the purpose of
icons, and that the word worship was wrongly interpreted. On the other hand I
believe Hezekiah, or any religious reformer, would dispense with all the icons
and ephemerae venerated by Catholics, Orthodox, and others without debating
their value.
Place of worship:
Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place
where people must worship is in Jerusalem. Jesus said to her, "Woman,
believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this
mountain nor in Jerusalem. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we
know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here,
when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the
Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship
him must worship in spirit and truth."[14]
The debate over
worship sites began with the return of Jews from exile in Babylon. The candid
answer from Jesus likely shocked the lady who raised the question as to which
institution was correct. “You Samaritans don’t know what you’re talking about
…and, the Jews are right.” One more myth put to bed, but is that all it was?
The scene at the well is used to depict a number of points: a) There is a right
and wrong place of worship, (at least back then). b) Jesus was for all nations,
even those hated by Jews… The most important message I believe is never
mentioned. The message is capsulated in Jesus’ statement, “neither on this mountain nor in
Jerusalem.” If we can imagine the woman’s thoughts it might lead us to
understand what Jesus said. “The sacred mountain of the Samaritans was not the right
place of worship, because Jerusalem, God’s holy mountain was the home of the
temple representing God’s presence.” What Jesus said next is of great
importance –it doesn’t matter anymore where you worship, since things are
changing. “True worshipers
will worship the Father in spirit and truth…” If we advance the
Samaritan dilemma almost two thousand years we notice that little has changed.
People are still arguing about the right place for worship. Mountains now are
churches, and each church claims some unique practice or doctrine that makes
them more correct than others. I wonder, no, I believe, the same answer comes
from Jesus. It doesn’t matter where or with whom –it matters that “those who worship (God) must worship in spirit and truth…”.
It seems to me that Jesus stated that institutions were to be put aside along
with their rites and obligations. Jesus took the conversation from being about
traditions and institutions to personal requirements, “those who worship (God) must worship in spirit and truth.”
Jesus led the Samaritan woman from defending institutions to spiritual worship,
the only worship God wants.
Jesus’ second coming:
The second coming should also not be confused with the event referred to as
the Rapture. The Rapture refers to a time when Jesus Christ will come to remove
all believers from the earth (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 1 Corinthians 15:50-54).
The church holds many positions on the rapture, but the Second Coming is
undisputed. The Second Coming is the event when Jesus Christ returns to the earth
to defeat evil and establish His reign of justice and peace.[15]
Jesus will come back soon. However, the exact time when Jesus is coming
again no one knows. Mark 13:32 says, "But about that day or hour no one
knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
Interestingly, the disciples asked Jesus the same question just before He
returned to heaven. At that time Jesus told them it was not for them to know
the times or seasons which are in the Father’s authority. Therefore, Jesus may
come back tomorrow, next month, next year or 100 years from now. So what does
this mean for you and me? Always be ready for the second coming of Jesus
Christ. Watch and focus on Jesus because the devil is seeking to distract
mankind from understanding the signs and closeness of Jesus' coming.[16]
The second coming of Christ is the blessed hope of the church, the grand
climax of the gospel. The Saviour’s coming will be literal, personal, visible,
and worldwide. When He returns, the righteous dead will be resurrected, and
together with the righteous living will be glorified and taken to heaven, but
the unrighteous will die. The almost complete fulfillment of most lines of
prophecy, together with the present condition of the world, indicates that
Christ’s coming is near. The time of that event has not been revealed, and we
are therefore exhorted to be ready at all times.[17]
The Teaching of Jesus. The greater part
of Jesus' teaching concerned life here and now and the way people should live
in the service of God. He drew attention to the fulfillment of Old Testament
prophecies (e.g., Luke 4:21; cf. Matt 12:17-21), and clearly saw himself as
sent by the Father to inaugurate the kingdom of God. Some have seen this as
"realized eschatology,” the view that the present kingdom of God,
established in the life and the teaching of Jesus, is the whole story (C. H.
Dodd argued for this view). But this perspective overlooks the fact that Jesus
certainly looked forward to a future "coming" when this world order
would be done away and a completely new state of affairs would be inaugurated.[18]
As Catholics, we are mindful and
profess in our Creed that Christ will come again to judge the living and the
dead. The Second Vatican Council's "Dogmatic Constitution on the
Church" states, "Already the final age of the world is with us and
the renewal of the world is irrevocably under way; it is even now anticipated
in a certain real way, for the Church on earth is endowed already with a
sanctity that is real though imperfect" (No. 48). To try to grasp the
when, what and how of this Second Coming and last judgment, we really need to
glean the various passages in Sacred Scripture to see how our Church has
interpreted them. They are united in one drama. …. Our Lord in the Gospel spoke
of His second coming. He indicated that various signs would mark the event.
Mankind would suffer from famine, pestilence and natural disasters. False
prophets who claim to be the Messiah will deceive and mislead people. Nations
will wage war against each other. …. The souls of the righteous will enter
heavenly glory and enjoy the beatific vision and those who need purification
will undergo it…[19]
The Bible presents God's work of
redemption as an ongoing process. Throughout the Old Testament, He leads His
chosen people toward truth and righteousness. The final phase of the process of
redemption began with the first coming of Jesus and will culminate in the
events surrounding His Second Coming. There will be a final judgment of all
people, living and dead. The faithful will receive new spiritual bodies for
eternal life; the wicked will be cast into hell. There will be a final defeat
and destruction of all evil -- Satan, sin, suffering and death. The kingdom of
God will come to its fulfillment at last.[20]
Wow! One thing these quotes share is that they all
misrepresent scripture. Modern doctrines on the Rapture appear to have started
with Darby.
John Nelson Darby invented the
pre-tribulation rapture doctrine around 1830 AD is unquestionably true. All
attempts to find evidence of this wild doctrine before 1830 have failed, with a
single exception: Morgan Edwards wrote a short essay as a college paper for
Bristol Baptist College in Bristol England in 1744 where he confused the second
coming with the first resurrection of Revelation 20 and described a
"pre-tribulation" rapture. However Edwards’s ideas, which he admitted
were brand new and never before taught, had no influence in the modern
population of the false doctrine.[21]
One of the earlier dates set for the “second coming” of
Christ was orchestrated by Miller.
After the failure of Miller's
expectations for October 22, 1844, the date became known as the Millerites'
Great Disappointment. Hiram Edson recorded that "Our fondest hopes and
expectations were blasted, and such a spirit of weeping came over us as I never
experienced before... We wept, and wept, till the day dawn."[15] Following
the Great Disappointment most Millerites simply gave up their beliefs. Some did
not and viewpoints and explanations proliferated. Miller initially seems to
have thought that Christ's Second Coming was still going to take place—that
"the year of expectation was according to prophecy; but...that there might
be an error in Bible chronology, which was of human origin, that could throw the
date off somewhat and account for the discrepancy."[16] Miller never gave
up his belief in the Second Coming of Christ; he died on December 20, 1849,
still convinced that the Second Coming was imminent.[22]
One of the most-oft repeated ideas
about the earliest Christians is that they believed that the Kingdom of God
would come (apocalyptically) within their own lifetime. In fact
Schweitzer famously argued that Jesus himself thought the world would
end in his own lifetime; of course the world didn’t end and Jesus died
disillusioned on the cross saying, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”[23]
A number of bothersome teachings found in doctrines related
to the return of Jesus include the following statements:
§
“God failed to set up his kingdom so he
established the church.”
§
“The
Second Coming is the event when Jesus Christ returns to the earth to defeat
evil and establish His reign of justice and peace.”
§
“Jesus
will come back soon.”
§
“The
almost complete fulfillment of most lines of prophecy…”
§
“Jesus
certainly looked forward to a future "coming" when this world order
would be done away and a completely new state of affairs would be inaugurated…”
§
“Our Lord in the Gospel spoke of His second
coming. He indicated that various signs would mark the event.”
§
“The final phase of the process of redemption
began with the first coming of Jesus and will culminate in the events
surrounding His Second Coming.”
§
“Jesus himself thought the world would
end in his own lifetime; of course the world didn’t end and Jesus died
disillusioned on the cross.”
These statements are deceptive and
untrue. Predictors of the “second coming” have been announcing false comings
since, if not before, Hippolytus of Rome, Sextus Julius Africanus, and Irenaeus
said that Jesus would return in 500 CE.
There is so much nonsense and mischief in theories of the
“second coming” of Jesus that it is hard to know how to sort fact from fiction.
At best, theories about the “second coming” of Jesus are misunderstood concepts
based on the teaching of Jesus. Worst, are that the theories concerning Jesus’
return come from dabbling in the occult. It appears to me that headstrong
individuals, rather than admitting ignorance of Jesus’ intentions have instead
cast his purpose and work into doubt. To suggest that God was unable to do what
he intended, and had to settle for an alternative is grossly stupid. To
indicate that Jesus was mistaken about the time of his return is simply
idiotic. Who is man, that he knows better than God, to correct the word of
scripture so that it fits with his understanding of history? Consider the
opinion of an atheist;
I am concerned with Christ as He
appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there
one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, He certainly
thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death
of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts
that prove that. He says, for instance, Ye shall not have gone over the cities
of Israel till the Son of Man be come. Then He says, There are some standing
here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom;
and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that
his second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That
was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of
His moral teaching. When He said, Take no thought for the morrow, and things of
that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was
going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I
have, as a matter of fact, known some Christians who did believe that the
second coming was imminent. I knew a parson who frightened his congregation
terribly by telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but
they were much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his
garden. The early Christians did really believe it, and they did abstain from
such things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from
Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect,
clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly
not superlatively wise.[24]
The point that Jesus did not return, as he said he would
within the lives of some listening to him was used by Russel as a reason he was
not a Christian. Russel was an intellectual and saw inconsistencies in the
teaching of Jesus and the claims of Christians. How many thousands of people
over time have been put off by religious gobbledygook?
For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his
Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. Truly I tell
you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the
Son of Man coming in his kingdom.[25]
Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and
sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in
the glory of his Father with the holy angels. … Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who
will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with
power.[26]
Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he
was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said,
"Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" When Peter saw him, he
said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?" Jesus said to him, "If it
is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!"
So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet
Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will
that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" This is the disciple
who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his
testimony is true.[27]
Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the
powers of heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in
heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the
Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory. And he
will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his
elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. From the fig
tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its
leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things,
you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation
will not pass away until all these things have taken place.[28]
The scripture gives the general period in which Jesus would
return. No specific date was given, but it had to be within the lifetime of
some of those who heard to him. Confusion reigns over the apocalyptic signs and
events which were said would accompany Jesus’ return. If we are able to
extricate ourselves from the morass and multitude of imaginative schemes regarding
Jesus’ return, and focus on what is known, maybe Christianity wont present
inconsistent beliefs that atheists can use to ridicule our Lord. Jesus told his
audiences that within the lifetime of some of them, he would return. That is
all we know for certain. That however, is more than enough, to say with
certainty that Jesus returned at some point within the first century. To assert
anything different is to say that Jesus lied, or didn’t know what he was
saying. John claimed that Jesus was the “Word”. Before anyone diminishes what
Jesus said, they need to think about what they are doing. I believe Jesus
returned within the specified timeline. I take Jesus at his word, and make no
apologies for it. I am not forced to come up with harebrained notions to
circumvent truth. People who think that Jesus referred to some far-distant
future return must also answer the question –“If Jesus was wrong about his
return, what else was he wrong about?” We need to stick with what is obvious,
and that is the timeframe Jesus’ gave for his return –within the lifetime of
some of his listeners.
The church:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.[29]
Jesus said, “I will build my church…” The words found in
Matthew’s gospel. Jesus did not say “church” –that is an English word
substituted for the correct translation of the Greek word ekklesia. Since
apparently, Matthew wrote with a Jewish audience in mind, it should be from
that perspective that the translation from Greek to English is undertaken. In
the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures the word ekklesia is fairly
common. Matthew’s use of ekklesia in his writing must be allowed to carry the
Hebrew connotation. For that the Septuagint is the source. In the Greek translation
of the Hebrew Scriptures the work ekklesia is found around seventy times.
Matthew being a Jew, writing to Jews, although writing in the common Greek,
would have as his base the concept of ekklesia rendered by the LXX. That
concept was connected with the people of God and the kingdom of Israel.
“Church” doesn’t fit in the Hebrew Scriptures, or the Greek translation. Church
is a word chosen for its ambiguity, giving license to Catholics and Protestants
to perpetuate their institutional practices.
The Old and New Testaments:
For we have not an innumerable
multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another,
[as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, 1
which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to
be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the
traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was
little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of
Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes,
the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in
thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for
the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since
Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority
with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact
succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to
these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages
as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to
them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them;[30]
Next we come to Josephus of Jerusalem
(AD. 37-95), whose numeration of the Old Testament as consisting of twenty-two
books has already been alluded to. In his Contra Apionem, he says, “We have not
tens of thousands of books, discordant and conflicting, but only twenty-two
containing the record of all time, which have been justly believed to be divine
After referring to the five hooks of Moses, thirteen books of the prophets, and
the remaining books (which "embrace hymns to God and counsels for men for
the conduct of life”), he makes this significant statement: "From
Artaxerxes (the successor of Xerxes) until our time everything has been recorded,
but has not been deemed worthy, of like credit with what preceded, because the
exact succession of the prophets ceased.[31]
At the time of Jesus the Hebrew Scriptures were accepted as
divine and complete. “Then
he said to them, ‘these
are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you--that everything
written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be
fulfilled.’”[32] Traditionally, those scriptures became
known as the Old Testament. “Modern scholars often use the term "Hebrew
Bible" to avoid the confessional terms Old Testament and Tanakh.”[33]
This statement raises a point of interest affecting the interpretation of
scripture;
CONFESSIONAL INTERPRETATION is my term
for the method of interpretation that takes as its starting point a confession
of faith. …. this can be very useful in the interpretation of the Bible because
they help us to bear in mind the overall framework of biblical theology while
interpreting any given part of the Bible. …. It is my opinion that in the past
century or so, summaries like these have been sadly neglected, with the result
that many people are set adrift in all sorts of ephemeral popular literature
purporting to explain the Bible or promising to equip readers to accurately
interpret it by themselves. …. Students who lack an education in systematic
theology will also fail to see the implications of certain interpretations
which may seem good at first sight, but which cannot be right if the Bible is
to be seen as theologically coherent. …. A word should be said here about
Christians who want to reject all use of creeds and confessions, on the notion
that they have "no creed but the Bible." Against this attitude, I
think that A.A. Hodge gives a very convincing reply: …If they refuse the
assistance afforded by the statements of doctrine slowly elaborated and defined
by the Church, they must make out their own creed by their own unaided wisdom.
The real question is not, as often pretended, between the word of God and the
creed of man, but between the tried and proved faith of the collective body of
God's people, and the private judgment and the unassisted wisdom of the
repudiator of creeds.[34]
This attitude reveals why many churches still perpetuate the
same profane practices initiated by their founders. The designations Old and
New Testaments may seem innocuous, however they are based on traditional creeds
of Catholic or Protestant Churches. The Hebrew Scriptures were divided into
three part, the Law of
Moses, the prophets, and the psalms. The term Bible comes from the Greek
word biblia which was used by Hellenistic Jews in the late centuries BCE. It’s meaning at that time
was the books of Hebrew Scriptures.
The singularity of what originated as a
plural term and the religious connotations of the word biblia come only after the rise of Christianity. The Jewish author
of 1 Maccabees cites a letter from the Jewish high priest Jonathan (second
century BCE) that
mentions the Jewish “sacred books” (ta
biblia a hagia), which were likely stored in the Temple. Centuries Later,
the fourth-fifth century C.E.
Christian scholar Jerome used a Latin form, bibliotheca,
“library,” to refer to the collection of Christian sacred writings.[35]
The compilation of sacred books into a single volume was
accomplished to some degree in the Codex
Sinaiticus c. 350 CE. The
letters written by apostles and those closely associated with them were
individual. There were no chapters or verses in the original letters. Generally
letters were sent to a specific recipient, having a specific purpose. Letters
were shared among groups.
English cleric Stephen Langton, who later became Archbishop of Canterbury,
is credited with adding the chapter divisions to the Bible. He did this early
in the 13th century C.E., when he was a teacher at the University of Paris
in France. …. (Robert) Estienne divided the Christian Greek Scriptures, or what
is called the New Testament, into a new set of numbered verses and combined
them with those already in the Hebrew Bible. In 1553, he published the first
complete Bible (an edition in French) with basically the same chapters and
verses that most Bibles use today.
While it is convenient for finding quotations, the division
into chapters and verses con confuse people trying to understand what has been
written. The convenience of having all sacred books in a single volume tends to
diminish the wonder of sixty six different books written over centuries,
thousands of year ago from the present, all fitting together harmoniously
revealing the story of God. That aspect would be more obvious if separate books
were laid out in chronological order. We have to keep that in mind. There
should not be a division of Old and New Testaments, because the scriptures tell
God’s story from Creation to Reconciliation. God’s written story ended before
the destruction of Jerusalem and Jesus’ return in his kingdom. God’s work of
reconciliation had been accomplished. .There is no Old Testament, nor New
Testament. There is only God’s word. In the various books and letters we gain
insight to life in God’s kingdom. Believers are citizens in God’s kingdom, they
are at the same time, children in the family of God. There is no good reason to
separate the “Old Testament” from the “New Testament”. The Hebrew Scriptures; the
Law of Moses, the prophets,
and the psalms, are an integral component of the reconciliation of man
in God’s plan. Think of the Ethiopian Jew who had been to Jerusalem to worship
and on his return was reading the prophet Isaiah –Isaiah’s prophecy led the man
to unity with Christ. If we think of the expansion of God’s kingdom, his entire
story must be told. Making the “New Testament” the blueprint for the church is
likely why the practice of segregation is needed. We can’t see that all forms
of institutional Christianity causes division, and hampers the witness for
Christ.
The Great Commission:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and
teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am
with you always, to the end of the age.[36]
The Great Commission was not great in that it applies to all
people of every age, it was great because there had never been such an important
mission in the history of man. The commission was given to disciples; they,
accompanied by the Spirit would introduce the gospel of salvation, firstly to
Jews, and then to the rest of the world. Not only was the mission to reach
people with God’s offer of redemption, but it was time sensitive. The last
sentence of Matthew’s gospel indicated that the mission would last till the end
of the age.
But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for
truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel
until the Son of Man comes.[37]
This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a
testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.[38]
which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly
bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the
day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth;[39]
…if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast,
and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was
proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a
minister. [40]
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your
faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.[41]
The assignment from Jesus was a huge undertaking. Never
before had there been a proposal of salvation tied to believing that someone
rose from the dead. “I am
not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who
has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God
is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is
righteous will live by faith.’”[42]
The mission Jesus issued to his disciples was not meant to be the marching
orders for later groups and institutions. It was the initial blast off. The
commission was specific to the disciples and to that time, but the principles
Jesus taught in general and those concerning the kingdom of God are general.
You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid.
No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the
lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your
light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory
to your Father in heaven.[43]
The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some
evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of
ministry, for building up the body of Christ,[44]
The Spirit of God walked along side those proclaiming
salvation in the early days, manifesting his power in support of the gospel.
…how can we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? It was declared
at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him,
while God added his testimony by signs and wonders and various miracles, and by
gifts of the Holy Spirit, distributed according to his will.[45]
Religion:
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to
care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by
the world.[46]
James echoes the sentiments of the prophets, it’s not enough
to be pious or ritualistically correct. How that translates into
life-behaviours is extremely important. Jesus addressed the question in his
teaching.
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day
many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast
out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will
declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'[47]
Entrance into the kingdom of God is granted to those who do
the will of God. On that day many religious people will claim to have worked
for Jesus, (…did we not
prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of
power in your name?) Jesus will respond that he does not know them, and
will say that they are evil doers. This is a sober warning, as there is no
reason to believe that those who claimed to be religious, were not. The works performed
by those people were spectacular. We would not imagine that miracles could be
performed by evildoers. During the early Christian period, miracle workers drew
great admiration. Obviously something is being missed since being religious is
generally a good thing.
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him,
then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered
before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd
separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand
and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand,
'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you
from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was
thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed
me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I
was in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord,
when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you
something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed
you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in
prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just
as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you
did it to me.'[48]
Jesus was not making reference to church programs, or
institutional charity drives. These people knew they had never seen Jesus, and
definitely had never helped him. It was their everyday life Jesus had in focus,
just their hum-drum existence, living somewhere, commuting to work or school,
or housework and whatever. Maybe these people attended church, maybe they
didn’t, but their attitude toward neighbours and others with whom they came in
contact was loving. When they saw a need they responded, doing what they could.
It may not have been much, but Jesus noticed it. When Jesus was on earth he was
loving, he taught his disciples to love. Jesus represented God who is love. As
Jesus represented God, disciples are to represent Jesus. That, I believe is
doing the will of God. Paul suggested anything done without love is nothing.
Simple faith:
The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims
his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares
knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard; yet
their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the
world. In the heavens he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom
from his wedding canopy, and like a strong man runs its course with joy. Its
rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and
nothing is hid from its heat. The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the
soul; the decrees of the LORD are sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of
the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is clear,
enlightening the eyes; the fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever; the
ordinances of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.[49]
[1]
http://penelope.uchicago.edu
[3]
Stromata, I.21
[4]
https://en.wikibooks.org
[5]
Bakers New Testament Commentary
[6]
Rev Ian Paul
[7]
Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
[8]
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII.5.2).
[11]
http://www.newadvent.org
[12]
http://orthodoxinfo.com
[15]
http://www.allaboutgod.com
[16]
http://www.bibleinfo.com
[17]
https://www.adventist.org
[18]
http://www.biblestudytools.com
[19]
https://www.ewtn.com
[20]
http://www.christianbiblereference.org
[21]
http://www.bible.ca
[22]
https://en.wikipedia.org
[23]
https://michaeljkruger.com
[24]
Why I Am Not a Christian, Bertrand Russell, this lecture was delivered on March
6, 1927
[30]
Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, 1. 8
[31]
A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Gleason Archer Jr., Paperback 1996
edition, p. 79
[33]
http://www.pbs.org
[34]
http://www.bible-researcher.com/confessional.html
[35]
The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, p. 75
No comments:
Post a Comment