The Christmas Story by John MacArthur

[Patriot]

What was the star of Bethlehem?

Question: "What was the star of Bethlehem?"

Answer: The star of Bethlehem is associated with the birth of Christ and the visit of the magi (wise men) as recorded in Matthew 2:1–12. The text implies the star of Bethlehem appeared only to the magi in the East (most likely the area of Persia, or modern-day Iran). There is no biblical record of anyone else observing the star of Bethlehem.

The magi in the East saw something in the heavens—the star of Bethlehem—that alerted them to the fact that the Jewish Messiah was born. The magi do not call the star of Bethlehem by that name; in Matthew 2:2 they refer to it as being “his star,” since it was a sign to them that a king was born. The star prompted the magi to travel to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. This would be the logical place to start looking for the birth of the King of the Jews for someone who did not know of Micah’s prophecy about Bethlehem.

In Jerusalem, the magi visited King Herod and were told that the new king they were looking for would be born in Bethlehem, not in Jerusalem (Matthew 2:5). The wise men left Herod’s palace, and the star of Bethlehem appeared to them once again. In fact, the star “went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed” (verses 9–10). The star of Bethlehem, apparently mobile, led the magi to the precise place where they could find Jesus.

Modern portrayals of the Christmas nativity scene usually show the wise men visiting Jesus on the night of His birth. That is likely not what truly occurred. King Herod discovered from the magi the “exact time” the star of Bethlehem had first appeared to them (Matthew 2:7), and he later ordered all male children two years old and under in Bethlehem to be killed (verse 16). Herod obviously thought the star of Bethlehem had first appeared when Christ was born; if he was right, then Jesus could have been up to two years old when the star of Bethlehem later guided the magi through the streets of Bethlehem. The Greek word translated “young child” in Matthew 2:9 can mean anything from a newborn infant to a toddler.

So, the magi may have first observed the star of Bethlehem the night of Jesus’ birth, or they may have first seen it up to two years beforehand. Either way, they found Jesus still in Bethlehem when they arrived. Joseph and Mary almost surely stayed in Bethlehem until Mary could travel again. In fact, they probably stayed there for the 40 days necessary to complete Mary’s purification. From Bethlehem, they could easily make the five-mile trip to Jerusalem for the sacrifice for Mary’s purification (Luke 2:22). The fact that the magi came to a “house” (Matthew 2:11) rather than the stable makes sense because Joseph naturally would have moved his family to a more protected place as soon as possible—the morning after Jesus was born, in all probability.

After seeing the star of Bethlehem, the magi traveled to Jerusalem to look for the Messiah. The question arises, how would Persian magi know about the Jewish Messiah? Undoubtedly, they would have been exposed to the writings of the Jewish prophet Daniel, who had been the chief of the court seers in Persia. Daniel 9:24–27 is a prophecy that gives a timeline for the birth of the Messiah. Also, they may have been aware of the words of the pagan prophet Balaam (who was from the town of Pethor on the Euphrates River near Persia) in Numbers 24:17. Balaam’s prophecy specifically mentions “a star” and “a scepter” rising out of Jacob.

What exactly was the star of Bethlehem? The Greek word translated “star” in the text is the word aster, which is the normal word for a star or celestial body. The word is used 24 times in the New Testament, and most of the time it refers to a celestial body. It can be used to denote angels, as in Revelation 12:4, where aster seems to refer to the fallen angels who followed Satan’s rebellion. Basic rules of biblical interpretation state that we should take the normal sense of a word unless there is compelling evidence to suggest otherwise. In that case, the star of Bethlehem should be considered an actual heavenly body. Many Bible scholars suggest a natural explanation for the star of Bethlehem, their theories ranging from a supernova to a comet to an alignment of planets. Something in the heavens provided a brighter-than-normal light in the sky.

However, there is evidence to suggest that the star of Bethlehem was not a natural stellar phenomenon, but something unexplained by science. First, the fact that the star of Bethlehem seemed to appear only to the magi indicates that this was no ordinary star. Also, celestial bodies normally move from east to west due to the earth’s rotation, yet the star of Bethlehem led the magi from Jerusalem south to Bethlehem. Not only that, but it led them directly to the place where Joseph and Mary were staying, stopping overhead. There is no natural stellar phenomenon that can do that.

So, if the normal usage of the word star doesn’t fit the context, what does? The star of Bethlehem in Matthew 2:1–12 was likely an angel or a manifestation of the Shekinah Glory. The Shekinah, which literally means “dwelling of God,” was the visible presence of the Lord. Prior to this, the most notable appearance of the Shekinah was the pillar of cloud that led the Israelites by day and the pillar of fire that led them by night (Exodus 13:21). The Shekinah can obviously lead people to specific locations, and it was seen later in connection with Christ’s ministry (e.g., Matthew 17:5; Acts 1:9). Either an angel or the Shekinah would fit the evidence. It shouldn’t surprise us that God would use a miraculous sign to signal the advent of His Son into the world. Those with eyes to see joyfully beheld His glory.

Recommended Resource: The Case for Christmas by Lee Strobel

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Where was Jesus born?

Question: "Where was Jesus born?"

Answer: The Bible chronicles Jesus Christ’s birth in Matthew 1:18–25; 2:1–12; Luke 1:26–38; and 2:1–20. At the time of Mary’s pregnancy, a decree by Caesar Augustus went out that “all the world should be registered” (Luke 2:1). This meant that every person in the Roman Territory was required to return to the city of their ancestors to be counted in a census.

Joseph lived in Nazareth at the time but needed to travel south to the region of Judea, “to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David” (Luke 2:4). Naturally, Joseph took his betrothed, Mary, to go with him to be counted as a member of his family. Thus, the young couple ended up in the small town of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth.

This location aligns with the prophecy foretold by Micah, proclaiming that the Christ would be born in Bethlehem: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times” (Micah 5:2).

Because so many had returned to Bethlehem for the census, the small city was overflowing with people. There was no room for Mary and Joseph in the inn, which forced them to take refuge in the only place available—a shelter for animals. (Although the Bible never mentions animals being present at the birth of Christ, Luke does say that the baby Jesus was laid in a manger—and the presence of a manger strongly implies the presence of animals.)

Traditionally, the “inn” referred to in Luke 2:7 is thought to be a kind of commercial hotel. And the place where Mary and Joseph took shelter was a stable somewhere in the vicinity. However, we don’t know for sure if that was the case, because the Greek word translated as “inn” (kataluma) can also be translated as “guest room.” This translation would lead us to envision more of a private home filled with guests, plus a separate area used to house the family’s animals.

Sometimes the place for animals was located on the lower level of a house, away from where the people lived. So, when Luke refers to “no room in the kataluma,” he could have meant there was no room on the upper level, which was already full of sleeping visitors or family. Archaeological findings have also revealed homes that merely had a wall separating the front of the house from the back, where animals were kept safe. Both of these floor plans imply an indoor animal shelter connected to the house in some way. Regardless, there was a manger or feeding trough in the place where Christ was born, and that was used as a resting place for the newborn Jesus, as stated in Luke 2:7.

There is also a theory that the shelter in which Jesus was born was a place in the northern part of Bethlehem called Migdol Eder. This was a watchtower with a place underneath that shepherds used during the lambing season to shelter the newborn lambs that would later be used as sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple. The prophet Micah, who foretold Bethlehem as the place of the Messiah’s birth, also mentions Migdol Eder: “As for you, watchtower of the flock [Hebrew, Migdol Eder], stronghold of Daughter Zion, the former dominion will be restored to you; kingship will come to Daughter Jerusalem” (Micah 4:8). This theory is used to explain why, when the heralding angels gave the sign that the baby would be “wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger,” the shepherds seemed to know exactly where to look. And it would be apropos for the Messiah to be born in the same place where the sacrificial lambs were born.

Whether the actual location of Jesus’ birth was an indoor animal shelter, a separate barn, or a tower used for lambing, the Bible is clear that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born in a humble setting in the town of Bethlehem.

Recommended Resource: God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Does Luke’s claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem at the time of Quirinius' census match the historical record?

Question: "Does Luke’s claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem at the time of Quirinius' census match the historical record?"

Answer: Quirinius’ census has been a point of controversy among biblical scholars and skeptics for centuries. History tells us that Caesar Augustus reigned over the Roman Empire from 27 BC to AD 14 and ordered a census to be conducted during his tenure. Herod the Great reigned in Judea until 4 BC, so Jesus had to be born sometime in or before 4 BC. Luke gives us a few historical details to set the stage for the birth of Christ: “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)” (Luke 2:1–2).

Luke’s mention of Quirinius (Cyrenius) as governor of Syria during the time of Caesar’s census appears to cause a problem as history records that Quirinius held that governorship between AD 6 and 7, at least ten years after the birth of Jesus. There are at least three possibilities for how we can interpret Luke 2:2 concerning the census and Quirinius:

(1) Luke made a historical error regarding Quirinius’ census. Such a blunder would, of course, mean that Luke’s Gospel was not inspired by the Holy Spirit and would cast doubt on all the rest of Luke’s writings.

(2) The Greek word for “first” in Luke 2:2 is a form of the word protos and can be translated “before.” Thus Luke 2:2 could actually be translated, “This was the census taken before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”

(3) Quirinius actually ruled Syria on two separate occasions, and there were actually two censuses taken. The “first census” mentioned in Luke 2:2 occurred during Quirinius’ first term as governor, and another during his second term. The second census is mentioned in Acts 5:37 and probably took place between AD 6 and 7 (Josephus links this census to an uprising led by Judas of Galilee). Luke was the author of both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, and his goal was to write “an orderly account” (Luke 1:3). It seems that Luke did write a careful, orderly account: he mentions two censuses, and it was during the first one that Jesus was born. It would be unlikely for such a meticulous historian to make a blatant mistake in his timeline of events.

The Christian doctrine of the inerrancy of the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20–21) leads us to reject explanation (1). Most of the available evidence points to explanation (3) as the best perspective on Quirinius and the census. The Bible is true history, and its details are more trustworthy than the historical writings of the Romans and Josephus.

Recommended Resource: God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What does it mean that baby Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes?

Question: "What does it mean that baby Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes?"

Answer: Swaddling clothes are cloths and bands used in the practice of swaddling, or essentially “wrapping” an infant tightly in cloth. The idea behind swaddling is that it helps the baby transition from the womb (a very snug place) to the outside world. Swaddling clothes are still used today, but with some modifications. In general, swaddling has been proved to help infants sleep better, to prevent them from scratching themselves, and to reduce the risk of SIDS. In ancient times, like today, a swaddled infant was safe if wrapped and watched properly. Many cultures still practice swaddling today.

The biblical passage that refers to swaddling clothes is Luke 2: “And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn” (Luke 2:7, ESV). We can assume from the fact that she swaddled the baby Jesus that Mary was an attentive and loving mother. The angel who spoke to the shepherds on the hillside mentions swaddling clothes as part of the sign to the shepherds that they had found the Messiah (Luke 2:12).

There are some interesting theories about Luke’s detail of Jesus’ swaddling clothes. Some have postulated that the swaddling clothes were a foreshadowing—a prophetic reference—of Jesus’ burial cloths. The Greek word sparganoo is the root word used in the phrase “swaddling clothes,” and it means “to clothe in strips of cloth.” But this word sparganoo is never used in the New Testament to refer to burial cloth. In the descriptions in the Gospels of Jesus’ burial, we see variations on the phrase “wrapped in linen cloth,” and different Greek words are used for the binding. The swaddling clothes could prefigure Jesus’ burial (the Magis’ gift of myrrh in Matthew 2:11 is a clearer bit of foreshadowing), but the link can’t be proved linguistically.

When the Son of God came into our world, He was entrusted to responsible, loving parents who sought to meet His every need. Baby Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes according to the custom of the day, an action that showed the tender care and affection of His mother.

Recommended Resource: The Case for Christmas by Lee Strobel

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Why did the Magi bring gold, frankincense, and myrrh to Jesus?

Question: "Why did the Magi bring gold, frankincense, and myrrh to Jesus?"

Answer: Matthew 2 tells us that the magi, or wise men, travelled from the East in search of the Christ child. They inquired of King Herod where they might find Him, saying, "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him" (Matthew 2:2). Upon finding the baby Jesus, “they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh” (Matthew 2:11).

Gold is a precious metal and as such was a very valuable commodity. Its value could very well have financed Joseph and Mary’s trip to Egypt. The Bible does not tell us any other significance to these three gifts; however, tradition has it that there is a deeper meaning for each of the three. Gold is a symbol of divinity and is mentioned throughout the Bible. Pagan idols were often made from gold and the Ark of the Covenant was overlaid with gold (Exodus 25:10-17). The gift of gold to the Christ child was symbolic of His divinity—God in flesh.

Frankincense is a white resin or gum. It is obtained from a tree by making incisions in the bark and allowing the gum to flow out. It is highly fragrant when burned and was therefore used in worship, where it was burned as a pleasant offering to God (Exodus 30:34). Frankincense is a symbol of holiness and righteousness. The gift of frankincense to the Christ child was symbolic of His willingness to become a sacrifice, wholly giving Himself up, analogous to a burnt offering.

Myrrh was also a product of Arabia, and was obtained from a tree in the same manner as frankincense. It was a spice and was used in embalming. It was also sometimes mingled with wine to form an article of drink. Such a drink was given to our Savior when He was about to be crucified, as a stupefying potion (Mark 15:23). Matthew 27:34 refers to it as “gall.” Myrrh symbolizes bitterness, suffering, and affliction. The baby Jesus would grow to suffer greatly as a man and would pay the ultimate price when He gave His life on the cross for all who would believe in Him.

Recommended Resource: The Case for Christmas by Lee Strobel

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Do the narratives of Jesus’ birth contradict each other?

​

Question: "Do the narratives of Jesus’ birth contradict each other?"

Answer: Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus’ birth. Matthew 1–2 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 1–2 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus’ birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

First, here are the details that Matthew and Luke unquestionably agree on:

Jesus was born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18, 23, 25; Luke 1:27).
Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth, a town in Galilee (Matthew 2:23; Luke 1:26; 2:4).
Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4–7).
After Jesus’ birth, Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth (Matthew 2:23; Luke 2:39).

Second, here are the details that are unique to each writer:

The magi visit Jesus (Matthew 2:1–12).
Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt to escape Herod’s cruelty (Matthew 2:13–18).
A group of shepherds visit Jesus in the manger (Luke 2:8–20).
Joseph and Mary make a trip to the temple in Jerusalem in fulfillment of the Law (Luke 2:22–39).

Those who claim to see a contradiction in the narratives of Christ’s birth usually point to Luke 2:39, which says, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth,” and Matthew 2:21–23, which says that Joseph and his family went to Nazareth on their return from Egypt. According to the critics, Luke, who says nothing about the flight to Egypt, indicates that Jesus was taken to Nazareth directly from the temple; and Matthew, who does not mention the temple observances, says that Jesus was taken to Nazareth directly from Egypt.

It’s important to acknowledge that silence does not equal denial. Luke’s omission in his narrative of the flight to Egypt cannot be construed as evidence that it never happened. Luke never says that Joseph and Mary did not go to Egypt; he simply doesn’t comment on the event. Matthew never mentions the shepherds of the nativity—are we to assume because of Matthew’s omission that no shepherds came? Also important is the fact that neither Matthew nor Luke claim that he is penning an exhaustive account of every detail surrounding the birth of Christ.

The question then is, does Luke’s narrative allow for enough time for a trip to Egypt? Between the circumcision of Jesus and the trip to the temple was 32 days—about a month. Trying to fit a trip to Egypt and back in that time frame is problematic. A better way to reconcile Matthew’s and Luke’s narratives is to place the flight to Egypt after Jesus’ appearance in the temple. This assumes that Joseph and Mary remained in Bethlehem after Jesus’ birth and that they had a place to stay—the “house” of Matthew 2:11.

Luke 2:39 says, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.” Note that Luke does not say that they immediately returned to Galilee, and there is no reason to insert that word into the verse. (One could just as easily insert the word eventually.) The fact is that Luke doesn’t specify how much time elapsed. He simply says that, after their visit to the temple, Joseph and Mary settled in Nazareth. It could have been days later. It could have been months. If we place the flight to Egypt in the middle of Luke 2:39, we have a workable chronology:

1) After visiting the temple, Joseph and Mary return to Bethlehem. (In the month since Jesus’ birth, Joseph had probably sought temporary work there, and that work had become more permanent, perhaps. It’s also quite possible that Joseph was planning to resettle his new family in Bethlehem, thinking it would be good for the Son of David to be reared in the City of David).

2) Simeon and Anna begin spreading the news that they have seen the Messiah in Jerusalem (Luke 2:25–38).

3) Sometime later, the magi arrive at Jerusalem and confirm the news on the street that the Messiah has been born (Matthew 2:1–2). Herod sends the magi on to Bethlehem, where they find young Jesus (Matthew 2:3–11).

4) The magi return home a different way, and Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt (Matthew 2:12–13).

5) After a while, Herod figures out that the magi have disregarded his wishes, and he orders the slaughter of all males two years old and younger near Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16). The “two-year” computation indicates that Jesus could have already been that old.

6) Herod dies in 4 BC.

7) Joseph brings his family back from Egypt (Matthew 2:19–21). Out of fear of Herod’s son, Joseph changes his plan to settle in Bethlehem and instead moves back to Galilee (Matthew 2:22–23).

There is nothing in the above chronology that contradicts either Matthew or Luke. The only way to find a contradiction between Matthew 2:21–23 and Luke 2:39 is to make assumptions based on a preconceived bias against the veracity of Scripture.

Some critics find another supposed contradiction in the genealogies associated with the narratives of Jesus’ birth. Matthew 1:16 says that Joseph’s father was Jacob; Luke 3:23 says that Joseph’s father was Heli. There are several theories, but the best answer to this seeming discrepancy is that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. There was no Koine Greek word with the exclusive meaning of “son-in-law,” and so Joseph is called the “son of Heli” due to his marriage to Heli’s daughter, Mary. Joseph was a “son” by marriage.

The gospels were written by four different men to four unique audiences, so it is natural that they would include different details concerning the life of Christ. But their writing was superintended by the Holy Spirit, who guaranteed that what each wrote was the absolute truth. There are differences, but they can all be harmonized. The narratives of Jesus’ birth found in Matthew and Luke are not contradictory but complementary.

Recommended Resource: The Case for Christmas by Lee Strobel

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Did Jesus come to bring peace on earth?

​

Question: "Did Jesus come to bring peace on earth?"

Answer: Speaking about the birth of Jesus hundreds of years before it happened, Isaiah says, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). So Jesus is the “Prince of Peace.” On the night of Jesus’ birth, the angels proclaim the good news to the shepherds, again emphasizing the peace that Christ would bring: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men” (Luke 2:14, KJV).

But in Matthew 10 Jesus seems to downplay His role as Prince of Peace, as He warns His disciples of the hardships they will face in their ministry: “Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household’” (verses 34–36).

Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace, yet the kind of peace He brings is not necessarily what most people are thinking of when they hear of “peace on earth” at Christmas time or see slogans advocating “world peace.” There are a number of different fronts where conflicts rage today, and there are a number of different kinds of peace needed in our world:

Inner conflict. People the world over are struggling with doubts, fears and uncertainties. They are in need of inner peace. Mental health professionals tell us that the Christmas holidays, the time of “peace on earth,” is often one of the most depressing as expectations go unmet and stress multiplies.

Interpersonal conflict. People struggle against other people. There are family conflicts and conflicts with co-workers and sometimes even conflicts with total strangers. Crime, racism, abuse, and violence are everyday occurrences. Divorce rates show the conflict between husbands and wives. During the season of “peace and goodwill,” individuals often disappoint each other and fail to meet expectations. Family conflicts are often heightened as people who may not normally spend a lot of time together are suddenly at close quarters. Even total strangers may get into conflict with each other as they compete for limited numbers of the most popular toys, the best “Black Friday” deals, or the most convenient parking spots at the stores. Christmas fights, even near riots, have been known to occur over these things. And, unfortunately, the shopping season tends to elevate criminal activity, from shoplifting to burglary. Interpersonal conflicts demonstrate the great need for interpersonal peace.

International conflict. What the term peace on earth probably means to most people is international peace. Currently, conflicts rage around the globe, and war is nothing new. In addition to the possibility of overt war, there is the constant threat of international terrorism. The Middle East, the very place of Christ’s birth, is one of the least peaceful of all places on earth, and in recent years the city of Bethlehem has been torn by riots between various factions.

While the need for inner peace, interpersonal peace, and international peace might be recognized by most people, there is one other kind of peace that rarely gets a second (or even a first) thought. Yet this peace is our most pressing need. We all need peace with God. The universal human response to the reign of God is open rebellion against Him. Because we have all sinned and rebelled against God, we do not have peace with Him. Romans 5:10 describes people in sin as “enemies of God.” This is a statement of fact, whether or not we harbor any hostile feelings toward God.

Jesus came to bring peace on earth. First and foremost, He came to make peace between God and rebellious, sinful human beings. While we were God’s enemies, “we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son” (Romans 5:10). Jesus paid the penalty for our sins so that God’s wrath could be turned away from us and we could have peace with God. This peace and forgiveness are available to anyone who trusts Jesus for salvation: “Since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1).

Jesus also brings peace on earth by sending the Holy Spirit to live within believers. The Spirit changes them so that they can gain a measure of inner peace. When believers feel turmoil inside, they have resources to deal with it. “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:6–7).

Likewise, as believers are changed into more loving, more Christlike people, they have the resources to better live at peace with those around them. They develop the capacity to forgive wrongs done to them and be more aware of wrongs they might do to others. As the Christian increases in spiritual maturity, he or she will be able to help others in a way that would not have been possible before. As he or she defers to others in humility, many interpersonal conflicts are avoided. “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18). In this way, the Christian experiences more interpersonal peace.

However, there are times when interpersonal conflict may actually get worse when a person becomes a believer in Christ. This is what Jesus was speaking of when He said He did not come to bring peace to the earth in Matthew 10:34–36. Jesus warned of the persecution that will come to His followers when they confront a world that rejects Him. Although Christians in the Western world have, for the past few centuries, experienced a remarkable level of protection from persecution, the majority of the world for the past twenty centuries has been very hostile to Christians. Yet, in spite of the interpersonal turmoil that the Christian may experience when those who reject Christ also reject him—even members of his own family—the Christian can still have inner peace. Jesus promised, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid” (John 14:27). Our Lord also said, “This is my command: Love each other. If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also” (John 15:17–20). And, “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). In this case, Jesus did not come to bring peace to the unbelieving world, but He did bring peace to those who trust Him.

But what about the “peace on earth” that the angels proclaimed at Jesus’ birth? Jesus’ first coming did not bring international peace; however, He promised that He would come again. The only way there will ever be international peace is when every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2:10) and the Lord assumes His rightful place as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. When Christ reigns supreme and the nations are living in obedience to Him, then there will be world peace (see Micah 4:2–4; Isaiah 2:4).

In summary, Jesus, the Prince of Peace, came to provide the way for sinful people to have peace with God. He gives believers the resources to experience inner peace and helps them to become the kind of people who can live in peace with others. However, as Jesus suffered persecution, so will His followers. Yet, even in persecution, they can experience the peace of God. And finally, when Jesus returns and sets up His kingdom, the world will be united in peace.

Recommended Resource: God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is Epiphany / Three Kings’ Day?

Question: "What is Epiphany / Three Kings’ Day and should Christians celebrate it?"

Answer: Epiphany is an ancient church festival celebrating the magi’s visit to the Christ Child (Matthew 2:1-12). It is kept on January 6. Epiphany is also called “Three Kings’ Day” and “Twelfth Day”—the latter name because January 6 is twelve days after Christmas; the eve of Epiphany is called “Twelfth Night.” It is celebrated mainly in Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and other liturgical churches.

The word epiphany means “manifestation” or “revelation.” Thus, the holiday celebrates the manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles, represented by the magi (see Simeon’s prophecy in Luke 2:32). For some, Epiphany also commemorates the baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:21-22) and His turning water into wine (John 2:1-11)—manifestations of Christ’s divinity to the world.

Many traditions surround Epiphany celebrations, which vary from culture to culture. Customs include the Star Singers (children dressed as kings and holding up a large star, singing carols from house to house); collecting money for charity; and the “plundering” and burning of Christmas trees. In the French Catholic culture, Epiphany marks the beginning of Mardi Gras, as “king cakes” are baked and served.

Other traditions include prayers (some offered to “Caspar,” “Melchoir,” and “Balthasar,” the traditional names of the magi); the blessing of holy water; the burning of “blessed” herbs; and the offering of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

Should a Christian celebrate Epiphany? There is certainly nothing wrong with celebrating the different events of Christ’s life, and a Christian is free to observe whatever day he wants, as long as he “does so to the Lord” (see Romans 14:4-6).

Having said that, we should be careful to avoid the superstitions and empty rituals (Isaiah 1:13-14) which have sprung up around many holidays, including Epiphany. Sprinkling “holy” water, for example, and burning “blessed” herbs are nothing but superstitious practices. And some customs directly conflict with scripture. For instance, asking the magi to bless one’s house conflicts with the Bible’s clear teaching that we pray only to God Himself (Psalm 91:15; Matthew 6:6, 9; 1 Timothy 2:5).

Whatever holidays we choose to observe, the Lord should always be glorified in them; however our calendars are marked, the Bible must remain our only rule for faith and practice.

Recommended Resource: The Case for Christmas by Lee Strobel

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is Advent?

Question: "What is Advent?"

Answer: Advent is the season of the year leading up to Christmas. It is observed with various traditions and rituals by Catholics and other liturgical groups such as Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists. In recent years, Advent celebrations of one type or another have been added to many evangelical services as well.

The word advent itself means “arrival” or “an appearing or coming into place.” Christians often speak of Christ’s “first advent” and “second advent”; that is, His first and second comings to earth. His first advent would be the Incarnation—Christmastime.

The Advent season lasts for four Sundays. It begins on the fourth Sunday before Christmas, or the nearest Sunday to November 30. Advent ends on Christmas Eve and thus is not considered part of the Christmas season. The Advent celebration is both a commemoration of Christ’s first coming and an anticipation of His second coming. As Israel longed for their Messiah to come, so Christians long for their Savior to come again.

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not observe Advent per se, but they do keep a long fast before Christmas. In the West, Advent has developed a more festive tone, although many churches also keep a fast and focus on prayer and penitence akin to what takes place during the Lenten season (sometimes, Advent is even called “Little Lent”). Advent is seen as a time to prepare one’s heart for Christmas and for the eventual return of Christ (and the judgment He will bring to the world).

Churches that observe Advent usually decorate their sanctuaries in the liturgical color of Advent, purple (or in some cases royal blue). Some churches change the color to rose on the third or fourth Sunday of Advent to signify a greater emphasis on the joy of the season.

One of the most common Advent traditions involves the use of evergreen wreaths, branches, and trees. On the first Sunday of Advent, churches and homes are decorated with green to symbolize the eternal life that Jesus brings. An Advent wreath—an evergreen circle with four colored candles surrounding a white one in the middle—is placed in a prominent spot. The candles are then lighted one at a time, on successive Sundays. The first candle is the candle of “hope” or “expectation.” The three remaining candles on the perimeter are given various meanings depending on the church. On Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, the center white candle is lighted; this is the “Christ Candle,” a reminder that Jesus, the Light of the Word, has come.

Advent calendars, used to count down the days till Christmas, are popular in many homes. An Advent calendar contains a number of covered “windows” that are opened, one a day, until Christmas Day. Each open window reveals a picture related to the season or a poem or a Bible verse or a treat of some kind. Many parents find that an Advent calendar is a good way to teach their children the true meaning of Christmas—although there are secular versions of the calendars, too.

Should Christians observe Advent? This is a matter of personal conviction. Here is the biblical principle: “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord” (Romans 14:5–6).

There is certainly nothing wrong with commemorating Jesus’ birth and anticipating His return—such commemoration and anticipation should be an everyday part of our lives. Are Christians required to observe Advent? No. Does observing Advent make one a better Christian or more acceptable to God? No. Can celebrating Advent be a good reminder of what the season is truly all about? Yes, and therein lies its greatest value.

Recommended Resource: The Case for Christmas by Lee Strobel

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What does IHS mean?

Question: "What does IHS mean?"

Answer: George Eliot’s novel Silas Marner contains a scene in which a townswoman named Dolly Winthrop brings Silas some lard cakes with the letters IHS baked into the top of each one. The irony is that neither Dolly nor Silas knows what the letters mean. Dolly simply puts IHS on her baked goods because she sees the letters in her church every Sunday and assumes there is some benefit to them. Her explanation is rather droll: “They’re good letters, else they wouldn’t be in the church; and so, I prick ’em on all the loaves and all the cakes, though sometimes they won’t hold, because o’ the rising . . . and I hope they’ll bring good to you, Master Marner, for it’s wi’ that will I brought you the cakes; and you see the letters have held better nor common” (chapter 10).

Unlike Mrs. Winthrop, we need not remain ignorant of what IHS means. IHS is an example of a Christogram, an abbreviation of the name of Christ. It is a Latinized version of the Greek letters ΙΗΣ (iota-eta-sigma), the first three letters of the name “Jesus” in Greek. So, the IHS symbol means “Jesus.” Other Christograms include ICXC (the first and last letters of the name “Jesus Christ” in Greek) and a superimposed X and P (the first two letters of “Christ” in Greek).

Sometimes the letters IHS are intertwined with each other. Other representations include a cross above or stemming from the H. The symbol is most often found in Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, and other “High Church” denominations, where it is found on vestments, scapulars, windows, medallions, tombstones, and crosses. The Jesuits, or members of the Society of Jesus, use IHS in their official seal, adding three nails below the H and surrounding the whole monogram with rays.

Through the centuries, this Christogram has had other meanings attached to it. One is that it is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase Iesus Hominum Salvator (“Jesus, the Savior of Men”). Other appended meanings of IHS include Iesum Habemus Socium (“We Have Jesus as Our Companion”) and Iesus Humilis Societas (“Humble Society of Jesus”). According to legend, Constantine the Great saw a vision of a cross and the Latin words In Hoc Signo Vinces (“In This Sign You Will Conquer”). Some have taken the first three words of the command to Constantine and given IHS another meaning. And some have skipped Latin altogether, tacking on a purely English meaning: “In His Service.” Originally, however, IHS simply meant “Jesus.”

It is always good to know the meaning of the symbols that we use. We should not be like Dolly Winthrop, who superstitiously used IHS as a good-luck charm without ever knowing what it meant. Mrs. Winthrop was blindly following what was, to her, an empty liturgy. There is nothing wrong with tradition, per se, but we should be careful not to cloak our praise of Jesus’ name in symbols and monograms based on dead languages. Better to boldly proclaim the name above all names (Philippians 2:9) in a way everyone can understand than to risk keeping people like Mrs. Winthrop in the dark.

Recommended Resource: The Quest Study Bible

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What are holy days?

Question: "What are holy days?"

Answer: In the Bible, the word holy means “set apart.” God is holy. Christians are called to be holy. A holy day, then, is a day that is set apart to focus on the things of the Lord. There are holy days mentioned in the Bible, and, over the centuries, Christian churches have instituted other holy days by tradition.

The Bible mentions at least eight holy days (or groups of days), also known as feasts or festivals. They are Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Pentecost/Weeks, Trumpets, Tabernacles/Booths, Purim, and the Day of Atonement. Of those eight, seven are commanded in the Mosaic Law (Purim was a later development). These Jewish/Old Covenant holy days are not mandated for followers of Jesus Christ, but they can be observed as a remembrance of how Jesus perfectly fulfilled them.

Over the centuries, various Christian churches have instituted holy days (or groups of days). The two most common are Christmas and Easter. Other commonly observed Christian holy days include Lent, Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Pentecost, and Advent.

The New Covenant does not advocate the observance of any Christian holy days, but neither does it forbid such observance. Romans 14:5 appears to be the guiding principle: “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” If a Christian is going to observe a holy day, he/she should be fully convinced that it does not violate God’s Word, that it can be done to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31), and that it would be spiritually beneficial (1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23).

Ultimately, for the follower of Jesus Christ, every day should be a holy day. Every day of our lives should be set apart to worship God, obey His Word, and live a holy life. That is likely why the New Testament does not advocate specific holy days. Perhaps a good way to put it would be, “For the Christian, there are seven holy days: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.”

Recommended Resource: The Christian Holy Days by Larry Edwards

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is the Massacre of the Innocents?

Question: "What is the Massacre of the Innocents?"

Answer: Shortly after the time of Christ’s birth, King Herod the Great made an unsuccessful attempt to destroy the infant Jesus by ordering the slaughter of all male children age two and younger. The ecclesiastical name given to this killing of babies in Bethlehem and its surrounding regions is the Massacre of the Innocents.

The event is recorded in Matthew 2:16–18: “Herod . . . gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.’”

At the sign of the star, Magi from the East had come to Jerusalem asking for “the one who has been born king of the Jews” (Matthew 2:2). Consulting with the Jewish priests and scribes, Herod told the Magi that Bethlehem was the prophesied birthplace of the Messiah (verses 4–5). He then sent the Magi on their way with an order to return to Jerusalem and give him the exact location of the newborn king. When it became apparent that the Magi had ignored his directive, Herod put his heinous plan into action, ordering the Massacre of the Innocents.

The Massacre of the Innocents was the result of King Herod’s extreme paranoia and cruelty. Herod would do anything to protect his own interests, including murdering all the little boys in Bethlehem. The wise men had alerted Herod to the arrival of a new king in Bethlehem. In his fear and morbid suspicion, Herod could not allow a rival king to live. Not knowing how old Jesus was, but certain the wise men had said they’d first seen the star less than two years before their visit, Herod took no chances and had all male children under two in Bethlehem killed.

Matthew 2:17–18 cites the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:15. In its original context, Jeremiah’s prophecy relates to Israel’s period of captivity in Babylon and the murder of children during the invasion of Judea. The mothers of Israel, portrayed as Rachel, are weeping for their sons who were led into exile. Rachel was considered a matriarchal figure to the nation of Israel, and her tomb is near Bethlehem (Genesis 35:19). Matthew links the prophecy by Jeremiah to the Massacre of the Innocents, and the parallel is striking. Eerie similarities also exist between the Massacre of the Innocents and Pharaoh’s order to kill all Hebrew male infants at the time of Moses’ birth (Exodus 1:15–16).

Herod’s Massacre of the Innocents was carried out, but his plan to rid the world of the Messiah was thwarted when God intervened to protect Jesus in yet another fulfillment of prophecy. When the Magi left Bethlehem to return to their homeland, Joseph had a dream: “An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. ‘Get up! Flee to Egypt with the child and his mother,’ the angel said. ‘Stay there until I tell you to return, because Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.’ That night Joseph left for Egypt with the child and Mary, his mother, and they stayed there until Herod’s death. This fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: ‘I called my Son out of Egypt’” (Matthew 2:13–15, NLT; cf. Hosea 11:1). God the Father saved His Son to fulfill His purpose of securing our salvation.

Some ancient Christian traditions claim that the Massacre of the Innocents involved tens to hundreds of thousands of children. However, based on the population of the small village of Bethlehem, the annual birthrate, and the high infant death rate at the time, most biblical historians and demographers estimate the total number of male children under the age of two to be no more than 20 to 40. The lower number makes the crime no less of an atrocity. The death of even one child is a tragedy.

The Massacre of the Innocents is not mentioned in secular histories of that era. The killing of forty Hebrew children in an insignificant village did not catch the attention of secular historians. Also, Herod’s acts of tyranny and cruelty were numerous, including the execution of some of his wives and his own children. The Massacre of the Innocents, involving a relatively small number of Jewish children, was just another ruthless act in a long list of ruthless acts by this ruler.

In Roman Catholic, Eastern Rite, and Orthodox churches, the Feast of the Holy Innocents commemorates the Massacre of the Innocents with the slain boys honored as Christian martyrs and saints. The feast is observed on December 28 in Western churches and on December 29 in Eastern churches. An old Christmas hymn, the Coventry Carol, was written as a lullaby for the children who died in the Massacre of the Innocents.

The Massacre of the Innocents was Herod’s attempt to thwart God’s plan and stop a biblical prophecy from being fulfilled. Of course he failed, and in the course of his failure he added to the misery and sin of the world. “The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together, against the LORD and against His Anointed One” (Psalm 2:2, BSB). But their fight is futile. The Christ is victorious. “Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. . . . Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction” (verses 10, 12).

Recommended Resource: The Case for Christmas by Lee Strobel

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Is the little drummer boy in the Bible?

​

Question: "Is the little drummer boy in the Bible?"

Answer: Pa-rum-pa-pum-pum! That line has become synonymous with the Christmas season as part of the beloved carol “The Little Drummer Boy.” The song is believed to have been written by Katherine K. Davis, and it was first recorded in 1951. The lyrics are in the first person, and the speaker is a little drummer boy at the manger scene who had nothing to give baby Jesus but his drum solo. The song is sweet, reverent, and imaginative, but, no, the little drummer boy is not in the Bible.

The Bible gives us highlights of many events throughout history, but it leaves a lot more to the imagination. For example, when the Bible lists genealogies, it skips over decades full of details in each person’s life (Matthew 1; 1 Chronicles 1). Each of those people had daily lives filled with loves, hurts, mistakes, and relationships, but we can only speculate about the details. This holds true for the birth of Jesus as well. Matthew and Luke give us some details about Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, but we are not told everything.

Luke tells us that a group of shepherds visited the manger where the newborn Christ was laid. Matthew tells us of a group of magi from the East who visited Jesus in Bethlehem (but not necessarily at the manger). Neither gospel writer mentions the presence of a little drummer boy—or the presence of animals, for that matter. Traditional manger scenes that depict a little drummer boy, cows, sheep, donkeys, etc., are displaying creative additions to the biblical story.

What we know from Scripture about the birth of Jesus is this:

• He was conceived through an act of the Holy Spirit inside a virgin named Mary (Matthew 1:18, 23, 25; Luke 1: 26–38).
• Mary was engaged to a man named Joseph (Luke 1:26–27).
• Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth, a town in Galilee (Matthew 2:23; Luke 1:26), but they traveled to Bethlehem in compliance with an order by Caesar (Luke 2:1–4).
• Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4–7).
• Jesus’ first bed was a manger because there was no room in the inn (Luke 2:5–7).
• A group of shepherds visited Jesus in the manger (Luke 2:8–20).
• Joseph and Mary made a trip to the temple in Jerusalem in fulfillment of the Law of Moses (Luke 2:22–39).
• The magi visited Jesus (Matthew 2:1–12).
• Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt to escape Herod’s cruelty (Matthew 2:13–18).
• Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth (Matthew 2:23; Luke 2:39).

Whether or not a little drummer boy ever visited Jesus in the manger is not told to us. There were naturally many people who interacted with Jesus about whom the Bible is silent, and the silence of Scripture fuels the imagination of some. But there is not a hint of a little drummer boy in Scripture, and there are no biblical grounds for believing he was at the manger. The little drummer boy is a charming character in a fictional narrative.

Many books, poems, and songs have been crafted that give fictional accounts of the lives of Bible characters and the time of Christ. Novels such as The Robe by Lloyd Douglas, The Silver Chalice by Thomas Costain, The Bronze Bow by Elizabeth George Speare, and Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ by Lew Wallace are examples of historical fiction set in the time of Christ. Poems depicting biblical events include “The Donkey” by G. K. Chesterton, “In the Bleak Midwinter” by Christiana Rossetti, and of course Paradise Lost by John Milton. Such works of art can be helpful in revealing what life in those days might have been like, but they are not to be taken as fact.

However possible it may be, the existence of a little boy with a drum who played a song for Jesus is very unlikely. There may have been visitors besides the shepherds to the stable that night, but most mothers of newborns would require silence, not the banging of a drum, near their sleeping infants.

Any song that directs our thoughts toward the wonder of God becoming man is a good song, and “The Little Drummer Boy” does that. The song correctly points to the humble nature of Christ’s birth as a way to identify with Him and an invitation to approach Him: “I am a poor boy, too,” says the little drummer boy. Also, the song reminds us that we may not have much to give, but whatever we have we can offer to the Lord. We give Him our best, for He is worthy. Whether it be a widow’s mite (Mark 12:33–34), a jar of costly perfume (Luke 7:37–38), or a drum solo, Jesus deserves the best, along with our love. Pa-rum-pa-pum-pum!

Recommended Resource: The Case for Christmas by Lee Strobel

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is the Annunciation?

Question: "What is the Annunciation?"

Answer: The word annunciation comes from a Latin word meaning “to bring news.” The Latin Vulgate uses the phrase annuntiatio navitatis Christi (“the announcement of Christ’s birth”) to refer to the announcement made by the angel Gabriel to the virgin Mary about the impending birth of Christ. The Annunciation brought news of the Incarnation.

In Luke 1:26–39, Gabriel arrives at the home of a young Jewish girl named Mary, a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, to tell her that she would become pregnant by means of the Holy Spirit. When the baby was born, she was to call Him Jesus, a name that means “The Lord Is Salvation.” The angel also tells Mary that the baby she would bear would rule an everlasting kingdom and be called “the Son of the Highest.”

The Annunciation is dear to Christians because it is a prophecy of the Savior’s birth, a herald of the grace and peace that would come to mankind from God through Jesus Christ. The Annunciation was a main subject of Christian art during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, with the virgin and the angel commonly used as symbols of purity and grace. The Feast of Annunciation is observed on March 25 by both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, where the emphasis is placed on Mary as the Theotokos, or “mother of God.” It is unfortunate that Gabriel’s announcement, which lifts up Jesus as “the holy one” and “the Son of God” (Luke 1:35), should be reinterpreted as an occasion for lifting up Mary, the humble recipient of God’s grace (Luke 1:30, 46–48).

Interestingly, the Qur’an also mentions the Annunciation, though it omits the references to Jesus’ identity as God’s Son and His everlasting kingdom, calling Him only an honored person who will be near to Allah in this present world and the hereafter. This faulty understanding of Jesus is commonly held by other religions. The only religion that claims Jesus is the Son of God is Christianity.

The virgin birth had been foretold (Isaiah 7:14), and “when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship” (Galatians 4:4–5). Mary was chosen as the woman through whom the Messiah came. The good news that was to change the whole world came first to Mary in an event we now call the Annunciation.

Recommended Resource: The Case for Christmas by Lee Strobel

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

How did Jesus bring joy to the world?

​

Question: "How did Jesus bring joy to the world?"

Answer: Jesus brought joy into the world in some very practical ways. Every time He healed a person, cast out a demon, or forgave a sin, joy was the immediate result. Those who recognized Jesus as the promised Savior and Redeemer of the world were filled with joy (John 3:29). When the gospel spread in the days of the early church, joy followed the message (Acts 8:8; 1 Thessalonians 1:6).

Humanity yearns for hope, for meaning and purpose. Within every human heart is the knowledge of eternity, even if we don’t recognize it as such (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Without God as a vital part of our existence, only emptiness and futility remain. The world was lost in darkness before Jesus came the first time. God had not spoken through His prophets for over 400 years. The period between Malachi and Matthew is silent, setting the stage for the greatest event of all time: God would become a Man and live among us (John 1:14).

When the angel announced the birth of Jesus to shepherds in the field, his first words were “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people” (Luke 2:10). That “great joy” was the truth that the God who had seemed far off had come to them in human flesh. He was to be called “Immanuel,” which means “God with us” (Isaiah 9:6–7; Matthew 1:23). Those who saw Him saw the face of God (John 14:9). He had come to rescue, to save, to heal, and to make mankind right with God (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:17–21). That was cause for great joy!

Because Jesus came, sinful human beings have an opportunity to come into the presence of a holy God and be pronounced “not guilty” (2 Corinthians 5:21)! When Jesus died on the cross, the veil in the temple was torn in two, symbolizing that the wall of separation between God and man had been eliminated (Mark 15:38). From then on, all who placed their trust in Christ would be forgiven of their sin and inherit eternal life (John 3:16–18). When Jesus rose from the dead, He conquered death for every person who trusts in Him (1 Corinthians 15:53–56). That is cause for great joy!

Jesus ascended back into heaven to “prepare a place” for all those who follow Him (John 14:1–2). But He promised that He will come again, a second time, to establish His kingdom on earth. In this kingdom righteousness and justice will reign, and God’s people will have places of honor (Micah 4; Isaiah 11; Matthew 19:28–29). The troubles of this life are not the end. Jesus told His followers, “Take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). The knowledge that soon we will live and reign forever with our Lord is cause for great joy!

The popular Christmas song “Joy to the World” by Isaac Watts celebrates the joyful occasion of the Lord’s coming. But the lyrics were never intended to be a Christmas song. They were a poem by Watts based on Psalm 98, which is a psalm of the second coming of the Lord who “comes to judge the earth” (verse 9). Jesus’ purpose in His first coming was not to judge but to save (John 3:17); still, celebrating the King in His lowliness is appropriate. Jesus brought joy to the world in His first coming to earth as a baby, and He will bring joy to the world when He comes again to reign as King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16).

The wait for God’s promised Messiah, expressed in passages such as Isaiah 59:20, is over. The angels announced His arrival with great fanfare. No greater honor could befall the children of Adam than that their Creator had come to redeem them from Satan’s stranglehold (1 John 5:19–20). So, although our earthly life may be filled with troubles, we have reason for hope. Because Jesus came the first time and is poised to come the second time, we can sing with conviction, “Joy to the world, the Lord is come! Let earth receive her king!”

Recommended Resource: God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Why did God choose Mary?

​

Question: "Why did God choose Mary?"

Answer: “In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a village in Galilee, to a virgin named Mary” (Luke 1:26–27, NLT). These words are familiar to most of us as part of what we call the Christmas story. Gabriel brought to Mary the news that she had “found favor with God” and would give birth to a son to reign forever on David’s throne (Luke 1:30–33). In passages that weave together like a tapestry, we discover that God had reasons for choosing the times, places, and people involved in His redemption plan (Ephesians 1:9–11). This article will explore some of the reasons that God chose Mary to be the mother of the Messiah.

1. Mary was of the right lineage. Luke traces Mary’s lineage through David, Boaz, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Jacob. Her son would be qualified to bear the title Son of David and be the righteous “Branch” that was to come from David’s family (Isaiah 11:1).

2. Mary was engaged to a man whose heritage would require him to visit Bethlehem at just the right time. Micah 5:2 foretold the birthplace of the Messiah, pinpointing Bethlehem in Judah. Many virgins may have known God’s favor and may have descended from King David’s line, but not many would also be in the small town of Bethlehem when it was time for the Messiah to be born.

3. Mary was a virgin. It was critical that the mother of the Messiah be a virgin in order to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” Matthew reminded his readers of that prophecy, which was crucial in verifying Jesus’ identity (Matthew 1:23). She could not be married, or the world would assume Jesus had an earthly father. She could not have a bad reputation, or no one would have believed her story about a virgin birth, not even her own family. The virgin birth, in bypassing a human father, circumvented the transmission of the sin nature and allowed the Messiah to be a sinless man.

4. Mary was from Nazareth. Prophecies given hundreds of years before Jesus’ birth declared that the Messiah would be of little reputation (Isaiah 53; Zechariah 9:9; cf. Matthew 2:23). To be called a Nazarene or a Galilean was something of an insult in those days (see John 1:46). Had Mary been wealthy, socially prestigious, or from an affluent city, Jesus could not have easily connected with lowly people, the ones He’d come to save (Luke 19:10; Mark 2:17). But because He was from Nazareth, Mary’s hometown, the humility and commonness prophesied about Him was fulfilled.

God may have had more reasons for choosing Mary of Nazareth, but we will have to wait until we get to heaven to find out what they are. Mary was just a person God used for His purposes. Because of certain misunderstandings about Mary, it is important to note that she was not chosen because she was more holy than other people. The angel’s address to her as “highly favored” and “blessed” (Luke 1:28, NKJV) is a reference to the uniqueness of her pending task, not to any level of virtuousness she had attained. Mary was surely a godly woman, but that is not the point. Gabriel’s emphasis was on her privilege, not her piety. She had “found favor with God” (verse 30), but that says more about God’s goodness than Mary’s. She was the recipient of God’s grace, His undeserved favor.

Mary gives us an example of total devotion to the Lord in her answer to the angel Gabriel: “I am the Lord’s servant. May it be unto me as you have said” (Luke 1:38). May we have the wisdom and grace to answer God’s call, whatever it is, the way Mary did.

Recommended Resource: Twelve Extraordinary Women: How God Shaped Women of the Bible and What He Wants to Do with You by John MacArthur

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What was Mary’s lineage?

​

Question: "What was Mary’s lineage?"

Answer: It is common knowledge that the genealogies contained in Matthew and Luke differ. Most conservative Bible commentators explain the difference by holding that Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1:1–16 is traced through Joseph’s line to show Jesus’ royal right to the Davidic throne; correspondingly, the genealogy in Luke 3:23–38 traces Jesus’ ancestry through Mary’s line. This means that Mary’s lineage is recorded in the Gospel of Luke.

Mary’s lineage, as recorded by Luke, does not mention Mary, but that’s to be expected—including women’s names in genealogies was not standard practice. It begins this way: “[Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23). This comment affirms the truth of Jesus’ virgin birth (see Luke 1:29–38). Joseph was a “son” of Heli by virtue of his marriage to Mary, who would have been the daughter of Heli (Matthew 1:16 lists Joseph’s biological father as Jacob).

Some notable points in Mary’s lineage are that she was a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Luke 3:34); she was specifically of the tribe of Judah (verse 33). She was also a descendant of Boaz (verse 32) and David (verse 31). Significantly, Luke traces Mary’s lineage all the way back to Adam (verse 38). This fits with Luke’s purpose as he wrote to Gentiles and emphasized that Jesus is the Son of God who came to save all people (cf. Luke 2:10–11).

Another issue relating to Mary’s lineage is her relation to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Luke says that Mary was related to Elizabeth, who was in the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5, 36). An argument sometimes put forward by those who deny the credentials of Christ is that, if Mary was Elizabeth’s “cousin,” then Mary must also have been a Levite. Some translations, such as the KJV, do state that Mary was the “cousin” of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36). However, the English word cousin does not have to imply a close relation, and other versions of the Bible translate the word as “relative” (NKJV, ESV, CSB, BSB). Even if Elizabeth and Mary were close relatives, it was still possible for them to be of different tribes, as women were identified with their father’s tribe, not their mother’s. Elizabeth’s father was a Levite, making her a Levite by birth, but her mother may have been of Judah. Conversely, Mary’s mother may have been a Levite and kin to Elizabeth’s family, while Mary’s father was of Judah. Luke’s genealogy shows that Heli, whom we assume to be Mary’s father, was a direct descendant of Judah, not Levi. In addition, the angel Gabriel affirmed Jesus’ Judean lineage, telling Mary that “he will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David” (Luke 1:32, NLT). David was of the tribe of Judah.

Regardless of Mary’s specific lineage, that Jesus is a descendant of David and Judah is beyond doubt. Other Bible verses also point to the fact of Judah being the tribe of Jesus’ heritage, as the rightful Messiah and Savior of all (Hebrews 7:14; Revelation 5:5).

Recommended Resource: Twelve Extraordinary Women: How God Shaped Women of the Bible and What He Wants to Do with You by John MacArthur

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

​

 

[Patriot]

Is the perpetual virginity of Mary biblical?

Question: "Is the perpetual virginity of Mary biblical?"

Answer: It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept biblical? Before we look at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as "the Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven." Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.

So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation, we can see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB declares, "Is He not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?" Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms for "brothers" and "sisters" in these verses could also refer to male and female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters. However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be Joseph’s son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning of the text to interpret “brothers” and “sisters” as "cousins" or "relatives" with the mentioning of Jesus’ mother and father.

Matthew 12:46 NAB tells us, "While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him." See also Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14. All mention Jesus’ mother with His brothers. If they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, why were they mentioned with Mary so often? The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be drawn from Scripture. It must be forced on Scripture, in contradiction to what the Scriptures clearly state.

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Should Christians participate in religious festivals of other religions?

​

Question: "Should Christians participate in religious festivals of other religions?"

Answer: Some Christians say there is nothing wrong with having meals with Muslims during Ramadan or enjoying a sugar skull for the Day of the Dead. Other Christians claim that Christians should not participate in other religions’ holidays at all. Basic to the issue is whether or not it is possible for a Christian to participate in a non-Christian holiday or festival without endorsing the beliefs behind it.

We first need to distinguish between participating in a cultural festival and a religious festival. Some festivals are simply expressions of a particular culture and a celebration of that culture’s people, history, and contributions to society at large. There is nothing inherently wrong with attending an Irish Fest, for example. A Christian can wear green, sample some colcannon, and clap along with a reel without embracing Catholicism. Learning about and enjoying a different culture is morally neutral.

On the other hand, participating in a religious festival is fraught with spiritual danger. Honoring a false god is always a sin. “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21). If any part of a celebration involves actions that honor or pay tribute to a false god, then Christians should not participate. There is no room for compromise in this area. Paul asks a rhetorical question: “Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? . . . The sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons” (1 Corinthians 10:18, 20). Partaking in non-Christian religious festivals cannot be justified. We “cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons” (verse 21).

The difficulty arises in the fact that religion is often an integral part of culture. In many cases it is impossible to extract the religious element from what would otherwise be a purely secular event. For example, the bonfires and colored powder of India’s Holi celebrations seem innocent enough, but they are inextricably tied to Hindu mythology: the bonfires represent the burning of the female demon Holika, and the throwing of colored powder honors the god Krishna—depicted in Hindu art as having blue skin—and his paramour Radha. Christians in India avoid participating in the Holi festival because it is acknowledged to be a pagan and idolatrous celebration.

In other cases, the religious significance of certain celebrations has diminished over the years, to the point that many participants are unaware of the spiritual history behind the occasion. We see this even in modern Christmas celebrations, as the day honoring the birth of Christ is considered more and more to be nothing but a cultural festival in Western society. China’s Lantern Festival, or Yuan Xiao Jie, is another example. The festival began long ago as a religious observance but now is often seen simply as a new year’s celebration of traditional Chinese culture. There’s also the traditional Hawaiian hula dance, which began as a form of worship to Laka, the goddess of love, forests, and plants. Sacrifices and prayers to Laka accompanied ancient performances of the sacred hula in temples. Today, most observers—perhaps even most hula dancers themselves—are unaware of the pagan origins of the dance. Can a Christian attend a Chinese Lantern Festival or a luau featuring hula dancing, given the fact that most of the religious undertones have vanished? The issue may be a matter of conscience rather than set biblical principle.

If a Christian is invited to attend a festival overtly celebrating another religion, it is his duty to respectfully decline the invitation. An explanation of why would be appropriate, and it may even open the door to sharing the gospel. It may also be fitting to suggest another time, unrelated to the religious ceremony, to meet.

We need discernment in this and many other areas. Participating in a purely cultural festival is fine, but attending a religious festival gives the impression of tacit approval. Determining one’s level of participation in a cultural festival with religious roots requires wisdom; for the sake of one’s own conscience and the integrity of one’s witness, such decisions should only be made after prayer, a study of the culture, and the solicitation of godly advice. Whatever we do, we need to do it all for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

How should Christians respond to the "War on Christmas"?

Question: "How should Christians respond to the 'War on Christmas'?"

Answer: Many people perceive a modern-day “war on Christmas” being waged in the public square. Those who believe in the reality of a war on Christmas see a concerted effort to eliminate the word Christmas from public discourse. Stories confirming a war on Christmas seem to be coming more frequently: a grade-school choir sings “We Wish You a Happy Holiday” instead of “We Wish You a Merry Christmas” for their “Winter Concert.” A library invites “holiday displays” from the community provided the displays have no religious connotation—the stable may have animals in it, but no people. And major shopping chains forbid their employees from wishing anyone a “Merry Christmas.” It is possible to do all one’s Christmas shopping and never see or hear the word Christmas in the stores.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with saying “Happy Holidays” or “Season’s Greetings.” But if someone says “Happy Holidays” for the sole purpose of not saying “Merry Christmas,” then we are right to question what’s going on. Is there truly be a cultural “war on Christmas” being waged? “Why is the word Christmas censored?” we wonder as we wander through the malls. Why do some public schools celebrate everything from Kwanzaa to Labafana the Christmas witch, and ban the Nativity, all in the name of “inclusion” and “tolerance”?

One reason put forward by those seeking to avoid the word Christmas is that it offends non-Christians. But, according to a recent Gallup poll, only 3 percent of adults in America say it bothers them when a store makes specific reference to Christmas. This fact gives the “war on Christmas” a more sinister twist. The exclusion of Christmas is less about sensitivity and more about censorship. Expunging all mention of Christmas from society is not really a way to “adapt” to a more diverse culture but a way to engineer a more secular culture.

Many times, the arguments against Christmas programs and displays are couched in political terms, but the bias against Christmas goes much deeper than that. The war on Christmas is primarily a spiritual battle, not a political one.

How should Christians respond to the war on Christmas and the ubiquitous use of “Happy Holidays” to the exclusion of “Merry Christmas”? Here are some suggestions:

1) Celebrate Christmas! War on Christmas or not, let the joy of the season show in your life. Teach your family the significance of Jesus’ birth and make the Christmas traditions meaningful in your home.

2) Wish others a Merry Christmas. When confronted with a “Happy Holidays,” get specific and wish the greeter a “Merry Christmas!” You may be surprised at how many respond in kind. Even if you’re met with resistance, don’t let it dampen your cheer. In Dickens’A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge wages a personal war on Christmas, and his nephew feels the brunt of his uncle’s attacks year after year, but it doesn’t stop him from wishing his humbug of an uncle a Merry Christmas and inviting Scrooge to Christmas dinner.

3) Speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). The Christmas season is a wonderful opportunity to share Christ’s love and the gospel message. He is the reason for the season!

4) Pray for those in positions of power (1 Timothy 2:1–3). Pray for wisdom. Pray for revival so that Christmas, instead of being “offensive,” would be honored by all. May we each be a peaceful warrior in the cultural war on Christmas.

Recommended Resource: The Case for Christmas by Lee Strobel

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!