Test Your Knowledge: What does the Bible say about Jesus’ Birth?

According to the Bible . . .

Can you identify 7 non-biblical/non-historical things in this picture? (see below)

1. True or False: Jesus was born December 25th.

2. True or False: Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus, rode a donkey to Bethlehem.

3. True or False: The donkey, upon which Mary rode, was led by Joseph.

4. True or False: An inn keeper turned them away because there was no room.

5. True or False: Mary gave birth to Jesus the same night they arrived in Bethlehem.

6. True or False: Jesus was born in a stable or barn.

7. True or False: Jesus was born among domestic animals.

8. True or False: There were three wise men (magi) from the East.

9. True or False: The wise men (magi) traveled on camels from the East.

10. True or False: The wise men (magi) arrived the night Jesus was born.

11. True or False: The star of Bethlehem shone over the manger the night Jesus was born.

12. True or False: The night Jesus was born, angels sang to the shepherds.

13. True or False: The shepherds were directed by the star to the place Jesus was born.

     According to what the Bible actually says, the answer to every question above is “False.” Discarding all human misconceptions and traditions, here is what we learn from the biblical record itself. The birth and infancy of Jesus are recorded only in Matthew (1:25–2:18) and Luke (2:1-39). Matthew mentions the birth of Jesus in just one verse (1:25) and then discusses events that took place sometime afterwards (2:1-12). Luke describes events leading up to Jesus’ birth and gives much more information about the immediate circumstances of his birth (2:1-20).

Here is a chronological harmony of the two accounts:

1. Mary was betrothed to Joseph without having had sexual relations (Matthew 1:18a; Luke 1:27).

2. God sent the angel Gabriel to tell Mary that she was to conceive and bear a son by the power of the Holy Spirit and call his name Jesus (Luke 1:26-35; cf. Matthew 1:18).

3. Mary visited her relative Elizabeth (who was pregnant with John) in the hill country of Judah for three months (Luke 1:39-56).

4. Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit’s power, and an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph to assure him that the pregnancy was miraculous in fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14; the child was to be called Jesus, and Joseph was to take Mary as his wife (Matthew 1:18-24).

5. Joseph took Mary as his wife (Matt. 1:24) and traveled to his ancestral town of Bethlehem in compliance with Caesar’s decree to be registered (Luke 2:1-5).¹

6. While they were there (for an unspecified period) Jesus was born (Luke 2:6-7a; Matthew 1:25).

7. Baby Jesus was placed in a manger (feeding trough) -- most likely carved out of rock rather than made of wood -- because there was no room for them in the katáluma = lodging place or guest room (Luke 2:7; cf. 22:11; Mark 14:14). It was probably not an “inn” where there was no room, since the typical word for inn is pandocheion (cf. 10:34). More likely there was no space in the upper-floor guest room of a relative’s house (cf. Matthew 2:11), so they were staying on the ground floor where animals were customarily kept.

Biblical text	Occasion	Word used	Meaning	Not Inn	Inn
Luke 2:7	Birth of Jesus	katáluma	lodging place/guest room	✓
Luke 22:11	Last Supper	katáluma	lodging place/guest room	✓
Mark 14:14	Last Supper	katáluma	lodging place/guest room	✓
Acts 1:13	Apostles residing	huperōon	upper room	✓
Acts 9:37, 39	Tabitha’s deathbed	huperōon	upper room	✓
Acts 20:8	Troas assembly	huperōon	upper room	✓
Luke 10:34-35	Good Samaritan	pandocheion	inn		✓

8. An angel of the Lord told shepherds where to find the Christ-child, after which a host of angels praised God and the shepherds visited Joseph, Mary, and the newborn (Luke 2:8-20).²

9. The infant was circumcised on the eighth day and named Jesus (Luke 2:21).

10. Following the “days of purification” (cf. Leviticus 12:1-8), when baby Jesus was around six weeks old, he was taken to Jerusalem where a sacrifice was offered, and he was seen by Simeon and Anna in the temple (Luke 2:22-38). Note that the traditional sacrifice was a lamb and a young pigeon or turtledove (Leviticus 12:6). If one could not afford a lamb, the alternative sacrifice of the poor was two turtledoves or two young pigeons (Leviticus 12:8). The fact that only two birds were offered (Luke 2:24) indicates that Jesus was born into a relatively poor family.

11. Sometime afterwards, conceivably up to two years later (cf. Matthew 2:16), Joseph, Mary and young Jesus were residing in a house in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:8, 11).

12. An unspecified number of wise men (magi) from the East,³ directed by a star, visited young Jesus and his mother in the house in Bethlehem, bringing gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matthew 2:1-12).

13. Having been warned of danger by an angel of the Lord, Joseph took Mary and young Jesus to Egypt for safety (Matthew 2:13-15).

14. Herod [the Great] put to death all the male children up to two-years old in Bethlehem and all its districts (Matthew 2:16-18).

Note what is NOT included in these birth narratives:

1. The date of Christ’s birth.

2. Mary riding a donkey led by Joseph to Bethlehem.

3. An inn-keeper turning them away because there was no room.

4. Mary giving birth to Jesus the same night they arrived in Bethlehem.

5. Jesus born in a barn or stable.

6. Jesus born among farm animals.

7. The number of wise men (magi).

8. The wise men (magi) traveling on camels from the East.

9. The wise men (magi) arriving the night Jesus was born.

10. The star of Bethlehem shining over the manger the night Jesus was born.

11. Angels singing to shepherds the night Jesus was born.

     While the Bible never instructs us to celebrate Jesus’ birth as a religious holy day, it does set aside the first day (Sunday) of every week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2), the day of the Lord’s resurrection (Mark 16:9), to commemorate his death (1 Corinthians 11:20-26). What will you be doing this Sunday and all the following Sundays until Christ returns? How committed and faithful are you to the blueprint of God's word? Don't blindly rely on others to interpret the scriptures for you (Acts 17:11) or mislead you into thinking that imaginative speculations are historical fact with divine sanction. "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15 ESV).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See Luke's Historical Blunder? 

     ² Cf. John 10:1-16; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:4; Rev. 7:17. Note that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David were all shepherds.

     ³ The Greek word is magoi, plural of magos, which refers to a Persian or Babylonian “wise man and priest, who was expert in astrology, interpretation of dreams and various other secret arts” (BAGD 484). They may have been astrologers who studied stars, who could identify something out of the ordinary among the luminaries unobservable to the untrained eye. They could have been descendants of Jewish exiles in Babylon. Religious leaders in Jerusalem were consulted to determine that Bethlehem was the town of the Messiah’s birth (Matt. 2:1-12).

*Seven non-biblical/non-historical things in the above picture: (1) the barn, (2) the tiny star hovering over the barn, (3) only one shepherd, (4) the animals, (5) the wooden manger (rather than the typical Palestinian manger carved out of rock), (6) three wise men, (7) wise men present at Jesus' birth.

Related Posts: Isaiah 7:14, Lineage of Jesus According to Matthew, Luke's Historical Blunder?

Related Articles: Ian Paul's Jesus Wasn't Born in a Stable, Revised, Michael LeFebvre, Jesus Born in a House

Image credit: http://leesbirdblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/nativity-clipart.jpg

A Closer Look at Pharisaism

     The Pharisees (the name meaning “separatists”) were a prominent Jewish sect who exercised significant influence among the people of Israel during the time of Christ and his apostles. They are probably best remembered for their antagonism against Jesus. Because of their infamous reputation, the label “pharisaical” has become a derogatory accusation often generating prejudicial feelings toward those to whom it is applied.

     To set the record straight, not all Pharisees or pharisaic tendencies were bad. Since they correctly acknowledged God’s power to raise the dead (Acts 23:6-8; 26:5-7), they were prime candidates for the gospel. Many of them did become Christians (Acts 2:41; 15:5), the most notable of whom was Saul of Tarsus (Acts 23:6; 26:5). Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Jewish Supreme Court (Mark 15:43), may very well have been a Pharisee. He is described as “a good and just man,”¹ who refused to consent to the Lord’s death (Luke 23:50-51). He and another Pharisee, Nicodemus, prepared the body of Jesus for burial in Joseph’s own tomb (Matthew 27:57-60; John 19:38-42). Both of them apparently became followers of Christ.² A Pharisee named Gamaliel (Paul’s former teacher) dissuaded a murderous plot against the Lord’s apostles (Acts 5:33-40).

     Because of their reputation for being meticulous students of God’s word, Jesus told the people, “whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do …” (Matthew 23:3). Unlike Jonah of old, the Pharisees were extremely mission-minded, taking seriously their God-ordained role to ensure “that all peoples of the earth may know [his] name” (1 Kings 8:43). Their evangelistic fervor was noted by Christ when he said they “travel land and sea to win one proselyte” (Matthew 23:15). The Lord even endorsed their prudence in not leaving undone the minute details of the law (Matt. 23:23). Being “zealous toward God” (Acts 22:3) is an apt description of many Pharisees.

     In spite of all these good qualities, however, the Pharisees in general still missed the mark. In Matthew 23 Jesus condemned their persistent failure to implement in their own lives what they taught others to do (vv. 3-4). They were characteristically arrogant, selfish, hypocritical, oppressive, pretentious, and inconsistent (vv. 5-22). They neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith (v. 23). They were internally impure, self-indulgent, and lawless (vv. 25-28). They were even guilty of persecution and murder (vv. 29-37). How is it possible, considering their apparent devotion to the law, that they could rationalize such gross disregard for the law?

     The apostle Paul, a former Pharisee himself, in his epistle to the saints at Rome, may offer some insight. The Pharisees, like most other Jews, probably would not have denied their obvious infractions of the law. But as God’s chosen people (as they regarded themselves), their presumption was that, unlike the Gentiles, they would escape condemnation and they accordingly failed to recognize their need for repentance (Romans 2:1-5). They naively believed that their election, circumcision, and covenant protected them against the consequences of neglecting to fully observe the law (Romans 2:17-29; Philippians 3:4-6). Simply because they were Abraham’s descendants, despite all their willful transgressions, they blindly relied on God’s grace to save them (Romans 3:1–6:2).

     The Pharisees were not denounced because of their “conservatism,” or their zeal for God and his law, or their emphasis on obedience, or their efforts to make converts. They were condemned, in short, because of their evil hearts and impure lives. They hypocritically said one thing and did another. They went beyond God’s law with their human doctrines and traditions and lived in blatant violation of divine precepts (Matthew 15:1-9). No wonder the charge “pharisaical” is such a burning indictment!

     If you want to criticize someone for being, in your estimation, too “conservative,” the derogatory accusation “Pharisee” is misapplied. A Christ-like criticism would not be aimed at a person’s conscientious attempts to conserve the word of God. It would be directed toward hypocrisy, arrogance, oppression, impurity, and disobedience. Using God’s grace to excuse or justify one’s failure to live up to the divine standard is more pharisaical than seeking to understand, obey, and defend God’s truth.
     Consider, for example, controversial issues such as divorce and remarriage.³ It is ironic that when one takes at face value the Lord’s instructions – accepting, observing, teaching and defending them without compromise – he runs the risk of being labeled “legalistic” or “pharisaical” because of his strictness and perceived lack of sympathy for those in unbiblical relationships (cf. Mark 6:18). The irony is that Jesus’ recorded discourses on the subject (Matt. 5:32; 19:4-9; Mark 10:6-12; Luke 16:18) are always in response (and opposition) to the lax attitudes of the scribes and Pharisees toward the divine will (Matt. 5:20, 31; 19:1-7; Mark 10:1-2; Luke 16:14-15). Searching for loopholes and twisting or watering down the Lord’s teachings is the pharisaic approach.

     Healthy debate can be beneficial, but not when prejudicial labels are carelessly hurled at those with whom we disagree. I may be regarded as “legalistic” by those on my left and “liberal” by those on my right, but at the end of the day what do these epithets really communicate? They say more about those who apply them than about those to whom they are applied. If we can be more specific when addressing the inevitable concerns, reasoning together with open Bibles and open hearts, much good can be accomplished and unnecessary harm averted. May godly attitudes and Christian behavior prevail among the Lord’s people.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ All scripture quotations in English are from the NKJV.

     ² According to legend, Joseph of Arimathea was sent by the apostle Philip to Great Britain in 63 to establish the Lord’s church.

     ³ See Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage.

Related articles: Wes McAdams' You May Not Be Conservative; Ben Giselbach, When 'Book, Chapter, Verse' Becomes a Bad Thing

Image credit: http://www.catholicchapterhouse.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/pharisees.jpg

When did Jesus annul the Jewish ceremonial food restrictions?

     The Pharisees and scribes, who regarded unwashed hands as being defiled or ceremonially unclean, took issue with Jesus when they saw some of his disciples violating the tradition of the elders by eating bread without having washed their hands in the customary manner (Mark 7:1-5). The Lord responds by confronting the hypocrisy of these critics, who were paying lip service to God without dedicated hearts and were elevating their traditions above God’s word (vv. 6-13). Jesus then assures a crowd of listeners that "there is nothing from outside a man entering into him [i.e. food allegedly contaminated by ritualistically unwashed hands] which can defile him; but the things coming out of a man [i.e. sinful words and actions] are the things defiling him" (v. 15).¹ When the disciples asked for further clarification, Jesus explains: "everything from the outside entering into a man cannot defile him, because it does not enter into his heart but into the stomach and goes out into the latrine" (vv. 18-19a).

     The difficulty is determining the significance of the next phrase, katharizōn panta ta brōmata, lit. "purifying all foods" (v. 19b). The first problem concerns a variant in the text. The favored reading of most text critics is katharizōn, the masculine participial form of katharizō (to "cleanse" or "purify"), thus connoting "[he] purifying all foods." However, the majority of Greek manuscripts have the neuter form katharizon, conveying the sense of "[it] purifying all foods." This raises the question: is the participial clause to be understood as a continuation of Jesus’ statement (N/KJV) or as Mark’s parenthetical commentary on the implication of what Jesus has said (ASV, ESV, etc.)? In other words, is it Jesus or is it the process of waste elimination that ceremonially purifies?
     If the neuter katharizon is the correct form, in what sense could defecation purify all foods? Perhaps this was the Lord’s commonsense way of showing that irrespective of how one views food as it enters the body (whether eaten with washed or unwashed hands), it is all the same on the other end. In fact, according to rabbinic opinion, excrement was not considered ceremonially impure (m. Maksh. 6.7; t. Miqw. 7.8; y. Pesah. 7.11; Sifra Mes. Zab. § 1.12-13). Jesus was merely illustrating that the pharisaical emphasis on traditional hand-washing rituals is not the determining factor for whether or not food is kosher.
     But what if the masculine katharizōn is the correct reading? Did Jesus disavow and set aside the Mosaic dietary regulations? We must be careful not to stretch these words beyond their original intent. In the context of this discussion, the topic is not clean versus unclean foods (as per Leviticus 11, etc.), but rather the ceremonial washing of hands, cups, copper vessels, etc. derived from human traditions (Mark 7:1-5). When Jesus speaks of "nothing from outside a man entering into him which can defile him" (v. 15), and "everything from the outside entering into a man cannot defile him" (v. 18), and "all foods" (v. 19), he is speaking of all the foods that the Jews in general and his disciples in particular were accustomed to eating. The context limits the "nothing," "everything," and "all foods" to what the Pharisees were claiming to be defiled because of contact with unwashed hands or containers.²
     Jesus was not setting aside the law of Moses (cf. Matthew 5:19; 8:4; 19:17-19) but rather the traditions of the Pharisees. Apparently this was understood by Peter, having personally heard the Lord speak these words, since he later declares: "I have never eaten anything common and unclean" (Acts 10:14). It was not until Christ’s new covenant was instituted that the Jewish dietary laws were abrogated.
--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
     ¹ All scripture quotations in English are the author's own translation.
     ² For example, later in the chapter when it is said of Jesus, "he has done all things well" (v. 37), would this literally include all things universally, e.g. theft, lying, murder, etc.? The context limits the "all things" to only the activities in which the Lord had personally been engaged.

Related Posts: Is the Law of Moses Still Binding?, Asceticism Vs. Everything Holy (1 Tim. 4:4-5), Paul's Haircut and Vow (Acts 18:18)