{"id":1399,"date":"2018-02-05T18:05:28","date_gmt":"2018-02-05T17:05:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/?p=1399"},"modified":"2018-02-05T18:05:28","modified_gmt":"2018-02-05T17:05:28","slug":"the-birth-and-early-life-of-the-messiah","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/2018\/02\/05\/the-birth-and-early-life-of-the-messiah\/","title":{"rendered":"The Birth and Early Life of the Messiah"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.<\/em><\/p>\n

John 1:1<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

This study on the birth of the Messiah will be based on the various birth-narratives found in the <\/span>Gospels. We will study them in chronological sequence and learn about the birth of John the Baptist and the birth and early life of Yeshua (Jesus) in the context of first century Jewish background and<\/span> customs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>I. The Word\u2014John 1:1\u201318<\/a><\/p>\n

The first passage is John\u2019s introduction to his biography of Jesus the Messiah. John\u2019s theme is: Yeshua the Messiah, the Son of God. The section begins with verse 1<\/a>: In the beg<\/em><\/span>inning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Greek term, logos, that John used is translated by the English term \u201cword.\u201d Because John used the term logos, many commentarie<\/span>s on the Gospel of John, at this point enter into a rather lengthy dissertation to try to explain what logos meant in Greek philosophy.<\/p>\n

In the end, they all say the same thing: that in Greek philosoph<\/span>y, the logos had two concepts; the concept of reason and the concept of speech. They then claim that what John was trying to do was to show how Jesus fulfilled the goals of Greek philosophy in both areas, reason and speech. By \u201creason,\u201d He was the very idea of God<\/span>; and by \u201cspeech,\u201d He was the very expression of God. That is all well and good to know except for one major problem, John, by profession, was not a Greek philosopher, he was a Jewish fisherman. What he really had in mind was not Greek philosophy, but Jewish theology of <\/span>first century Israel.<\/p>\n

The rabbis of that day had a concept, which<\/span> was referred to as the memra<\/span>. The memra<\/span> is an Aramaic term that means \u201cword.\u201d When John wrote his Gospel in Greek, he needed a Greek term to translate the Jewish term memra<\/span>, and the only Greek term h<\/span>e had was logos. But John did not mean the logos of Greek philosophy, rather, he meant the memra<\/span> of Jewish theology. The writings of the rabbis of that day taught that there were six things, which wer<\/span>e true about the memra<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>A. The Same but Distinct from God<\/p>\n

First, the memra<\/span> was sometimes the same as God, but sometimes it was distinct from God. The rabbis never tried to explain away the obvious paradox: How was it possibl<\/span>e for the memra<\/span> on one hand to be the same as God, but on the other hand be distinct from God? They simply taught both statements as being true and left it there.<\/p>\n

This is the same thing that John said<\/span> in verse 1<\/a>. By stating that the Word was with God, it means Jesus was distinct from God. By saying the Word was God, it means Jesus was the same as God. Like the rabbis, at this point John did not tr<\/span>y to explain away the obvious paradox: How is it possible for the Word to be the same as God, yet be distinct from God? This is explained only later in the Gospel in terms of the Triunity. The logos is distinct from God in that He is not God the Father, nor is He God the Holy Spirit. But He is the same as God in that He is the Second Person of that Triunity; He is God the Son and, there<\/span>fore, the same as God. Only in terms of the Triunity can the rabbinic paradox of the <\/span>memra<\/span> in Jewish theology be explained.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>B. The Agent of Creation<\/p>\n

The second thing the rabbis taught about the memra<\/span> was that the memra<\/span> was also the agent of creation. Everything God created, He created by means of His memra<\/span>, by means of His<\/span> Word; so without the memra<\/span> nothing would exist that now exists. In verse 3<\/a>, John wrote: All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that has been made.<\/em><\/p>\n

What is true of the<\/span> memra<\/span> in Jewish theology is true of the logos of whom John wrote. Everything was made through him, and without him was not anything made that has been made, and so without Him nothing would exist tha<\/span>t now exists: He is the agent of creation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>C. The Agent of Salvation<\/p>\n

The third thing the rabbis taught about the memra<\/span> was that the memra<\/span> was the agent of salvation. Whenever God saved throughout the history of the Old Testament, whether it wa<\/span>s a physical salvation such as the Exodus out of Egypt or a spiritual salvation, God always saved by means of His memra<\/span>, by means of His Word. In John 1:12<\/a>, John said: But as many as received him, to <\/em><\/span>them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

As with the memra<\/span> of Jewish theology, so with the logos of John: He is the agent of salvation. For it is thos<\/span>e who personally believe in His Messiahship and receive Him who become the children of God and receive spiritual salvation from Him, the agent of salvation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>D. The Visible Manifestation of God\u2019s Presence<\/p>\n

The fourth thing the rabbis taught about the memra<\/span> was that the memra<\/span> was the agent or the means by which God became visible throughout the pages of the <\/span>Old Testament. In Christian theology, this phenomenon is called a \u201ctheophany.\u201d A theophany is the visible manifestation of God that occurred throughout the history of the Old Testament.<\/p>\n

The rabbis had<\/span> a different term, Shechinah or the Shechinah Glory; the Shechinah Glory is the visible manifestation of God\u2019s presence. Whenever the invisible God took on a visible form, whenever the omnipresence of God became lo<\/span>calized, this visible, localized presence was the Shechinah Glory. Throughout most of Old Testament history, the Shechinah Glory took on the form of a light or fire or cloud or some combination of these things. According to rabbis, this came by means of the <\/span>memra<\/span>.<\/p>\n

In verse 14<\/a>, John wrote: And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

The Word, that in verse 1<\/a> was in the beginning w<\/span>ith God\u2014always was with God, and always was God\u2014at a certain point in human history, took on visible form. But this time He did not come in the form of a light, fire, or cloud; rather, He came in the form of flesh. He becam<\/span>e human; He became man, and Yeshua, as a man, was the visible manifestation of God\u2019s presence.<\/p>\n

John went on to say: He dwelt among us<\/em>. The term that John used which is translate<\/span>d by the English term \u201cdwell\u201d is not the regular Greek term for \u201cdwelling.\u201d Rather, it is a Greek term that was actually borrowed from the Hebrew, skeinei. When the Greeks came in contact with the Jewish world, they came across the term Shechin<\/span>ah and liked what it conveyed. They wished to incorporate it into their language because, in Greek mythology, there were stories of the gods coming down from Mount Olympus, taking on some kind of visible form and, for awhile, intermingling with men. The problem was that the Greek language had no \u201csh\u201d sound. Hebrew has a letter called shin, by which the \u201csh\u201d sound is made. English requires the combination of two letters, \u201cs\u201d and \u201ch,\u201d to prod<\/span>uce the \u201csh\u201d sound. But in Greek one cannot combine any letters to get the \u201csh\u201d sound. The Greeks could make a hard \u201cs\u201d; they could say, \u201csssss,\u201d but they could not say, \u201cshhhh.\u201d They took the Hebrew word Shechinah, Hellenized it, and it became the Greek word skeinei; this is the term John used here. Literally, it does not mean, \u201cto dwell,\u201d but \u201cto tabernacle.\u201d It has its origins in the account of <\/span><\/span><\/span>Exodus 40<\/a>, where the Shechinah Glory, in the form of a visible cloud, took up its residence within the Holy of <\/span>Holies of the Tabernacle. In Hebrew, mishkan is the same Hebrew root as Shechinah.<\/p>\n

So for the next several centuries, the Shechinah Glory \u201ctabernacled\u201d with the people of Israel until it left in the d<\/span>ays of Ezekiel 8\u201311<\/a>. Now, the Shechinah Glory has reappeared in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Once again, for a period of time, He \u201ctabernacled\u201d among us. Like the rabbis, John also connected the S<\/span>hechinah with the glory of God; for he goes on to say in verse 14<\/a>: \u2026 (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.<\/em><\/p>\n

Yeshua was that new Shechinah Gl<\/span>ory: He was the visible manifestation of God\u2019s presence.<\/p>\n

The fact that Jesus was the Shechinah Glory light was developed briefly in John 1:4\u201310<\/a>, when he wrote: In him was life; and the life was the li<\/em><\/span>ght of men. And the light shines in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through <\/em><\/span>him.<\/em> 8<\/a>He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light. There was the true light, even the light which lights every man, coming into the w<\/em><\/span>orld. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not.<\/em><\/p>\n

With these words, John emphasized that Yeshua was that new Shechinah Glory light. He is the source of life an<\/span>d He is the source of light for all men because He is the creator of all men.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>E. The Agent of Revelation<\/p>\n

The fifth thing the rabbis taught about the memra<\/span> was that the memra<\/span> was the agent of revelation. Whenever God revealed Himself, He always did so by means of His memra<\/span>, or b<\/span>y means of His Word. John 1:18<\/a> states: No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him<\/em> [or has revealed Him].<\/p>\n

Throughout his Gospel, John<\/span>\u2019s main theme is: Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.<\/p>\n

But John also has several sub-themes that run throughout his Gospel, and one of these is that Yeshua came for the purpose of revealing the Father t<\/span>o men. That is why John, more than Matthew, Mark or Luke, gives what Yeshua taught and said. There are more of His teachings and sermons in John than in Matthew, Mark and Luke combined. In these sermons and discourses, He revealed the Father to men.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is no accident, then, that it was John who recorded the incident of one of Jesus\u2019 disciples asking Him in John 14:8<\/a>: show us the Father. In verse 9<\/a><\/span>, He answered, \u201cIf you have seen Me you have seen the Father.\u201d Everything that is true of the divine nature of the Father is also true of the divine nature of the Son. Because of His very nature, He r<\/span>evealed the Father. The same point is made in Hebrews 1:1\u20133<\/a>, where the writer pointed out that whereas in previous history God had \u201crevealed Himself in various portions and in various ways, He has in <\/span>these last days revealed Himself by means of his Son.\u201d The Son is the agent of revelation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>F. The Seal of the Covenants<\/p>\n

The sixth and last thing the rabbis taught about the memra<\/span> was that the memra<\/span> was the means by which He signed and sealed His covenants. In the Old Testament God made eigh<\/span>t covenants, three with the world in general and five with Israel in particular. His covenants, whether they were made with the world in general or with Israel in particular, were signed and sealed by means of His <\/span>memra<\/span>, by means of His Word.<\/p>\n

The sixth point does not come out as clearly as the first five points do, but it is hinted at it in verse 17<\/a>: For the law was given through Moses; grace and <\/em><\/span>truth came through Jesus Christ.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Dispensation of Law was based upon the Mosaic Covenant, which was signed and sealed by the Shechinah Glory in Exodus 24<\/a>. The Dispensation of Grace is on the basis <\/span>of the New Covenant, which was signed and sealed by the shedding of the blood of the Son of God. In that sense, He is the agent, the means, by which a covenant is signed.<\/p>\n

John\u2019s point was not that Jes<\/span>us came for the purpose of fulfilling the goals of Greek philosophy, but that He came for the purpose of fulfilling the Jewish Messianic hope. The six things which were taught about the memra<\/span> in rabbi<\/span>nic writings are true of this One about whom John is writing: Jesus of Nazareth: He is the memra<\/span>, the logos, the Word.<\/p>\n

Summary: John\u2019s introduction of verses 1\u201318<\/a> can be summarized in four points. Fir<\/span>st, the Word, the logos, the memra<\/span>, finally came in visible form, in the form of flesh, in the form of a man. Secondly, unfortunately, the world in general did not know Him; it did not recognize the l<\/span>ight that had arrived. Thirdly, even more tragically, His own people, the Jewish people, did not recognize Him either. However, fourthly, those individual Jews and Gentiles who did recognize Him are the ones who became the children of light; they are the ones who received spiritual salvation from Him, the agent of salvation.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

G. Other Important Points<\/p>\n

There are a couple of other points in John 1:1\u201318<\/a> that should not be missed. First, there are certain cultic groups that try to deny the deity of the Messiah and one of the arguments they use is based on verse 1<\/a>: and the Word was God. In the Greek text there is no definite article before God and so they claim that it simply means \u201ca god,\u201d just like everybody else can become a god. Their point is that Yeshua is not \u201cthe God,\u201d but was simply \u201ca god,\u201d in the same sense that all human beings can become a god and, therefore, He does not share the deity of God the Father.<\/p>\n

However, in verse 18<\/a>, there is a clear reference to God the Father: No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.<\/em><\/p>\n

Obviously, the word God in verse 18<\/a> is a reference to God the Father because the Son is mentioned in the next phrase, and He is distinct from this God. In the Greek text, there is no article before God, here either. Yet those who translate verse 1<\/a> as \u201ca god\u201d do not translate verse 18<\/a> to read, \u201cno man has seen a god.\u201d If they were consistent with their man-made grammar, they would have done it this way, but they do not because it goes contrary to their argument.<\/p>\n

The lack of the definite article does not mean \u201ca god\u201d; it simply emphasizes the nature of the thing described. The nature of the Word is that He was divine; the nature of the Father is that He is divine; and the nature of the Son is that He is divine. It is foolish to translate verse 1<\/a> as \u201ca god.\u201d The text should read as all translations have it: the W<\/em>ord was God<\/em>. All that is true of the divine nature of the Father is also true of the divine nature of the Son.<\/p>\n

Secondly, verse 18<\/a> refers to Jesus as the only begotten. Cultic groups claim the only beg<\/em>otten<\/em> means that He had a beginning and, therefore, was not eternal. But the expression the only begotten does not mean that. The expression the only begotten always emphasizes the deity and the uniqueness of the Messiah. What is begotten is His humanity; in His deity, He always existed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

II. The Two Genealogies of the Messiah\u2014Matthew 1:1\u201317<\/a> and Luke 3:23\u201338<\/a><\/p>\n

Of the four Gospels, only two actually deal with the birth and early life of Yeshua: Matthew and Luke. For that reason, only thes<\/span>e two have genealogies. While both Matthew and Luke tell the story of His birth, they tell it from two different viewpoints.<\/p>\n

Matthew tells the story of the birth of Yeshua from Joseph\u2019s perspective. I<\/span>n the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph plays the active role while Mary plays a passive role; angels appear to Joseph, but there is no record of angels appearing to Mary; the text reveals what Joseph is thinking and what is going on in his mind, but nothing of what Mary is thinking<\/span>.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, Luke tells the same story from Mary\u2019s perspective. In Luke\u2019s Gospel, Mary plays the active role while Jo<\/span>seph plays the passive role; angels appear to Mary, but there is no record of angels coming to Joseph; the text reveals what Mary is thinking and what is going on in her mind, but nothing about what Joseph is thinking.<\/span><\/p>\n

From that context alone, it should be very evident that the genealogy in Matthew would be that of Joseph, since Matthew told the story from Joseph\u2019s perspective; while the genealogy<\/span> in Luke would be that of Mary, since Luke is telling the story from her perspective.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>A. Why Two Genealogies?<\/p>\n

The question that all this raises is: \u201cWhy the need for two genealogies to begin with, especially since Jesus was not the \u201creal\u201d son of Joseph, anyway?\u201d The answer usually goes<\/span> something like this, \u201cMatthew\u2019s genealogy gives the royal line, while Luke\u2019s genealogy gives the real line.\u201d What they mean by this is that, according to Matthew\u2019s account, Joseph was the heir-apparent to David\u2019s throne. Since Jesus was the \u201cadopted\u201d son of Joseph, He could claim the right to sit upon the throne of David by virtue of that adoption. On the other hand, Luke\u2019<\/span>s genealogy shows that Jesus Himself is a descendant of David through His mother, Mary. But the exact opposite is really true.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>1. The Requirement for Kingship in the Kingdom of Judah<\/p>\n

To understand the real need for the two genealogies, one must first understand that there were two Old Testament requirements for kingship. One <\/span>was applied to the southern Kingdom of Judah, with its capital in Jerusalem, while the other was applied to the northern Kingdom of Israel, with its capital in Samaria.<\/p>\n

The first requirement was that <\/span>of Davidic descent. Unless you were a member of the House of David, you could not sit upon the throne in Jerusalem. When there was a conspiracy to do away with the House of David and set up a brand new dynasty as in <\/span>Isaiah 7<\/a>, Isaiah warned that any such conspiracy was doomed to failure because no one outside the House of David could sit upon the throne in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>2. The Requirement for Kingship in the Kingdom of Israel<\/p>\n

The second requirement was that of divine appointment or prophetic sanction. Unless you had divine appointment or prophetic sanction, you could<\/span> not sit upon the throne of Samaria. If anyone tried to do so, he would end up by being assassinated. For example, God told Jehu that his line would be allowed to sit upon the throne of Samaria for four generations, and four did so. When the fifth one tried to gain the throne, he was assassinated because he did not have divine appointment or<\/span> prophetic sanction. Both of these elements will come into view in the need for the two genealogies.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>B. The Genealogy in Matthew 1:1\u201317<\/a><\/p>\n

Looking at Matthew\u2019s account of Joseph\u2019s line, Matthew broke with Jewish tradition and custom in two ways: first, he skipped names; and, secondly, he mentioned the n<\/span>ames of women. The four women he mentioned were: Tamar (v. 3<\/a>); Rahab (v. 5<\/a>); Ruth (v. 6<\/a>); and, in verse 6<\/a>, the pronoun her refers to Bathsheba. Furthermore, the women he named were not the most signif<\/span>icant in the line of the Messiah. For example, he left out a woman like Sarah, who was far more significant.<\/p>\n

Yet there is a reason for naming these four and not others. First of all, these four women <\/span>were Gentiles. Early in his Gospel, Matthew hinted at a point, which he made more clearly later: while the primary purpose of the coming of Yeshua was for the lost sheep of the House of Israel, the Gentiles will also benefit from His coming. The second thing about these women is that three <\/span>of them were involved in specific sexual sins: one was guilty of adultery; one was guilty of incest; and, one was guilty of prostitution. Again, Matthew hinted at a point he made clearer later: that Yeshua came for the purpose of saving sinners. However, these are not the key points of this genealogy.<\/span><\/p>\n

In tra<\/span>cing this genealogy, Matthew went back into time and began with Abraham (v. 2<\/a>) and traced it to David the king (v. 6<\/a>). From David\u2019s many sons, he chose one, Solomon (v. 6<\/a>), and traced the line to vers<\/span>e 11<\/a>: \u2026 and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon.<\/em><\/p>\n

Jechoniah was part of Joseph\u2019s line, a point that will prove crucial. Then in verse 12<\/a>, Matthew picked<\/span> up with Jechoniah and traced it to Joseph (v. 16<\/a>) who was the stepfather of Jesus. According to Matthew, Joseph was a direct descendant of David through Solomon, but also through Jechoniah. This bein<\/span>g true, it means that Joseph was not the heir-apparent to David\u2019s throne.<\/p>\n

This is evident from Jeremiah 22:24\u201330<\/a>: As I live, says Jehovah, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the sig<\/em><\/span>net upon my right hand, yet would I pluck you thence; and I will give you into the hand of them that seek your life, and into the hand of them of whom you are afraid, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. And I will cast you out, and <\/em><\/span>your mother that bore you, into another country, where ye were not born; and there shall ye die. But to the land whereunto their soul longs to return, thither shall they not return. Is this man Coniah a despised broken vessel? is he a vessel wherein none delights? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into the land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of Jehovah. Thus says Jehovah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper i<\/em><\/span>n his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah.<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The name Coniah is a shortened form of Jechoniah. Because of the kind of man that he was, God pronounced a curse upo<\/span>n him in the days of Jeremiah. The curse has several facets to it, but the last one is so significant that God called upon the whole earth to hear it (v. 29<\/a>). Then in verse 30<\/a>, the curse is spelled ou<\/span>t: no descendant of Jechoniah will ever have the right to sit upon the throne of David. Until Jeremiah, the first requirement was membership in the House of David. But with Jeremiah, that requirement <\/span>was limited further; one still had to be a member of the House of David, but apart from Jechoniah. Joseph was a descendant of David, but also through Jechoniah and so he was not the heir-apparent to David\u2019s throne. If Yeshua had been the real son of Joseph, He too would be disqualified from ever sitting upon the throne of David. Neither could He claim t<\/span>he right to sit upon the throne of David by virtue of His adoption by Joseph, because Joseph was not the heir-apparent to David\u2019s throne. That is why, unlike Luke, Matthew began his Gospel with the genealogy, presented the \u201cJechoniah problem,\u201d and then solved it by means of the Virgin Birth.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Luke had no such problem, and so Luke began his Gospel with the Virgin Birth and only as late as chapter 3<\/a> did he bother to provide a genealogy. But, as<\/span> far as the genealogy of Matthew is concerned, if Yeshua had been the \u201creal\u201d son of Joseph, He could not become king, nor could He claim to be king because He was the son of Joseph by adoption.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>C. The Genealogy in Luke 3:23\u201338<\/a><\/p>\n

Turning to Luke\u2019s genealogy, unlike Matthew, Luke followed strict Jewish custom and procedure in that he mentioned no women and he skipped no names. The rule against n<\/span>aming women in a Jewish genealogy would raise a question: \u201cIf you wished to trace a woman\u2019s line but could not use her name, how would you do so?\u201d The answer under Jewish law is, \u201cYou would use the name of her husband.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

But that raises another question. \u201cSuppose someone like Luke was doing research and came across a genealogy, how could he tell by looking at the genealogy whether it was that of Ma<\/span>ry or that of Joseph since, in either case, Joseph\u2019s name would be found?\u201d The answer is quite simple, but a problem lies in a point of English grammar. It is considered bad English grammar to use the definite article \u201cthe\u201d before a proper name. However, in both Greek and Hebrew it is quite allowable. Every single name in Luke\u2019s genealogy has the definite article \u201cthe\u201d in front<\/span> of it except one: the name of Joseph. Someone reading the original language can tell by the missing \u201cthe\u201d that this is not really Joseph\u2019s line, but the line of his wife, Mary.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Jewish Talmud states: \u201cA mother\u2019s fami<\/span>ly is not to be called a family.\u201d In the Old Testament, there were two cases where a woman\u2019s line was traced by the name of her husband: Ezra 2:61<\/a> and Nehemiah 7:63<\/a>. It is no accident that the Jewish <\/span>Talmud refers to Mary by her Jewish name, Miriam, and calls her \u201cthe daughter of Heli,\u201d just as Joseph is called the son of Heli in verse 23<\/a>. The rabbis, when they read this genealogy, knew by the mis<\/span>sing \u201cthe\u201d that this was not the genealogy of Joseph, but was that of his wife, Miriam or Mary, and so referred to her as \u201cthe daughter of Heli.\u201d<\/p>\n

Unlike Matthew, Luke began with his own time and worke<\/span>d backward into history. He started with the name Joseph as a substitute of Mary and traced it to verse 31<\/a>: \u2026 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of Dav<\/em><\/span>id, \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

According to this verse, Mary, like Joseph, was a descendant of David. However, unlike Joseph, Mary was a descendant of one of David\u2019s other sons, Nathan. As a result, Mary did not have the bloo<\/span>d of Jechoniah running through her veins. She was a descendant of David, apart of Jechoniah. Since Jesus was the real son of Mary, He too was a descendant of David, apart from Jechoniah. This means that He fulfilled the first Old Testament requirement for kin<\/span>gship: He was a member of the House of David, apart from Jechoniah.<\/p>\n

However, that does not solve the entire problem. At this point of Jewish <\/span>history, there were a great number of other Jews who were descendants of David, apart from Jechoniah and so Yeshua was not the only one to fulfill the first requirement. Why should He be the king and none of the others? The answer lies in the second Old Testament requireme<\/span>nt: that of divine appointment, which will appear in another birth-narrative. But Yeshua alone fulfilled the second Old Testament requirement, that of divine appointment. Since by virtue of His Resurrection He now lives forever, He will have no successors.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>D. Titles of the Messiah<\/p>\n

One more thing concerning these genealogies is that they contain four of the many titles of the Messiah. In Matthew 1:1<\/a>, He is called the son of David and the son of Abraham. <\/span>In Luke 3:38<\/a>, He is called the son of Adam and the son of God. Each title emphasizes a different aspect of His person.<\/p>\n

Calling Him the son of David, means that Jesus is the King. Calling Him the son o<\/span>f Abraham, means that Yeshua is a Jew. These happen to be the particular themes of the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew emphasizes the Jewishness and the kingship of Jesus: He is the King of the Jews. That is why it is Matthew alone who records the coming of the Wise-men asking the ques<\/span>tion: Where is he that is born the King of the Jews?<\/em> (v. 2:2<\/a>).<\/p>\n

His third title is the son of Adam. This title emphasize<\/span>s the fact that Yeshua was a man. This happens to be the particular theme of the Gospel of Luke. Luke\u2019s theme throughout his Gospel is Yeshua the Messiah, the Son of Man. That is why Luke\u2014not Matthew, Mark, or John\u2014records such things in His human developm<\/span>ent as: how He grew up; how He gained His knowledge; and His subjection to parental authority. Luke, more than the others, emphasized how He was hungry and how He was tired, all of which are trademarks of humanity. Jesus the son of Adam, means that He is a man.<\/span><\/p>\n

His fourth title is the son of God. This means that Jesus is God. Being the son of<\/span> God, from a Jewish frame of reference, means that He is God. That happens to be the particular theme of the Gospel of John. John\u2019s theme throughout his Gospel is: Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God. That is why John began his Gospel with the words, \u201cIn the beginning was the Word an<\/span>d the Word was with God and the Word was God.\u201d<\/p>\n

At the end of his Gospel, John recorded the incident with \u201cdoubting\u201d Th<\/span>omas who finally shed his doubts and said to Jesus, \u201cMy Lord and my God\u201d (Jn. 20:28<\/a>). Between those two passages, John emphasized over and over again the deity of the Messiah\u2014Yeshua is God.<\/p>\n

These four<\/span> titles portray the Messianic Person as the Jewish God-Man, the King.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>III. The Annunciation of the Birth of John the Baptist\u2014Luke 1:5\u201325<\/a><\/p>\n

There are two key individuals in this section. The first is Zacharias, which means, \u201cGod remembers,\u201d and his wife Elisabeth, which me<\/span>ans \u201cthe oath of God.\u201d Their names together emphasize that \u201cGod remembers His oath.\u201d Later, there is a play upon the names of these two people. Luke 1:5<\/a> states: There was in the days of Herod, king of<\/em><\/span> Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

A. The Service of Zacharias as Priest<\/p>\n

In 1 Chronicles 24<\/a>, King David divided the Tribe of Levi into twenty-four courses. Each course would take turns for a period of two weeks to take care of the daily functions of the Temple rituals. There was one high priest, below him were twenty-four chief priests and under them were the members of the twenty-four courses, who were the common priests. Zacharias was a common priest of the course of Abijah. Each course would have its turn to take care of the regular daily functions of the Temple for a period of two weeks. The duties of the common priests would be chosen by lot. It was quite possible for a priest to have only one chance to function for a two-week period in his entire lifetime.<\/p>\n

Luke 1:6<\/a> states: And they were both righteous before God, walk<\/em>ing in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.<\/em><\/p>\n

We are told that both Zacharias and Elisabeth, his wife, were members of the believing Jewish Remnant of that day.<\/p>\n

Zacharias\u2019 particular function for two weeks, twice a day, was to burn incense (v. 9<\/a>). Every morning and evening, he took a hot coal from the Altar of Sacrifice outside the building in the courtyard and brought that hot coal into the first room of the Temple building, the Holy Place. He then set that hot coal down upon the Altar of Incense that stood in front of the thick curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place. After setting the coal down upon the Altar of Incense, he then dropped some incense on it causing a sweet-smelling smoke of incense to ascend and penetrate through the thick veil into the Holy of Holies to be a sweet-smelling savor, a sacrifice to the Lord within the Holy of Holies.<\/p>\n

Because of the incident that occurred in Leviticus 10<\/a> when the two sons of Aaron burned the incense improperly and were smitten dead, so the teaching of the rabbis in the days of Zacharias was that if the priest burned the incense improperly, then he would also die right there. There is a Jewish legend, which claims that before the priest went into the Holy of Holies, a rope was tied on his leg in case he was stricken dead, his body could be dragged out by that rope. But before death would come, an angel, the Angel of Death, would appear standing on the right side of the Altar of Incense.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

B. The Appearance of the Angel<\/p>\n

While Zacharias burned the incense, it is stated that the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the hour of incense (v. 10<\/a>). Then verse 11<\/a> adds: And ther<\/em><\/span>e appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.<\/em><\/p>\n

While Zacharias performed the ritual, suddenly he saw an angel standing on the right side of the altar of i<\/span>ncense.<\/p>\n

Verse 12<\/a> states: And Zacharias was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him.<\/em><\/p>\n

He was troubled because of what he had been taught, he expected to die. However, the message of the angel w<\/span>as not one of judgment and death, but one of blessing and new life to come.<\/p>\n

Although they had remained childless and had grown elderly, the angel announced to Zacharias that his wife would conceive an<\/span>d bear a son. He was to call the son\u2019s name John (v. 13<\/a>). In Hebrew that name is Yochanan, which means \u201cgrace.\u201d Then the angel told Zacharias some things about the son whom he would sire. According to<\/span> Luke 1:15\u201317<\/a>: For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother\u2019s womb. And many of the ch<\/em><\/span>ildren of Israel shall he turn unto the Lord their God. And he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the just; to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

First, the angel pointed out John\u2019s position: he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

Secondly, John is to be a<\/span> Nazarite from birth. Only two people in Old Testament history were called to be Nazarites from birth: Samson and Samuel. Samson proved unfaithful to the Nazarite vow, but Samuel proved faithful. Now a third person was appoin<\/span>ted to be a Nazarite from birth: John the Baptist. That is why he was forbidden to drink wine or strong drink, because those who are Nazarites have to be total abstainers from anything of the grape, including grape juice, grapes or raisins.<\/span><\/p>\n

The third thing the angel said about John was that he would be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother\u2019s womb. To be filled means <\/span>to be controlled; John was to be controlled by the Holy Spirit, even from his mother\u2019s womb. This is a good verse against abortion because God already views the fetus as a person who can be controlled by the Holy Spirit, and God already has a plan for that person.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fourthly, John\u2019s task will be this: many of the children of Israel shall he turn unto the Lord their God<\/em>. He would begin a repentance m<\/span>ovement and many Jewish people would turn from their sin to God by means of the preaching of John.<\/p>\n

Fifth, John shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fat<\/em><\/span>hers to the children, and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the just.<\/em><\/p>\n

His task in particular was to be the Messiah\u2019s forerunner and to be the herald of the King; he was to prepare the way for t<\/span>he Messiah.<\/p>\n

The last thing about John is that his special task was to prepare a group for the Messiah: to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him.<\/em> John\u2019s unique task was to have a group read<\/span>y that were repentant and ready to believe on the Messiah, once the Messiah was identified.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>C. The Doubt of Zacharias<\/p>\n

After being told all this good news, Zacharias said: Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years<\/em> (v. 18<\/a>). Once Zacharias spoke, he issu<\/span>ed a question that arose out of unbelief: Whereby shall I know this? Because he spoke a sentence of unbelief, Gabriel responded that from then on Zacharias would speak no more until the birth of his son and the promise was fulfilled<\/span> (vv. 19\u201320<\/a>). For the next nine months, Zacharias was smitten dumb; he was unable to speak until the birth of his son.<\/p>\n

This conversation with Gabriel had taken some tim<\/span>e, and the people outside were marveling that he was taking so long (v. 21<\/a>). If the legend about the rope were true, perhaps they began tugging on the rope to see if there was any life there. Zacharia<\/span>s finally did come out, and they all realized that he had had an experience in the Temple, but he was unable to tell them about it because he was smitten dumb; he had become mute (v. 22<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In keeping w<\/span>ith the promise, Elisabeth did conceive (vv. 24\u201325<\/a>). Since barren women were looked down upon in the ancient world, she hid herself five months, glorying over the fact that her reproach had been taken<\/span> away.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>IV. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Messiah to Mary\u2014Luke 1:26\u201338<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>A. The Appearance of the Angel<\/p>\n

The best place to begin is Luke 1:26\u201338<\/a>. This section records how the angel Gabriel was sent to Mary in order to inform her about the coming birth of the Messiah. Verses<\/span> 26\u201327<\/a> read: Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the vir<\/em><\/span>gin\u2019s name was Mary.<\/em><\/p>\n

Verse 26<\/a> states that in the sixth month, that is, six months after Elisabeth became pregnant with John, the same angel Gabriel, who had announced the birth of John the Baptist to <\/span>Zacharias, now announced the birth of Jesus to Mary. Mary was, at this point, living in the town of Nazareth in Galilee.<\/p>\n

The passage clearly emphasizes that Mary was a virgin. She was betrothed, or en<\/span>gaged, to a man named Joseph, who was of the house of David. \u201cMary,\u201d of course, is an Anglicized form of her actual Hebrew name, Miriam. The Greek text reflects that Hebrew name, Miriam. The name was translated from the Hebrew to the Greek, to the Latin Maria, and finally to the<\/span> English Mary. The name she would have responded to was Miriam.<\/p>\n

In verse 28<\/a>, the angel said to her: Hail, you that are hi<\/em><\/span>ghly favored, the Lord is with you.<\/em><\/p>\n

She was greeted by the angel as one who had received special grace from God in that she was going to become the mother of the Messiah. She, according to verse 29<\/a>: w<\/em><\/span>as greatly troubled at the saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this might be.<\/em><\/p>\n

Then the angel issued a specific message to her (vv. 30\u201333<\/a>): And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mar<\/em><\/span>y: for you have found favor with God. And behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the<\/em><\/span> throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.<\/em><\/p>\n

The message of the angel Gabriel t<\/span>o Mary was that she would conceive and bear a son in her virgin state. The Incarnation would be in a man; God was going to become a man in the person of Yeshua, the Son of Mary. Gabriel then points out several things concerning the So<\/span>n of Mary. As to His name, she was to call Him JESUS.<\/em> \u201cJesus\u201d is also an Anglicized form of His actual name. The name He would have responded to was Yeshua. The Hebre<\/span>w name Yeshua was translated into Greek as Ieisous, then to Latin, and then to English as \u201cJesus.\u201d His actual name was Yeshua, a name that means, \u201cto save\u201d or \u201csalvation\u201d or \u201cSavior.\u201d As Joseph would be told, the Child was to have the name \u201cSalvation\u201d because He would <\/span>save his people from their sins.<\/em><\/p>\n

Concerning this Son, the angel said: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most Hi<\/em><\/span>gh: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.<\/em> Here is the fulfillment of the second of the two Old Testament requirements for kingship: divine appointment. When Gabriel said<\/span> to Mary: \u201cthe Lord God shall give unto him the throne,\u201d Jesus received divine appointment. He is the only one who fulfilled both Old Testament requirements. Since He, by virtue of His Resurrection, now lives for<\/span>ever, He will have no successors.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>B. The Question of Mary<\/p>\n

At this point Mary raised a question: How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?<\/em> (v. 34<\/a>). Zacharias\u2019 question was different: Whereby shall I know this? or \u201cHow can I be sure t<\/span>his is going to be so?\u201d Zacharias\u2019 question was a question arising out of unbelief, arising out of doubt. But Mary did not question the angel\u2019s word. Her question was not, \u201cHow will I know that this is true?\u201d Her question was merely a matter of \u201chow.\u201d It is a question that concerns knowl<\/span>edge. \u201cHow will this happen in light of the fact that she is a virgin?\u201d<\/p>\n

In verse 35<\/a>, Gabriel answered that very <\/span>question: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be c<\/em><\/span>alled the Son of God.<\/em><\/p>\n

Because of what is said here, a common misconception has arisen which must be dispelled. There is a common teaching propagated in some circles that the reason for the necessity o<\/span>f the Virgin Birth was that this was the only possible way of keeping Jesus from inheriting the sin-nature. They go on to teach that the sin-nature is transmitted through the male only. Since Jesus did not have a human father, He was sinless. He only had a human mother and the sin-nature is not transmitted through the mother.<\/span><\/p>\n

Actually, nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that the sin-nature is t<\/span>ransmitted through the male only. Sometimes, in fact, the Bible emphasizes the female side of it more than the male side. For example,<\/p>\n

in Psalm 51:5<\/a> David said: And in sin did my mother conceive me.<\/em><\/p>\n

I<\/span>n reality, the sin-nature is transmitted through both the father and the mother.<\/p>\n

What kept Yeshua from inheriting the sin-nature was not the absence of the male seed, but rather that, which is stated <\/span>in verse 35<\/a> as \u201cthe overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.\u201d We should remember that God, being sovereign, was not suddenly stuck with only one way of doing things. If God wanted to, He could have produced <\/span>a sinless being using both the male seed and the female egg. The reason for the Virgin Birth is that this was the way God chose to do it, not because this was the only way He could do it. And by choosing to do it this way, He would also fulfill prophecies that He had stated in the Old Testament. This was hinted at in <\/span>Genesis 3:15<\/a>, and clearly stated in Isaiah 7:14<\/a>: that the Messiah would be concei<\/span>ved in the womb of a virgin; this would be a unique credential of the Messiah. Again, the sin-nature is transmitted through father and mother. What protected Him from inheriting this sin-nature was the overshadowing ministry <\/span>of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n

This overshadowing by the Holy Spirit could have also produced a sinless being using both the female egg and the male seed, but God chose to use the female<\/span> only. The reason Mary was able to become pregnant apart from the male seed is because of the overshadowing work of the Holy Spirit. By means of the overshadowing work of the Holy Spirit, the conception took place. Because of that overshadowing, He who was conceived would be two things: first, He will be holy, that is, sinless; and secondly, He will be <\/span>the Son of God; that is, He will be deity.<\/p>\n

Ga<\/span>briel also told Mary that her cousin, Elisabeth, was pregnant and already six months along (vv. 36\u201337<\/a>). This sets the stage for the next section.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>C. The Submission of Mary<\/p>\n

Having the prophecy and the answer to her subsequent question, the passage ends with Mary\u2019s response in verse 38<\/a>: And Mary said, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto <\/em><\/span>me according to your word. And the angel departed from her.<\/em><\/p>\n

At this point, she totally submits herself to the will and care of God; this is wise in light of three things. First, the Old Testament pena<\/span>lty for a betrothed woman who was found pregnant was to be stoned to death; Mary would have to trust God that the death penalty would not be applied to her. Secondly, she had to trust God concerning the reaction of the community, for she was in danger of expulsion from the community and of being ostracized for the rest of her life. Thirdl<\/span>y, she had to trust the Lord concerning her relationship to Joseph. This was a valid concern because Joseph, being a righteous man, did contemplate divorcing Mary in light of her pregnancy. She gave herself over to the Lord to work out all these important things.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Summary: We can summarize Gabriel\u2019s message to Mary in five points. First, the Incarnation would be in a man. Secondly, His name was to be Yeshua or Jesus. Thirdly, as to His essential nature, He <\/span>would be great. Fourthly, He would be the Son of God. And, fifth, He would fulfill the Davidic Covenant.<\/p>\n

The Davidic Covenant promised four eternal things: An eternal throne, an eternal house or dynas<\/span>ty, an eternal kingdom and an eternal descendant. All four eternal things came out in Gabriel\u2019s message. Concerning the throne, he said: the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David<\/em><\/span>.<\/em> Concerning the house or dynasty: he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever.<\/em> Concerning the kingdom: of his kingdom there shall be no end.<\/em> Concerning the eternal descendant, Gabriel said: The H<\/em><\/span>oly Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.<\/em> The four eternal things, which were<\/span> promised in the Davidic Covenant, were restated here to be fulfilled through Jesus the Messiah. The eternality of the house, throne, and kingdom is guaranteed because the seed of David culminates in <\/span>a Person who is Himself eternal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>V. The Visit of Mary to Elisabeth\u2014Luke 1:39\u201345<\/a><\/p>\n

Gabriel had told Mary that her cousin, Elisabeth, had been pregnant now for a space of six months. Mary, living up in Galilee, chose to go from Galilee d<\/span>own to Judah. She did it with haste, showing urgency in the matter (v. 39<\/a>). She came down to where Elisabeth and Zacharias were living.<\/p>\n

Verse 41a<\/a> states: And it came to pass, when Elisabeth heard the <\/em><\/span>salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb: \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

At this point Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit (v. 41b<\/a>). To be filled with the Holy Spirit means to be controlled by the Holy Spirit. Being <\/span>controlled by the Holy Spirit, she gave a prophetic utterance.<\/p>\n

First, in verse 42<\/a> Elisabeth said: Blessed are you among women<\/em>, paraphrasing the words of Gabriel: Hail, you that are highly favored, the<\/em><\/span> Lord is with you.<\/em> Because she was specially favored by God, she was blessed among women. Secondly, blessed is the fruit of your womb<\/em>, a special blessing to the babe Mary was now carrying in her womb.<\/span><\/p>\n

Elisabeth already knew who that baby was because, thirdly, she said: And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?<\/em> In verse 43<\/a>, Elisabeth referred to Mary as the mother of<\/span> her Lord. She knew that Mary was the mother of Elisabeth\u2019s Lord, the Messiah. In certain segments of the visible church, Mary is sometimes referred to as \u201cthe mother of God.\u201d But she is not the mother of God because she is not the mother of the<\/span> divine nature of Jesus. That is something He had for all eternity past. Mary is only the mother of the humanity of Yeshua. The term Lord here is Lord in the sense of the Messiah and she recognized Mary to be the mother of the Messiah.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fourthly, she pointed out that as soon as the voice of Mary reached her ears, the babe John, in Elisabeth\u2019s womb leaped<\/span> for joy (v. 44<\/a>). Not just leaped, but leaped \u2026 for joy. Here is another good verse against abortion. That which is in the womb of the mother is treated in Scripture as being a person. In the leaping,<\/span> John again was doing the work of the forerunner.<\/p>\n

Fifth, there was a special blessing upon Mary because she did believe the message of the angel, whereas Elisabeth\u2019s husband, Zacharias, did not believ<\/span>e, and resulted in his being stricken mute.<\/p>\n

Sixth, Elisabeth declared in this prophetic utterance that there would be a fulfillment of those things which were spoken to Mary from the Lord (v. 45<\/a>). Eli<\/span>sabeth greatly praised the extent of Mary\u2019s faith.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>VI. The Song of Mary\u2014Luke 1:46\u201356<\/a><\/p>\n

This song of Mary shows two things: first, it shows the extent of Mary\u2019s personal spirituality; and, secondly, it shows her knowledge of Scripture because her song is<\/span> very similar to Hannah\u2019s song in 1 Samuel 2:1\u201310<\/a>. In Mary\u2019s song, she made two main points: first, God was her Saviour; and, secondly, the One coming, the Messiah, was coming to fulfill the promises <\/span>to Abraham.<\/p>\n

Her song can be divided into two parts. The first part (vv. 46\u201350<\/a>) describes what God did for Mary. Verses 46\u201347<\/a> state: And Mary said, My soul does magnify the Lord, And my spirit has rejo<\/em><\/span>iced in God my Saviour.<\/em><\/p>\n

She called God her Saviour. The kind of people who need a saviour are sinners. This statement clearly showed that Mary was a sinner. This falsifies the claims of a certain segm<\/span>ent of Christendom that teaches that Mary was perpetually sinless. She said that God was her Saviour, showing that she was saved by God from her sins.<\/p>\n

Then she used the word \u201cfor\u201d three times, emphasi<\/span>zing that she was praising God \u201cbecause of\u201d what God had done for her. First, in verse 48a<\/a>: For he has looked upon the low estate of his handmaid: \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

The handmaid was Mary herself. She was of low estat<\/span>e because, on the economic scale, she was on the poverty level. But in spite of her low estate financially, economically, and socially, and living in Nazareth, a town that had a poor reputation, God nevertheless had looked upon her in grace.<\/span><\/p>\n

Secondly, in verse 48b<\/a>: \u2026 For behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.<\/em><\/p>\n

In spite of her low beginnings, from then on all generations woul<\/span>d call her blessed because, through all generations, there would be the recognition that she was the Messiah\u2019s mother.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, in verse 49a<\/a>: For he that is mighty has done to me great things; \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

The g<\/span>reatest thing was that she was going to be the mother of the Messiah.<\/p>\n

She concluded this section of what God did for her by praising God: And holy is his name. And his mercy is unto generations and ge<\/em><\/span>nerations On them that fear him.<\/em><\/p>\n

The second part of her song, verses 51\u201355<\/a>, where she declared what God would do for Israel. She used the term he has<\/em> seven different times:<\/p>\n

First: He has showed streng<\/em><\/span>th with his arm; \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

Secondly: \u2026 He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their heart.<\/em><\/p>\n

Thirdly: He has put down princes from their thrones, \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

Fourthly: \u2026 And has exalted them of low degree.<\/em><\/p>\n

Fift<\/span>h: The hungry he has filled with good things; \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

Sixth: \u2026 And the rich he has sent empty away.<\/em><\/p>\n

And seventh: He has given help to Israel his servant, That he might remember mercy (As he spoke unto our f<\/em><\/span>athers) Toward Abraham and his seed for ever.<\/em><\/p>\n

The birth-narratives often connect the coming of Yeshua with the various Jewish covenants. In Matthew 1:1<\/a>, Matthew introduced his Gospel by calling Him th<\/span>e son of David and the son of Abraham. By so doing, he connected the coming of Yeshua with the Davidic Covenant and with the Abrahamic Covenant.<\/p>\n

Here, in verses 54\u201355<\/a>, Mary connected the coming of the<\/span> Messiah with the Abrahamic Covenant, for she said: He has given help to Israel his servant, That he might remember mercy (As he spoke unto our fathers) Toward Abraham and his seed for ever.<\/em><\/p>\n

She will <\/span>give birth to the One who will fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant.<\/p>\n

This birth-narrative ends in verse 56<\/a>: And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned unto her house.<\/em><\/p>\n

Mary stayed with Elisabet<\/span>h a total of three months. These three months were the seventh, eighth, and ninth months of Elisabeth\u2019s pregnancy. Mary left Elisabeth\u2019s home just before John was born. We are not told why she left before John\u2019s birth, perhap<\/span>s it was to avoid attracting attention to herself at this point. By this time, she was herself three months pregnant and still in an unmarried state, though betrothed to Joseph. When John was born, it created great attention in the town, perhaps attention Mary did not wish to attract to herself.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>VII. The Birth of John\u2014Luke 1:57\u201380<\/a><\/p>\n

Elisabeth finally gave birth to her son (v. 57<\/a>) and when her neighbors and her kinsfolk heard they rejoiced with her (v. 58<\/a>). It created a great stir in town becaus<\/span>e Elisabeth had been barren for so many years<\/p>\n

Verse 59<\/a> records the eighth day after John\u2019s birth: And it came to pass on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and they would have cal<\/em><\/span>led him Zacharias, after the name of his father.<\/em><\/p>\n

In Jewish tradition, practice, and custom to this day, a male-child is not named upon birth. A son is named only on the eighth day, the day of his circ<\/span>umcision. The Jewish custom today is to name one\u2019s child after a relative who has already passed away, not after a living relative.<\/p>\n

However, the custom in Jesus\u2019 day was slightly different. They did n<\/span>ame a child after a relative, but the relative did not have to be dead. All the people who came to the circumcision of John assumed that the parents would name the child Zacharias, after the name of his father. Since Zacharias was unable to speak, Elisabeth took the i<\/span>nitiative and pointed out that he would not be named Zacharias, but would be named John (v. 60<\/a>).<\/p>\n

This went contrary to Jewish custom<\/span> because, as the neighbors pointed out in verse 61<\/a>: \u2026 There is none of your kindred that is called by this name.<\/em><\/p>\n

In other words, there was no one, either in Zacharias\u2019 family or in Elisabeth\u2019s family,<\/span> that had this name and, therefore, it was contrary to Jewish tradition and practice to give the child this name.<\/p>\n

The neighbors then tried to go over Elisabeth\u2019s head. They assumed that Zacharias woul<\/span>d certainly follow Jewish tradition and would overrule his wife. They made signs to his father<\/em> (v. 62<\/a>). The fact that they had to make signs implies that not only did Gabriel strike Zacharias mute, bu<\/span>t also deaf as well. Otherwise, there would have been no need to make signs to him; they could have simply spoken to him and Zacharias would have heard.<\/p>\n

Since he could not speak at this point, he aske<\/span>d for a writing tablet, and wrote, \u2026 His name is John<\/em>, confirming what Elisabeth had told these neighbors (v. 63<\/a>). They were to name the child John; although it went contrary to Jewish custom, it was <\/span>obedient to the command of the angel.<\/p>\n

The fact that Zacharias had now obeyed the angel, his tongue was loosed and he was able to speak, and he blessed God (v. 64<\/a>). Because of these peculiar events, th<\/span>e stories spread all over the country (vv. 65\u201366<\/a>). There was general recognition that something unique had been taking place that John was somehow unique and he was going to have a special role in God<\/span>\u2019s plan and program, although they did not know what it was.<\/p>\n

Verse 67<\/a> states that \u201cZacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied.\u201d Zacharias was now controlled by the Holy Spirit and, as a<\/span> result, he issued a prophetic utterance, found in verses 68\u201379<\/a>. His prophetic utterance can be divided into two sections: first (vv. 68\u201375<\/a>), where he spoke of the Messiah; and secondly (vv. 76\u201380<\/a>), h<\/span>e then dealt with his son, John. In this prophetic utterance, Zacharias also connected the coming of the Messiah with the Jewish covenants.<\/p>\n

First, in verse 69<\/a>, the Davidic Covenant: \u2026 And has raised u<\/em><\/span>p a horn of salvation for us In the house of his servant David \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

Secondly, in verse 73<\/a>, with the Abrahamic Covenant: \u2026 The oath which he spoke unto Abraham our father, \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

Thirdly, with the New Covenant<\/span>, in verse 77<\/a>: \u2026 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people In the remission of their sins, \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

The remission of their sins was to be a product of the New Covenant.<\/p>\n

Earlier it was pointed out that t<\/span>he name, Zacharias, means \u201cGod remembers,\u201d and the name, Elisabeth, means \u201cthe oath of God.\u201d Here is a play upon the meaning of both names. The last line of verse 72<\/a> states: And to remember his holy c<\/em><\/span>ovenant;<\/em><\/p>\n

And the first line of verse 73<\/a> states: The oath which he swore unto Abraham our father.<\/em> The two names together teach that \u201cGod remembers His oath.\u201d<\/p>\n

In verse 76<\/a>, Zacharias spelled out exactly <\/span>what John\u2019s task was going to be: Yea and you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High: For you shall go before the face of the Lord to make ready his ways; \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

There are two things about Jo<\/span>hn. First, he will be a prophet of God\u2014John was the last of the Old Testament prophets. A prophet was one who received direct revelation from God and John received it. Secondly, he was to go before the face of the Lord. In fulfil<\/span>lment of Malachi 3:1<\/a>, he was Messiah\u2019s forerunner and the herald of the King.<\/p>\n

Then, verse 78<\/a> states: \u2026 Because of the tender mercy of our God, Whereby the dayspring from o<\/em><\/span>n high shall visit us, \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

The term dayspring<\/em> means \u201cthe rising sun.\u201d It is a reference to the sun of righteousness of Malachi 4:2<\/a>. The picture is that just as the morning star signals the coming of day<\/span>, even so John will be like the morning star that will precede the coming of the sun of righteousness.<\/p>\n

When the sun of righteousness arrived, He was to benefit two different groups of peoples, as is e<\/span>vident by the change of pronouns (v. 79<\/a>): To shine upon them that sit in darkness and the shadow of death; To guide our feet into the way of peace.<\/em><\/p>\n

Of the two groups, the first group is \u201cthem\u201d and the<\/span> second group is \u201cour\u201d. The them are the Gentiles who sit in the darkness and the shadow of death. The Messiah will benefit the Gentiles because it was prophesied that He will be the light of the Gentiles. Second, the Messiah will guide our feet into t<\/span>he way of peace. The our refers to the Jewish people; He will bring peace to Israel.<\/p>\n

The passage ends in verse 80<\/a>, summarizing John\u2019s development in<\/span> three areas. First: the child grew; He grew up, he grew physically. Secondly: he waxed strong in spirit; there was spiritual development as well. Thirdly: and was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel. Early in his li<\/span>fe, John took off into the deserts and went into the wilderness of Judah, where he spent a great part of his life. He was there until his public showing unto Israel. Growing up in the desert meant two things. First, he was separated from the Judaism of his day. Secondly, when his message finally came, it was different than the Judaism of his day.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>VIII. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Messiah to Joseph\u2014Matthew 1:18\u201325<\/a><\/p>\n

The emphasis of this section is clearly on the Virgin Birth, and three different times the Virgin Birth is emphasized. Firs<\/span>t, in verse 18<\/a>: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.<\/em><\/p>\n

This verse mak<\/span>es it very clear that she was pregnant before there were any sexual relations between Joseph and Mary.<\/p>\n

The second time this is emphasized is in verses 22\u201323<\/a>: Now all this is come to pass, that it migh<\/em><\/span>t be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The fact that Isaiah 7:14<\/a> is quoted by Matthew 1:22\u201323<\/a> clearly shows that first century Judaism understood Isaiah\u2019s prophecy to speak of a Virgin Birth. For Matthew of course, t<\/span>his is the way out of the problem of the Jechoniah curse (Jer. 22<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The Virgin Birth is emphasized for the third time in verse 25<\/a>: \u2026 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called hi<\/em><\/span>s name JESUS.<\/em><\/p>\n

Even after the wedding ceremony, they had no sexual relations whatsoever until after the birth of Yeshua. The very word \u201ctill\u201d points out that after Yeshua was born, they did have sexual<\/span> relations. This statement falsifies the claim of one segment of Christendom that teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is not biblically true. In fact, Mary produced at least six more children, four sons and at least two daughters (<\/span>Mat. 13:55\u201356<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Earlier in this study about the annunciation of the birth of Jesus to Mary, it was pointed out that Mary, in the end, submitted herself totally<\/span> to the will and care of God because she had to be concerned for three things: first, that she would not be stoned to death which was the penalty under the Law; secondly, she had to trust that God would work out the reaction with the community; and thirdly, she had to trust that God would work out her relationship with Joseph, because Joseph<\/span> would naturally assume the obvious; that Mary had been unfaithful.<\/span><\/p>\n

Indeed, verse 19<\/a> states: And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.<\/em><\/p>\n

Joseph had already begun to write o<\/span>ut a bill of divorcement privately; he had begun divorce procedures, concluding that in light of Mary\u2019s pregnancy, she had been unfaithful. It is at this point that an angel appears to Joseph with a message containing three essential p<\/span>oints (vv. 20\u201323<\/a>). First, he was to fulfill the marriage vow; he was to proceed with the wedding ceremony, even though Mary was pregnant. Secondly, he was to believe<\/span> Mary\u2019s story that what had been conceived was of the Holy Spirit, and not through any immoral relationship. Thirdly, it was pointed out to Joseph that what was happening was all according to plan in keeping with the divine prophecy of <\/span>Isaiah 7:14<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The angel instructed Joseph in verse 21<\/a>: And she shall bring forth a son; and you shall call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people fr<\/em><\/span>om their sins.<\/em><\/p>\n

As Mary was told, so Joseph was told that His name was to be JESUS<\/em>, though no one in Mary\u2019s line nor in Joseph\u2019s line had this name. In that way, the naming of Jesus was like the naming<\/span> of John; a name was given which was not a name that anyone else had, on either side of the family. The name Jesus was actually the name Yeshua, which comes from the Hebrew root meaning, \u201cto save.\u201d The reason the angel told Joseph to name the child JESUS or Yeshua, is because it is he that shall save his people from t<\/span>heir sins.<\/p>\n

In keeping with the angel\u2019s command, Joseph proceeded and fulfilled th<\/span>at command; the marriage ceremony took place. However, there were no sexual relations between the two until after the birth of Yeshua.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

IX. The Birth of the King\u2014Luke 2:1\u20137<\/a><\/p>\n

A decree issued by Quirinius commanded all to be enrolled for tax purposes in their own city. Since both Mary and Joseph had their origins in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth, they were forced to go down to Bethlehem, although Mary was in the advanced state of pregnancy. But this was in keeping with Bible prophecy, for it was only in Bethlehem that the Messiah was to be born.<\/p>\n

Luke 2:1\u20137<\/a> deals specifically with the birth of Yeshua: Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. This was t<\/em>he first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to enrol themselves, every one to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enrol himself with Mary, w<\/em>ho was betrothed to him, being great with child. And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.<\/em><\/p>\n

Based upon this narrative as well as what is known from contemporary literature, the year of Jesus\u2019 birth can be pinpointed fairly accurately. The first clue we have is that Jesus was born before the year 4 b.c. Herod the Great died that year, and the Gospels are quite clear that Jesus was born at a time when Herod was still living. Since Herod died in 4 b.c., the birth of Jesus must have been prior to the death of Herod the Great. The second clue, the decree of Quirinius mentioned in verse 2<\/a>, was issued in the year 8 b.c. so Jesus was born after that. Therefore, Jesus was born sometime between the years 8 b.c. and 4 b.c.<\/p>\n

But other sources can pinpoint the year even more precisely. Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, recorded that Herod left Jerusalem in the year 5 b.c., never to return. He spent his final months of life in the city of Jericho and died there. We know from Matthew 2<\/a> that the Wise-men met with Herod while he was still in Jerusalem, so that would put the Wise-men connection sometime between the years 8 b.c. and 5 b.c., before Herod left Jerusalem for Jericho. Furthermore, Josephus also stated that throughout the year 8 b.c. Herod was away from Jerusalem fighting a war. Since he was away from Jerusalem in the year 8 b.c., the Wise-men could not have met with him in that year. Putting all of these clues together, the conclusion is that Yeshua was born sometime between the years 7 b.c. and 6 b.c. It was probably closer to the year 7 b.c., because Yeshua was approximately two years old at the time the Wise-men arrived and this was prior to 5 b.c. when Herod left the city.<\/p>\n

When Yeshua was born, He was wrapped in swaddling clothes. This will prove to be something significant. The meaning of this will be discussed in the next narrative.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

X. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Messiah to the Shepherds\u2014Luke 2:8\u201320<\/a><\/p>\n

In Luke 2:8\u201320<\/a>, there is the announcement by the angels to the shepherds concerning the birth of Jesus. Verse 8<\/a> states: And<\/em><\/span> there were shepherds in the same country abiding in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flock.<\/em><\/p>\n

It has already been pointed out that Yeshua was born sometime between the years 7 b.c. and 6 b.c. But there are not enough clues given to reveal which month during that year Yeshua was born. This verse is often used to try to argue against a December 25th date for His birth. Around Christma<\/span>stime, in various churches and on various radio programs, Bible teachers claim that Yeshua could not have been born on December 25th because there would not be shepherds out in the field watching the <\/span>flock by night in the month of December.<\/p>\n

Those who say this obviously have never been to Bethlehem in the month of December. I lived in Israel for a number of years, and, on more than one December day<\/span> when I was in the Bethlehem environs, there were shepherds and sheep all over the place. One cannot assume that what is true of shepherds and sheep in the state of Montana in the month of December is the proper criterion to interpret what is true of Bethlehem in the month of December. This is not to argue in favor of a <\/span>December 25th date. Insofar as the biblical record is concerned, there is no w<\/span>ay to determine accurately just when during the year Yeshua was born. But verse 8<\/a> cannot be used against a December 25th date. Maybe Yeshua was born on December 25th. Or perhaps He was born on July 4t<\/span>h. It is impossible to know.<\/p>\n

But at that point, something unique happened. Verse 9<\/a> states: And an <\/em>angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore <\/em><\/span>afraid.<\/em><\/p>\n

Suddenly the Shechinah Glory reappeared in one of its more familiar, Old Testament manifestations; that of light. For the first time since the Shechinah Glory departed from Israel in the days <\/span>of Ezekiel 8\u201311<\/a>, for the first time in more than five centuries, the Shechinah Glory reappeared. God used the Shechinah Glory to announce the birth of the Messiah to Jewish shepherds.<\/p>\n

Along with the S<\/span>hechinah Glory, an angel appeared. The angel\u2019s message to the shepherds was threefold: first, do not be afraid. Secondly, a Saviour is born. And thirdly, He is not just any kind of Saviour, He is the Messiah Himself.<\/span> The shepherds were then instructed to go and find this child. But there were many babies in Bethlehem, so how would they know which baby it was?<\/p>\n

The angel gave them two clues: And thi<\/em><\/span>s is the sign unto you<\/em> (v. 12<\/a>). The word sign by itself does not require the miraculous, but it does require the unusual. This sign contains two elements: first, the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes;<\/span> and secondly, He is lying in a manger.<\/p>\n

The first clue was that the baby was wrapped in swaddling clothes. Swaddling clothes are not baby clothes because that would not be a sign; that would not be un<\/span>usual, because all babies are wrapped in baby clothes. The word used here means \u201cburial cloth.\u201d The babe was wrapped in burial cloth, pointing out that He came for the purpose of dying\u2014dying for sins.<\/span><\/p>\n

Intermixed among the stable-caves were also other caves used to bury people. Burial cloth was sometimes stored in nearby stable-caves. If a man died in the town of Bethlehem, his body was taken out o<\/span>f the town in a funeral procession. The first stop was at a stable-cave where burial cloth was stored, and the body was wrapped in burial cloth. Then the procession would proceed to a burial cave. The round stone was rolled away, the body placed in a niche in the burial cave, and then the stone was rolled back over the mouth of the cave.<\/span><\/p>\n

Since Jesus was born in a cave, which was used for a stable,<\/span> rather than the inn, Mary and Joseph had to make use of that which was most readily available, burial cloth. The symbolism should not be missed: Jesus was wrapped in burial cloth on the first day of His life and He was wrapped with the same type of cloth on t<\/span>he last day of His life. The symbolic meaning is that He came for the purpose of dying. All others are born to live, but Jesus was born to die.<\/span><\/p>\n

The second clue, the fact that the baby was lying in a manger, told these shepherds not to look in the private homes of Bethlehem, but to look inside stables. In those days, stables were not separ<\/span>ate buildings or barns, but caves which were used as stables. During the winter months, if it were not raining, the flocks could be in the field; but if it were raining, the shepherds brought the floc<\/span>ks into the caves, which were used, for stables. Jesus was born in a stable-cave. The shepherds were to look for the baby inside a cave that was used as a stable.<\/p>\n

After these instructions, other angel<\/span>s appeared, praising God, and they said, not sang, two things. First, in verse 14<\/a>, for God: Glory to God in the highest.<\/em> And secondly, for humanity: And on earth peace among men in whom he is well ple<\/em><\/span>ased.<\/em><\/p>\n

Because of the two clues given, the shepherds found the child with Mary and Joseph. When they found them, they told Joseph and Mary everything concerning the vision they had seen, so Mary knew t<\/span>hese things and kept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart (v. 19<\/a>). This is found in Luke, who tells the story from Mary\u2019s perspective. Mary, after hearing these things, kept these things qui<\/em><\/span>et and secret, pondering them in her heart.<\/em> Years later, apparently, she revealed these things to Luke, who wrote this account. This incident records the first Jewish worship of the Messianic Person.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Then in verse 20<\/a>: And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, even as it was spoken unto them.<\/em><\/p>\n

They praised God for providing the Messiah.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>XI. The Circumcision of the Messiah\u2014Luke 2:21<\/a><\/p>\n

Luke 2:21<\/a> records the circumcision of Yeshua: And when eight days were fulfilled for circumcising him, his name was called JESUS, which was so called by t<\/em><\/span>he angel before he was conceived in the womb.<\/em><\/p>\n

Again, in Jewish tradition, the male child is not named at birth, but named on the eighth day when he is circumcised. On the eighth day, when Jesus was ci<\/span>rcumcised, He was officially named Jesus or Yeshua, in keeping with the angel\u2019s command.<\/p>\n

Circumcision was prescribed or commanded under two of the Old Testament covenants: the Abrahamic Covenant and t<\/span>he Mosaic Covenant, but it had two different meanings. Under the Abrahamic Covenant, circumcision was obligatory for Jews only because it was a sign of Jewishness. Under the Mosaic Covenant, circumcision was obligatory for both Jews and Gentiles such as proselytes and servants, as the sign of submission to the<\/span> Law of Moses. Jesus was circumcised under both covenants. Today, because the Mosaic Law has come to an end, there is no basis of circumcising either Jews or Gentiles on the basis of the Mosaic Law. However, the Abrahamic Covenant is eternal, so circumcision is still mandatory for Jews. Even today, all Jews including Jewish believers are to circumcise their sons on the eighth day as a sign of their Jewishness, according to the Abrahamic Covenant. The fact that Joseph and Mary fulfilled this command showed <\/span>their obedience to the Law of Moses and that they were <\/span><\/span>members of the believing, faithful Remnant.<\/p>\n

Circumcision does not show the faith and obedience of the child, rather, it sho<\/span>ws the faith and obedience of the parents. If a child at the mere age of eight days had the option, he would probably prefer to forego this experience. The child is not exercising his own will or his own faith when he is circumcised. For that reason, baptism is not the anti-type<\/span> to circumcision. Baptism shows the faith and obedience of the one being baptized, and not of the parents. The anti-type of the circumcision of the flesh is not baptism, but the circumcision of the heart.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>XII. The Presentation\u2014Luke 2:22\u201338<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>A. The Obedience to the Mosaic Law<\/p>\n

The next event recorded was the presentation of the Child to the Lord that occurred when Yeshua was forty-days old. Once again, the parents of Yeshua, Mary and His s<\/span>tepfather, Joseph, proved faithful and obedient to the Mosaic Law.<\/p>\n

Verse 22<\/a> states: And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusal<\/em><\/span>em, to present him to the Lord \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

According to the Mosaic Law in Leviticus 12<\/a>, if a mother gave birth to a girl, she was reckoned ceremonially unclean for a period of eighty days. If she gave birth to <\/span>a boy, she was reckoned ceremonially unclean for forty days. The mother needed to undergo a purification ritual. Because Mary had given birth to a boy, this event occurred when Jesus was forty-days old. According to Jewish records, the purification took place at the east gate of the court, at a gate known as Nicanor\u2019s Gate<\/span>. The purpose of the presentation was twofold: first, for the special ceremonial purification of the mother so that she would no longer be ceremonially unclean; and, secondly, for the redemption of the firstborn son. Since Jesus was her firstborn son, the redemption price had to be paid on this occasion.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

For the offering, they offered: A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons<\/em> (v. 24<\/a>). This reveals the economic status of these two members of the House of David: they wer<\/span>e among the poor; they were on the poverty level. The Law only allowed the offering of two birds if one could not afford anything better. Both Mary and Joseph were on the poverty level of the economic strata.<\/span><\/p>\n

But this was in keeping with two Old Testament prophesies. First, Isaiah 11:1<\/a> predicted that the Messiah would appear only once the mighty House of David had been reduced to what it was in Je<\/span>sse\u2019s days\u2014a poor family in Bethlehem. Isaiah pictured a mighty tree that had been felled, with only the stump remaining. Only then, does a branch out of its roots grow and produce fruit. The Messiah is referred to not as \u201cthe root of David,\u201d but as \u201cthe root of Jesse<\/span>.\u201d Only once the mighty tree of the House of David had been felled and reduced to a stump, to what it was in Jesse\u2019s day, will the Messianic Branch appear. And so it was.<\/span><\/p>\n

The second prophecy, Amos 9:11<\/a> predicted that the Messiah would appear only when the mighty House of David had been reduced to a broken-down hut. By this time, t<\/span>hat was exactly what had occurred. In place of offering animals, Joseph and Mary offered two birds: one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>B. The Two Encounters<\/p>\n

On this occasion, they had two encounters.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>1. Simeon<\/p>\n

The first encounter was with a man named Simeon (vv. 25\u201335<\/a>). Verse 25b<\/a> reads: \u2026 this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Spirit was upon him.<\/em><\/p>\n

Fi<\/span>rst, this man was a righteous man. The term righteous means \u201cjust.\u201d Simon the Just, in Jewish writings, was the son of Hillel and the ruler of the Sanhedrin of that time. He was also the father of Gamal<\/span>iel. It is not certain if this was the same Simon the Just, but it might very well have been, because Luke only gave his name as being Simon, or Simeon, a rather common name of that period, without ever identifying whose son he was. The fact that he was referred to as righteous, or \u201cjust\u201d means he might very well have been the same as Simon the Just of the rabbinic writings.<\/span><\/p>\n

Secondly, he was a d<\/em><\/span>evout<\/em> man, so he was a member of the believing Jewish Remnant of that day.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, he was looking for the consolation of Israel<\/em> with expectation of the coming of the Messiah.<\/p>\n

Fourthly, the Holy Spiri<\/em><\/span>t was upon him<\/em>; he was a recipient of the Old Testament-type ministry of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n

According to verse 26<\/a>, the Holy Spirit had revealed to him that he would not die before he had seen the Lord\u2019s<\/em><\/span> Christ<\/em>, or the Lord\u2019s Messiah. Simeon, who by this time was an elderly man, was promised that he would not die until his eyes saw the Messianic Person. On this occasion, when Simeon came into the Tem<\/span>ple, he came in the Spirit (v. 27<\/a>). In other words, he was led by the Spirit into the Temple. When his eyes saw Yeshua, he recognized in this forty-day-old boy the fulfillment of that promise. His eye<\/span>s had seen the Messiah.<\/p>\n

At that point, Simeon said, in verses 29\u201332<\/a>: Now let you your servant depart, Lord, According to your word, in peace; For my eyes have seen your salvation, Which you have prepa<\/em><\/span>red before the face of all peoples; A light for revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of your people Israel.<\/em><\/p>\n

In this prophetic utterance, he said several things. First, he was then ready to die be<\/span>cause the promise which had been made to him was fulfilled; he had then seen the Messianic Person (v. 29<\/a>). He declared: For my eyes have seen your salvation<\/em> (v. 30<\/a>). Simeon was not speaking English bu<\/span>t in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for salvation is Yeshuah. The Hebrew word for Jesus is almost the same, Yeshua. Both come from the same Hebrew root yasha, which means, \u201cto save.\u201d The only difference is the letter \u201ch,\u201d which itself is silent<\/span>, so in Hebrew, the word \u201csalvation\u201d and the word \u201cJesus\u201d sound the same. In a real way, what he said was not only my eyes have seen your salvation<\/em>, but \u201cmy eyes h<\/span>ave seen Your Yeshua.\u201d He had, indeed, recognized this forty-day-old boy to be the Messianic Person.<\/p>\n

Secondly, he pointed out that two groups would benefit from Messiah\u2019s coming (v. 32<\/a>). He saw the sa<\/span>me thing that Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, had seen: that the coming of the Messiah would benefit two groups of people. The first group is the Gentiles: He will be a light for revelation to the Gentiles<\/span>. Zacharias declared that it was the Gentiles who sat in darkness and the shadow of death. Upon them, the light must shine. It was already prophesied (Is. 42:6<\/a>; 49:6<\/a>) that the Messiah <\/span>would be the light to the Gentiles. The second group to benefit from His coming is the Jewish people: the glory of your people Israel.<\/em><\/p>\n

Having said these things about Jesus, Simeon now had some words f<\/span>or the mother in verses 34\u201335<\/a>: \u2026 and Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the falling and the rising of many in Israel; and for a sign which is spoken agai<\/em><\/span>nst; yea and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul; that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.<\/em><\/p>\n

First in verse 34<\/a>, the coming of this child would mean a division within the Jewish world. F<\/span>or some He would mean the falling and for some the rising. Those who fail to believe on Him will fall. For the Jewish unbeliever, He will be the stone of stumbling and the rock of offense. For the Jewish believer, He was going to be the rising, because those who believed wer<\/span>e going to receive the salvation that He offered.<\/p>\n

Secondly, He would be an individual who, throughout the Jewish world and th<\/span>roughout Jewish history, will be spoken against.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, because of His coming, a sword shall pierce the soul of Mary. And so it was. She was present when the Jewish leaders rejected Him and called H<\/span>im demon-possessed. She observed the people turning against Him. The sword pierced its deepest when she saw her Son hanging upon the cross. Finally, Simeon pointed out that all this was necessary so that the thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed. This man named Simeon recognized in Jesus the Messianic Person.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>2. The Prophetess Anna<\/p>\n

The second encounter, in verses 36\u201338<\/a>, was with a woman who was a prophetess by the name of Anna, the Hellenized form for the Hebraic Hannah. She was of the tribe of Asher<\/em>, one <\/span>of the so-called \u201cten lost tribes,\u201d but Anna was not lost. There is no such thing as the ten lost tribes of Israel. This is a myth, the tribes were never lost. The Bible reveals exactly where the ten tribes<\/span> settled. When the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity, members from all Twelve Tribes came back, not just from the Tribe of Judah and Benjamin. Here is just one example: Anna, of the Tribe of Asher. Today, the myth of the ten lost tribes is spread mostly by various cultic groups who like to claim that they are the ten lost tribes. They are partially right; these cultic groups are lost! However,<\/span> they are not one of the tribes of Israel.<\/span><\/p>\n

Anna was very old, she was of a great age<\/em>; she had been a widow for eighty-four years, and by this time, she was over one hundred years old. She,<\/span> too, recognized in this forty-day-old boy the Messianic Person. As a result, verse 38<\/a> states: And coming up at that very hour she gave thanks unto God, and spoke of him to all them that were looking <\/em><\/span>for the redemption of Jerusalem.<\/em><\/p>\n

She went to announce to other members of the believing Remnant of that day that the Messiah had been born and that she had seen Him.<\/p>\n

Both Simeon and Anna passed away b<\/span>efore Yeshua began His public ministry.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>XIII. The Visit of the Magi\u2014Matthew 2:1\u201312<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>A. Concerning Some Common Christmas Practices<\/p>\n

Around Christmastime on church lawns, in front of church pulpits or podiums, and in front of private homes, nativity sets are displayed. All nativity sets<\/span> tend to look somewhat the same. There is a building that represents a barn, though no Jewish person living in first century Israel would have recognized it as such. In front of this barn, or perhaps <\/span>inside of it, are three people: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Jesus is either in a manger or on Mary\u2019s lap. On one side, facing the three people, are some shepherds of various numbers. On the other side are three kings facing them. But the biblical birth-narrative destroys nativit<\/span>y sets. The shepherds and the so-called three kings never met each other. These events were separated by approximately two years in time and the two situations were totally different.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is a popular Christmas song sung during the Christmas season, the first line of which says, \u201cWe three kings of Orient are.\u201d There are <\/span>two theological blunders in the first line of that song. First, is the number \u201cthree.\u201d How many were there? The Bible never states that there were three. In fact, it is only certain that there were at least two because the word is in the plural number. There were at least two, but maybe there were twenty, or two hundred, or two thousand. <\/span>There were enough to cause the whole city of Jerusalem to be stirred up tremendously. This implies that perhaps there were considerably more <\/span>than just three of them. The second blunder is to call them \u201ckings.\u201d The Bible never refers to them as kings, but refer<\/span>s to them as magi or Wise-men, a term that means \u201castrologers.\u201d They came from the East, which, in Scripture, is the area of Mesopotamia. In this passage, there are an unknown number of Gentile astrologers from Babylonia who arrived in Jerusalem asking: <\/span>Where is he that is born King of the Jews?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>B. The Questions Raised by the Passage<\/p>\n

This passage raises a number of questions; such as, \u201cHow would Gentile astrologers from Babylonia know anything about the birth of a Jewish king?\u201d And even if th<\/span>ey knew about it, \u201cWhy would they want to come and worship him?\u201d In previous history, such as in the days of Daniel, there were Babylonian astrologers and Jewish kings and yet no Babylonian astrologer had any desire to go to Jerusalem and worship a Jewish king. So, \u201cWhy did they want to worship one now?\u201d Furthermore, \u201cDoes this passage authenticate a practice<\/span> or form of Christian astrology, as some people have claimed, although the Bible forbids any kind of contact with any form of astrology whatsoever?\u201d These questions will be answered one by one.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>1. How Did They Know?<\/p>\n

First, \u201cHow did they know?\u201d How the magi knew is somehow connected with the star they saw in the east. The basic rule of interpreting Scripture is to always take the Bible litera<\/span>lly, unless there is something in the context that will not allow it to be taken that way. There are five things about this star in this context that shows that this is not a literal star, but something other than a literal star.<\/span><\/p>\n

First, this star is referred to by the pronoun his<\/em>, that is, the Messiah\u2019s star (v. 2<\/a>) It was the Messiah\u2019s personal star in a way that was not true of any other star. Of<\/span> course, all the stars are God\u2019s because He created them, but there was something unique about this star that it became the Messiah\u2019s personal star. Secondly, this star appeared and disappeared on at least two or more occasions. Thirdly, this star moved from east to west. Fourthly, th<\/span>is star moved from north to south. Fifth, the clincher is that this star literally came down to Bethlehem and hovered over one particular house in the town of Bethlehem (v. <\/span>9<\/a>). Any literal star that will come down to hover over one house in Bethlehem would end up destroying this entire planet. That is the nature o<\/span>f stars. They are like the sun. If the sun came down to hover over one house in Bethlehem, it would obviously burn up this planet before it ever had a chance to do that. Being so huge, stars, like the sun, are not able to simply confine their hovering to one small house in Bethlehem. This is not a literal star. What is it then?<\/span><\/p>\n

There have been all kinds of attempts to explain this astronomically, <\/span>but all astronomical explanations fail because comets or conglomerations of planets or constellations simply cannot do what this star did. The root for the Greek word for star means \u201cradiant\u201d or \u201cbril<\/span>liant.\u201d This \u201cbrilliance\u201d is the Shechinah Glory. Just as the Shechinah Glory was used to announce the birth of the Messiah to Jewish shepherds, it was also used to announce the birth of the King of the Je<\/span>ws to Gentile astrologers. When the Gentile astrologers saw the unusual brilliance in the sky, it somehow signaled to them that the Messiah, the King of the Jews, was born.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. What Was the Source of Their Knowledge?<\/p>\n

The next question is: \u201cHow would these Gentile astrologers from Babylon know anything about a Messianic concept to begin with?\u201d Jews would know about it, but how would they know about it?<\/p>\n

Of all the Old Testament prophecies of the First Coming of the Messiah, only one passage, Daniel 9:24\u201327<\/a>, pinpointed how many years would transpire before the Messiah would come. This passage contains the Messianic timetable which spelled out how many years would transpire before the Messiah was born. Unlike many of the other books of Scripture, the Book of Daniel was not written in the Land of Israel, but was written in Babylon. In fact, half of the book is not written in Hebrew, the Jewish tongue, but in Aramaic, the language of the Babylonians.<\/p>\n

According to the Book of Daniel, in chapter 2:1\u201349<\/a>, he became the head of the Babylonian School of Astrology. Nebuchadnezzar, the king, was not a man with spiritual insight. When he saw that Daniel had some very unique abilities, his assumption was that Daniel must be a superior astrologer. As a result, Nebuchadnezzar appointed Daniel as president of the Babylonian School of Astrology (v. 48<\/a>). But Daniel never received his information and revelation from the stars or from astrology. He always received it from the Creator of those stars, the God of Israel. This passage in no way supports any kind of teaching on Christian astrology.<\/p>\n

A day came when Daniel was able to save the lives of all the other Babylonian astrologers. When the astrologers were unable to interpret a dream of Nebuchadnezzar, he sentenced every one of them to death. Included among the ones arrested to be executed were Daniel and his three friends. From the Babylonian frame of reference, they considered Daniel to be one of the incompetent astrologers. But Daniel requested and received an audience with the king. He interpreted the dream and, by so doing, saved the lives of all the other astrologers. No doubt, as a result of that experience, many of these astrologers turned away from the worship of the stars and astrology, and became believers in the God of Israel, Daniel\u2019s God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.<\/p>\n

Generations later, they still had in their possession a book written by one of their former presidents, the Book of Daniel, which pinpointed how many years would transpire before the Messiah would appear. At least they knew when to look. When they saw an unusual brilliance in the sky, they took that to be the signal that the Messiah was born. Again, the source was divine revelation, the written record, the Book of Daniel, and not astrology. In no way can this passage be used to support any Christian practice of astrology.<\/p>\n

While Daniel clearly pinpointed how many years would transpire before the Messiah would appear, Daniel nowhere implied or connected the coming of the Messiah with a star or with some brilliance in the sky. For that, there is another Babylonian connection in the story of Baalam (Num. 22\u201324<\/a>). Baalam\u2019s reputation was well-established in the ancient world: \u201cwhosoever Baalam blesses is blessed, but whosoever Baalam curses is cursed.\u201d Because of that reputation, the king of Moab hired Baalam to curse the Jews. Four different times the king of Moab took Baalam upon a high mountain where he could look down upon the Jewish encampment. Four different times Baalam tried to open his mouth to curse the Jews. And four different times God took over his tongue, and he blessed the Jews instead. In these blessings, he issued several Messianic prophecies, one of which is found in Numbers 24:17<\/a>: I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh: There shall come forth a star out of Jacob, And a sceptre shall rise out of Israel, And shall smite through the corners of Moab, And break down a<\/em>ll the sons of tumult.<\/em><\/p>\n

The word sceptre is a symbol of kingship, and it was Baalam who connected the Messianic Person with kingship and with a star. By profession, Baalam was an astrologer. According to Numbers 22:5<\/a> and Deuteronomy 23:4<\/a>, Baalam was from Pethor, which was also in Babylonia.<\/p>\n

Archaeologists have discovered that the Babylonians kept many historical records. Many of our ancient historical records come from Babylonia. As a result of the Baalam connection regarding the star and the Kingship of the Messiah, as well as the Daniel connection which provided the Messianic timetable, these Gentile astrologers from Babylonia knew about the coming of the Messiah. Having a timetable from Daniel, the unusual brilliance in the sky told them that the prophecy had been fulfilled. That is why they came to Israel asking the question: Where is he that is born King of the Jews?<\/em><\/p>\n

Although they had the Book of Daniel, they did not have the Book of Micah. It was Micah who prophesied the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2<\/a>). Since they did not know that, from their perspective the logical place for the King of the Jews to be born would be in the Jewish capital of Jerusalem. They came to Jerusalem asking the question: Where is he that is born King of the Jews?<\/em><\/p>\n

Eventually, this created such a great stir in the city that Herod the Great called these men into his own palace. Matthew 2:7<\/a> points out that Herod called in the Wise-men, privately and learned of them exactly what time the star appeared. Herod wanted to know how long it had been since that star appeared. This was crucial in determining what age Jesus was when these events occurred. From the religious leaders, the Wise-men discovered that the place of Messiah\u2019s birth was to be Bethlehem and not Jerusalem. Herod sent them to Bethlehem (v. 8<\/a>) and referred to Jesus as the young child, using a Greek word that refers to a child that is at least one-year old.<\/p>\n

After carefully learning how long it had been since the star first appeared, which was two years earlier, he instructed the Wise-men in Matthew 2:8b<\/a>: \u2026 Go and search out exactly concerning the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word, that I also <\/em>may come and worship him.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Wise-men headed for Bethlehem. But because there were many houses in Bethlehem, and many two-year-old children, it would be very difficult to find this Child. At this point, the star they had seen earlier reappeared, came down and hovered over the specific house where the young child was (v. 9<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Verse 11<\/a> then states: And they came into the house and saw the young chil<\/em>d with Mary his mother; and they fell down and worshipped him; and opening their treasures they offered unto him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.<\/em><\/p>\n

The family was no longer, in a stable where the shepherds had found them, but were now in a private house. Therefore, the shepherds and the Wise-men never saw each other. The two events are separated by two years in time. The Wise-men came into the house and worshipped Him. This is the first Gentile worship of the Messianic Person, whereas with the shepherds, there was the first Jewish worship of the Messianic Person.<\/p>\n

They left behind three gifts: gold and frankincense and myrrh<\/em>. All of these have Old Testament symbolic significance: gold is the symbol of kingship\u2014Yeshua is the King; frankincense is the symbol of deity\u2014Yeshua is God; myrrh is the symbol of death and sacrifice\u2014Yeshua is the final Sacrifice for sin. So, while the first line of the popular Christmas song, \u201cWe Three Kings of Orient Are,\u201d is not biblical, the last line is correct: \u201cGod and King and Sacrifice.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even though they were told by Herod to come back to Jerusalem and let him know where the Child was, God warned them in a dream not to do so (v. 12<\/a>). They returned to Babylonia by a different route, which bypassed Jerusalem, and they did not report to Herod the Great.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

XIV. The Flight to Egypt\u2014Matthew 2:13\u201318<\/a><\/p>\n

After the Wise-men left Bethlehem, the angel again appeared to Joseph in a dream. Matthew told the story from Joseph\u2019s perspective, reporting that the angel ap<\/span>peared to Joseph and warned him to flee to Egypt and to live there until they received word to return to the Land (v. 13<\/a>). Since they were a poverty-stricken family, where did they get the income to m<\/span>ake such a journey? They were still in Bethlehem two years later because, apparently, they did not even have enough money to get back to Nazareth. The Wise-men gave them three types of gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. These were expensive gifts, which provided the income for<\/span> their journey to Egypt and their sojourn in that land.<\/p>\n

Matthew\u2019s theme is: Jesus the Messiah, the King of the Jews. Tha<\/span>t very theme was Herod\u2019s fear. Herod is known in history as Herod the Great, but perhaps a more proper title would be \u201cHerod the Paranoid.\u201d He was always afraid that there was somebody out there wanting to take his throne away from him. Because of his paranoia, he<\/span> was always looking out for conspiracies. During the course of his career, he killed his favorite wife and four of his own sons because he thought they were conspiring against him. The Caesar of that day was Caesar Augustus, who once said, \u201cIt was better to be Herod\u2019s pig than Herod\u2019s son.\u201d Herod was a nominal convert to Judaism so, as a result, he did not eat pork. Herod\u2019s pigs were pretty safe, but to be one of Herod\u2019s sons was an occupational hazard. If Her<\/span>od even suspected a conspiracy, executions followed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now his paranoia to<\/span>ld him there was a two-year-old in Bethlehem conspiring to take his throne away. When he realized the Wise-men had no intention of coming back to inform him where the Messiah was, he took matters into his own hands. He <\/span>ordered his soldiers to go to Bethlehem and to kill every male child from two-years old and under (v. 16<\/a>). Why two-years old and under? Because this was the time since the star firs<\/span>t appeared according to the Wise-men. Again, this is clear evidence that, at this time, Jesus was two-years old.<\/p>\n

Fortunately, Joseph had taken Mary and Yeshua and fled toward Egypt. While many were ki<\/span>lled, the Messianic Child was spared. They remained in Egypt for one or two years.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>XV. The Return to Nazareth\u2014Matthew 2:19\u201323<\/a> and Luke 2:39<\/a><\/p>\n

When Herod finally died in the year 4 b.c., an angel again appeared to Joseph. Because Matthew told the story from Joseph\u2019s perspective, Matthe<\/span>w records that an angel came to Joseph and told him to go back into the Land of Israel for they are dead that sought the young child\u2019s life<\/em> (Mat. 2:19\u201320<\/a>). When the family returned to the Land from Eg<\/span>ypt, the first area they came to was Judaea. When Herod died, his massive kingdom was divided among three of his sons. One of his sons, Archelaus, was given authority over Judaea and Samaria. As hard as it might be to believe, Archelaus was even w<\/span>orse than his father, Herod the Great. In fact, when he succeeded to the throne, he killed three thousand Jews in the Temple Compound during the Passover season. <\/span>By so doing, he desecrated the Passover. He was that bad. Even his father never went to the extreme of killing people in the Temple Compound. Because of his reputation, Joseph decided against<\/span> resettlement in the town of Bethlehem. He chose to return to Nazareth in Galilee, which was under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas. This is why Yeshua was referred to frequently as a Nazarene (v. 23<\/a><\/span>).<\/p>\n

The settlement in the town of Nazareth in Galilee would create a stigma for the rest of the Messiah\u2019s life. The teaching of the rabbis was: \u201cIf you want to get rich, go north. If you want to get wi<\/span>se, go south.\u201d Galilee was looked down upon by the Jews of Judaea. Those in Galilee were looked upon as being materialistic and ignorant in spiritual matters. If one was only interested in getting rich, then he should go north. But if one was interested in getting wisdom\u2014divine wisdom, spiritual wisdom\u2014he should go south, because that was where the rabbinical schools and the rabbinical academie<\/span>s were located. That is why when Nicodemus tried to make a defense of Jesus, the other Pharisees blurted out mistakenly: <\/span>Search, and see out of Galilee arises no prophet<\/em> (Jn. 7:52a<\/a>). They ignored that th<\/span>ere were prophets that did arise out of Galilee; such as, Hosea and Jonah. While Judeans looked down upon Galileans, even Galileans looked down upon fellow Galileans who came from the town of Nazareth. Nazareth was a town o<\/span>f ill-repute. In John 1:45\u201346<\/a>, when one of His future disciples was told: We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus of Nazareth.<\/em><\/p>\n

His response w<\/span>as, \u201cCan any good thing come out of Nazareth?\u201d Settling in Nazareth made Him a despised and rejected individual, but that, too, was in keeping with the prophets.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>XVI. The Growth of the King\u2014Luke 2:40<\/a><\/p>\n

And the child grew, and waxed strong, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.<\/em><\/p>\n

Only Luke records this element because Luke\u2019s theme is the humanity o<\/span>f Yeshua. The verse summarizes the growth and development of Yeshua from the age of four until the age of twelve.<\/p>\n

That is all Luke chose to tell. But other things about the development of Yeshua can b<\/span>e determined from what is known of the Jewish religious and social life of that period. For example, both Joseph and Mary were members of the believing Remnant of that day, so they were spiritual parents. Yeshua grew up in a spiritual Jewish home with parents who were believers in the <\/span>Old Testament sense. Furthermore, Yeshua would have gone to the basic Jewish schools as a young lad. There He would have learned the Jewish Scriptures, with much time spent in memorizing the Old Testament. He learned the Hebrew language, both written and spoken. He also learned Aramaic and Greek, and possibly Latin. Furthermore, He apprenticed to work in His father\u2019s trade and developed the skills of a carpenter. Not only was <\/span><\/span>He referred to as a carpenter\u2019s son, He was referred to as a carpenter Himself; both<\/span> Joseph and Yeshua were carpenters.<\/p>\n

The above, by itself, does not explain how Jesus knew all that He did by the age of twelve. The things that He knew at the age of twelve could not have come from th<\/span>e Nazareth school system or from the synagogue schools or from His training through His parents. The secret of how He learned these things is not contained in the New Testament, but it is in the Old Testament.<\/span><\/p>\n

The passage that reveals how Yeshua learned so much between the ages of four and twelve is Isaiah 50:4\u20139<\/a>: The Lord Jehovah has given me the tongue of them that are taught, that I may know ho<\/em><\/span>w to sustain with words him that is weary: he wakens morning by morning, he wakens my ear to hear as they that are taught. The Lord Jehovah has opened my ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away backward. I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off<\/em><\/span> the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting. For the Lord Jehovah will help me; therefore have I not been confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be put to shame. He is near that justifies me; who will contend with me? let us stand up together: who is mine adversary? let him come near to me. Behold, the Lord Jehovah will help me; who is he that shall condemn me? behold, all they shall wax old as a garment; the moth shall eat the<\/em><\/span>m up.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Morning by morning, in the<\/span> wee hours of the morning, God the Father awakened His Son and took Him aside to disciple Him, to train Him, to teach Him concerning who He was and concerning His mission (v. 4<\/a>). The person of Yeshua <\/span>was a unique type of individual; He was the God-Man. Theologically, He is referred to as the Theanthropic Person in that He was both God and man. He was only one person, but He had two natures side-by-side: a divine nature a<\/span>nd a human nature. These two natures were side-by-side, but never mixed together. While in His deity, He was omniscient and knew everything, in His humanity, He had to undergo the same type of learning experience that all humans have to undergo. In His humanity, He was not omniscient; He did not know everything. He needed to grow up and to be trained. God the Father did that by waking Him up morning by morning to train H<\/span>im in matters concerning His person, His message and His work.<\/span><\/p>\n

Verse 5<\/a> points out that even when He realized that His mission included suffering and dea<\/span>th, He was not rebellious. He kept His ear open and did not try to turn away backward or escape His call. When finally the time came for Him to fulfill His mission, He gave His back to the smiters; He did not try to turn His back away from the pain (v. <\/span>6<\/a>). Furthermore, He gave His cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; He did not try to turn His head away to keep them from pulling out His beard<\/span>. Finally, He did not try to cover His face from the spittle that was being spat upon Him. Verses 7\u20139<\/a> point out that He set His face like a flint to fulfill His mission. In fact, Luke used that same e<\/span>xpression later in Luke 9:51<\/a>: \u201cHe set his face like a flint to go to Jerusalem.\u201d<\/p>\n

As a result of this training by God the Father, at the age of twelve He knew exactly who He was\u2014the Son of God; and He <\/span>knew the Scriptures so well that He was able to debate with the scholars in the Temple Compound.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>XVII. The Visit to Jerusalem\u2014Luke 2:41\u201350<\/a><\/p>\n

This was not His bar mitzvah because a bar mitzvah takes place at the age of thirteen, not twelve, but it was in anticipation for it. It was a Jewish custom t<\/span>hat on the Passover after a boy\u2019s twelfth birthday, he was to be taken for his first trip to Jerusalem in preparation for his bar mitzvah. At this point, he would begin training in his father\u2019s occupation. In keeping with this Jewish practice, at the age of twelve, Jesus was taken up to Jerusalem for the Passover in preparation for His bar mitzvah. Joseph <\/span>and Mary did not travel alone, but traveled with a party. When the Passover observances concluded, they headed back to Nazareth, assuming that Jesus was somewhere in the same group.<\/span><\/p>\n

When they arrived at the first day\u2019s lodging, which was one-<\/span>full-day\u2019s journey, they realized He was not there. It took another full day to return to Jerusalem. They searched for three more days, so five days had passed since He was missing.<\/p>\n

In verses 46\u201347<\/a> we<\/span> read: And it came to pass, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them, and asking them questions: and all that heard him were amazed at his<\/em><\/span> understanding and his answers.<\/em><\/p>\n

They found Yeshua carrying on intelligent conversation with those who were the experts of the Law among rabbis and scholars. This amazed them all, not only because He w<\/span>as just twelve-years old, but also because He was from Nazareth. They could tell that He could not have gained this knowledge from the Nazareth school system. This was all a result of His training of <\/span>Isaiah 50:4\u20139<\/a>.<\/p>\n

At that point, Mary forgot who He was and, as a result, began to scold Him saying: behold, your father and I sought you sorrowing<\/em> (v. 48<\/a>). Jesus turned to her and reminded her who He wa<\/span>s. Verse 49<\/a> states: And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? know ye not that I must be in my Father\u2019s house?<\/em><\/p>\n

He reminded her that Joseph was not His real father, but only His stepfather. F<\/span>urthermore, she especially, should have known that the place to look for Him was in His real Father\u2019s house, the Temple. Obviously, by the age of twelve He recognized His Sonship-relationship with God the Father.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another thing should not be missed. It was at the age of twelve that a Jewish lad was apprenticed to learn his father\u2019s business, his father\u2019s trade. Verse 49<\/a> can be translated from the G<\/span>reek as, \u201cI must be about my Father\u2019s business.\u201d At the age of twelve, He recognized His Sonship-relationship with God the Father, and the \u201cbusiness\u201d He conducted was in the Temple Compound. His real occupation was to be about Hi<\/span>s real Father\u2019s business, and she should have known that.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

XVIII. The Development of the King\u2014Luke 2:51\u201352<\/a><\/p>\n

The last narrative summarizes the development of Yeshua from the age of twelve until about the age of thirty or more. He returned with His parents to Nazareth; and he was subject unto them: and his mother kept all these sayings in her heart<\/em> (v. 51<\/a>). Although He was the Son of God, He was in subjection to them. This verse clearly shows that subjection is not a matter of inferiority for, in this case, there is a superior, the God-Man, subjecting Himself to two inferiors, two sinful human beings.<\/p>\n

Subjection in no way means inferiority. Likewise, when the wife is commanded by Scripture to be in subjection to her husband, this is not an issue of superiority or inferiority. In that case, it is an issue of two equals; one equal subjects herself to another equal. It is a matter of divine order and subordination, not an issue of superiority or inferiority.<\/p>\n

Verse 52<\/a> points out that Jesus developed in four areas: first, Jesus advanced in wisdom<\/em>; He developed mentally. Secondly, He advanced in stature<\/em>; He developed physically. Thirdly, He advanced in favor with God<\/em>; He developed spiritually. And fourthly, He advanced in favor with men<\/em>; He developed socially. As with all human beings, Jesus in His humanity, developed mentally, physically, spiritually and socially.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 Introduction This study on the birth of the Messiah will be based on the various birth-narratives found in the Gospels. We will study them in chronological sequence and learn about the birth of John the Baptist … <\/p>\n

\u201eThe Birth and Early Life of the Messiah\u201c <\/span>weiterlesen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1399","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1399","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1399"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1399\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1400,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1399\/revisions\/1400"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1399"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}