Nativity: the Christmas Story, Which You Have Never Heard Before

Nativity:

The Christmas Story, Which You Have Never Heard Before

Richard R. Racy

AuthorHouse™

1663 Liberty Drive, Suite 200

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.authorhouse.com

Phone: 1-800-839-8640

All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright© 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

© 2008 Richard R. Racy. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

First published by AuthorHouse 9/2/2008

ISBN: 978-1-4343-4081-8 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4678-5938-7(e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2007907273

Printed in the United States of America

Bloomington, Indiana

Contents

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER 8

CHAPTER 9

CHAPTER 10

CHAPTER 11

CHAPTER 12

CHAPTER 13

CHAPTER 14

CHAPTER 15

CHAPTER 16

CHAPTER 17

CHAPTER 18

CHAPTER 19

Dedication

Do Colleen, cara m’anama.

Acknowledgments

I want to express my thanks and appreciation to those who put up with me for two years and seven months and contributed to make this possible: Barbara Racy, who can spot a grammatical glitch like a barn owl looking for mice, for her diligent review of the whole manuscript; Grady Daniels, my friend and fellow academician, for invaluable critique and encouraging support; my long-time friend Mark Worley for applying his considerable talents to turning my idea for a book cover into a real piece of art; and especially, Colleen, much more than friend, counselor, or even buddy in all things Irish, my little treasure who started me writing my first book and directed me to crucial resources that made this manuscript what I wanted it to be and supported me through every effort as I went along.

Author’s Forward

I began composing this book in late November 2004, just as the Christmas season began. On television, there was an advertisement for another retelling of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol billed as the timeless Christmas classic. Before that Christmas, I counted at least two motion pictures (over thirty altogether historically), a modernized version on television, a musical version for television, at least one new dramatic television version, and a number of local theater productions (one of which appeared the year before and was an Irish version with Irish heroes and a leprechaun for the spirits). Now mind you, I really like Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. I usually watch them all. However, I did notice that while the basic plot elements were in tact and certain classic lines were kept in every version, no two versions told the same tale, and the liberties taken with the story varied from clever to ghastly. The question occurred to me about whether anyone today has ever read the original story as Dickens wrote it, especially with an understanding of London society of the Regency period that would have given so much cultural and spiritual depth to the story. Apparently, the timeless story is almost lost, and if it’s so classic, that is rarely respected.

The birth of Jesus is the real timeless Christmas classic—the Nativity. It is real; it actually happened. It is timeless for it originated in eternity and continues there. It transcends being classic; it is the perfect original of which everything based upon it is at best a poor analogue. Yet, it seems that the Nativity has fallen upon the same fate as Dickens’ story.

This book is about the Christmas story. As the subtitle suggests, you have probably never heard it before. You think you have, but you haven’t. What you have heard is some variation or another on a long-established traditional account that has not been seriously reconsidered except by scholars in many generations. You may also have seen any one of innumerable television specials produced for the Christmas season. Many of these, especially the older ones done in the fifties or maybe the early sixties, were reasonably reverent dramatizations of the story of Christ’s birth either in whole or in part. More recent television specials invented characters out the blue and presented stories of the Nativity from their fictional perspectives. The problem with all of these has been that they tended to Hollywoodize the story aiming to entertain with little regard for the historical accuracy or spiritual significance of the events, a fact made even more apparent by a big-budget motion picture that was released for the 2006 Christmas season as I was finishing the historical section of this book. Worse, as time has gone by, the entire season has been radically secularized with more stories about Santa Claus and Frosty the Snowman than about Jesus. In fact, many businesses have recently even begun eliminating the word Christmas let alone Nativity from their advertising and holiday decorations in favor of the secular yuletide and sophomoric and socially neutral Happy Holidays.

Worse than the fiction and shallowness of the above are the scholarly specials. These are the kinds that invariably show up around Christmas all having the common theme, stated or implied, that they are going to reveal the real story or the real Jesus. The result is usually a dismal distortion of the real history, and spiritually myopic notions of both Jesus and the Nativity story corrupted also nowadays by aberrant ancient ideas.

One time in the mid nineties, I attended a retreat at The Community of Living Water in Cornville, Arizona at which John Sandford, founder of Elijah House Ministries, gave some cultural background to various biblical narratives including the Nativity. I was fascinated. Just those few facts opened a whole new dimension of understanding of the story for me. I resolved to make use of it eventually, and that resolution has now produced this book.

I had begun intending to write a little book with some cultural and historical elements that I thought would straighten out a few of the oddities in the Nativity accounts. The more I studied, the more I realized the severity of the challenge against the Nativity account and the general weakness of the defense of it. So, as David before me had done with his sling and rocks, I decided to take on the giant. David chose five smooth rocks because Goliath had four brothers—he went loaded for all five, one rock per giant! I may or may not be in my way as good as David was, but I am a good shot! I had seen the giant, and I was not going to just let him get away.

So, I do not want to just entertain you—although I certainly hope to do that. In fact, parts of this read almost like a detective novel or an episode of CSI©.¹ I want to edify you. I want to reinvest the real Christmas story with some of its old gee golly! wonder. I want to resolve at least a number of questions, answer a few skeptics, stabilize your faith in the historical actuality of the events and the reliability of the biblical texts, but also open some new areas of thought and appreciation for the people and events surrounding Jesus’ birth. Some of this will be brand new to you, some intriguing, and some maybe even controversial (actually, for sure!), but all of it should be interesting and informative.

So, with all that in mind, let’s go—and oh, yes, Merry Christmas!

Richard R. Racy

Introduction

The biblical account of Jesus’ birth is probably the most well-known Christian story in the world as well as the most beloved of all Christian festivals among believers. Although not so popular among Early Church or mediaeval Christians, it has grown in popularity, perhaps in response to the need of an ever more violent earth, until now, it overwhelmingly dominates all Christian celebrations. In its commercial form, Christmas, laden with secular additions, corrupted with gross materialism, and culturally modified into so many versions that the original events are sometimes unrecognizable buried under foreign garb, the holiday is now the most universal single celebration in the world. Yet, the power of the original events is so strong that it manages to shine like the Star of Bethlehem through the insanely baroque distractions that clutter it.

Somehow, the original message of peace and goodwill manages to remain unsullied amid the ironic rancor over how to observe it. In the midst of the noise, glitz, and frequently shallow and all too often hypocritical posturing about love and joy, almost everyone, however briefly, eventually seems to realize they are passing through a moment profoundly sacred. Somehow, the image of the little Babe in the cold night in a lonely stable under a sky filled with angels manages to touch everyone sometime and make even the hardest heart quiver if only for an instant and the tender heart swell. Why?

Answering that question is partly what this book is about. Doing so involves three challenges. The first is to cut through all the inane modern bric-a-brac and retell the historical events in their native cultural setting with the unique miracles that enabled those events; this validates the historicity of the events and answers what happened the way it actually occurred. The second is to reassert the humanity of the real people who experienced Jesus’ birth and connect us to who the events happened to. The third is to examine the spiritual principles that explain the intent that came out of eternity to bring it all to pass, i.e. why it happened.

I have written this book to literally provide something for everyone. The main text is designed for a fun read filled with drama and insight into the exact nature of the events. Some very technical material has been provided in appendixes for those who may want or need more detailed support. It has historical and cultural information for those who want to be assured of the truth of the biblical accounts and who appreciate deeper understanding of historical events in the context of those times. I have discussions of the emotional and spiritual challenges of the characters for those who are edified by being able to personally identify with historical characters by understanding them as real people just like themselves and not just two-dimensional icons of religious tradition. Finally, for the academics of scholarly bent, I have consideration of fundamental theological and historical issues basic to the faith. Throughout, I will invest each discussion with biblical imagery as appropriate, a rich addition to the comprehension of all biblical topics that has not yet been given anywhere near the place it deserves in popular teaching.

This book can be trusted to be academically sound and verifiable. It will be equally a handy pastor’s desk reference, a college student’s manual for study, and the ordinary believer’s convenient resource whenever his faith is challenged by a co-worker. The extensive bibliography will serve as a resource guide to anyone wanting to verify content or study further on his own.

Before continuing, I want to state a few basic premises that guide this work. First, the Bible is the infallible, revelatory Word of God. It has no mistakes in its revelations. It is pure having nothing in it that defiles it. It is complete, not missing anything that should be there. There are no conflicts of substance between the biblical record and historical events or scientific facts. Any apparent conflicts can or eventually probably will be resolved by either a better understanding of what the Bible says or by the accumulation of more and better historical or scientific data because the God Who inspired the Bible knows more about both than we do. While we do need to refine our understanding of how God moved His eternal Word into literature through human agency, we must always keep in mind that to impugn the moral and spiritual authority and historical actuality of the Bible is to either imply that it is not God’s Word but just a bunch of myths or that God lacked either the integrity or power to protect it against corruption. Both are wrong. Second, miracles are real and normal. Finally, symbol and imagery are an integral and crucial aspect of the biblical text.

Part of my purpose is to address as many issues of skeptics as I can. There are three kinds of skeptics. The mouthy skeptic is the guy at work who always interrupts anything you say about spiritual things by asking what you do with all the contradictions in the Bible, or with some scandal or other, or some scientific idea he holds up as absolute. He will never be satisfied with any answer because he just wants to rationalize his willfulness to do as he pleases with no accountability. The second kind, the hostile skeptic is usually an adherent of his own religion or philosophy and doesn’t care if you can prove your point because he is out to win dominance for his own cause. There are, however, serious skeptics who, like St. Thomas, realize the significance of what we ask them to believe and are less interested in unbelief than they are in an acceptable rationale; they want proof. They want to put their fingers into the scientific or historical or philosophical nail prints. I respect these. When respected and answered rightly, they often come to experience the further realities that we who know Jesus offer to them. It is to these that I hope my responses to their concerns will be meaningful.

The historicity of the Nativity has often been drowned out in modern times. There are those who question whether Jesus ever existed at all. A few claim He was synthesized out of several local heroes by a new religion that needed a new icon, while others accept His historicity, but wonder about His nature. The point of origin is always the most critical for credibility. Therefore, the Nativity has been subjected to an avalanche of challenges from profane academics who wish to destroy its spiritual significance, from skeptics who wish to destroy its historical verity, from other religions that wish to revise it so they can assimilate what they wish for their own use without changing themselves, and from apostates who are still wrestling the Scriptures to their own destruction because their delusions are more preferable to them than God’s truth.

This book is on the birth of Jesus Christ and all the people, events, circumstances, imagery, and myths surrounding it. It is divided into three sections. The first section is about historical issues. The second is about personal spiritual journeys and challenges. The third is theological.

The historical issues of Section I are concerned with actual events as opposed to inner personal experience or interpretation. The book begins where the story begins, with Zacharias and the birth of John the Baptist. After introducing the story with Zacharias, I will move on to the historical events directly related to Joseph and Mary. First, I will discuss the marriage customs of the time to explain certain peculiarities in the way the text refers to Joseph and Mary. Next, I will explain the decree of Augustus. There is some scholarly discussion about exactly what this decree was really about and some severe issues arising from it concerning the historical reliability of the texts. I will address all that for the sake of acquainting believers with the academic and factual challenges to the biblical narrative. This will lead into a consideration of why Joseph took Mary with him on such a journey in her condition and a better description of where they ended up in Bethlehem than has usually been given.

The actual birth of Jesus is surrounded with unique elements. They begin with the fourth annunciation of the angels², this one to the shepherds. The annunciation of the angels has been distorted for centuries in English Bibles, and a proper understanding of what they actually said may be amazing to many modern Christians. Forty-one days after the birth, Jesus was taken for the ritual dedication and blessing, an event not frequently considered too deeply as part of the Christmas story but one that is important to Jesus’ advent.

It is here that I will turn aside briefly to give the reader a much better idea of how the Old Testament world of Israel we are familiar with turned into the New Testament word that is barely recognizable after leaving the Old Testament. This will also involve a short biography of Herod, including a thorough correlation of his life to the prophecies of Daniel that foretold of him, because the Christian’s full appreciation of the era of Jesus’ birth and even His birth date has been severely hampered by not knowing nearly enough about this amazing, brilliant, and psychotic king who has been reduced to a cardboard caricature villain in most of our minds. The story of Herod will bring us to the Magi and the Star—and a final resolution of Jesus’ birth date by finally bringing together all the previous information regarding the date of Jesus’ birth and adding somewhat more to present a sound defense of the date I believe to be the most accurate.

Few subjects of such apparent simplicity as the Wise Men following the Star have been the subject of so much controversy. A proper identification of who these men were, why they came at all, and how they knew the nature of the One they sought should be of considerable interest to the believer. As part of that, I will explain the significance of the gifts. The miracle of the Star, too, has contributed significantly to the debate and the controversy. It may be a bit disturbing at first, but further reflection, I am sure, will lead us to realize that God glorified His Son more through the truth of the historical events of the Star than He has through the superficialities of tradition. Those philosophically determined to deny all miracles and set to deny the existence of the Star at all will probably not like my presentation, but neither may those equally fixed on a simplistic explanation of the Star as a big flashlight in the sky carried by some angel turning it on and off at the right times. Properly understood, the Star is a blazing cosmic testimony of God’s sovereignty and Jesus’ glory but may challenge the fixed theological notions of at least a few.

Once we have the family safely back in Nazareth, it will be time to go into Section II and look at the personal journeys of the main characters. The object is put flesh and blood and emotion to the characters and let us feel what they went through. Every person in the story was faced with a major, life-transforming, foundation-shaking challenge in his or her own appointed portion. This was no ordinary birth. It was not even an ordinary miracle, if there is such a thing. It was a series of miracles of extraordinary nature at every turn initiating the greatest single event in all human history up to that point. Nothing was easy or simple for anyone involved. From old Zacharias stunned in the Temple to young Mary overwhelmed with responsibility to wicked Herod shaken to the core of his twisted soul, the birth of Christ, Who was to wrench the whole universe into a new form of life and destiny, began by challenging everyone even remotely associated with His birth with the most significant commitments of their lives. Section II will take a closer look at each person in turn and examine what they had to deal with.

Finally, Section III will look at the theology of the Nativity. The first subject is the Incarnation. Exactly Who was Jesus anyway? What is the nature of the Incarnation? Was Jesus pre-existent, and if so, how? What was He like then, and what happened to Him when He was born? Modern American Christians think this is all pretty simple, but it was hotly debated by the Early Church for centuries before a consensus was arrived at that satisfied scholars and saints as orthodoxy. Today, it is still debated even among traditional Christians. It raises questions of the nature of the Trinity as well as of Jesus.

Following directly on this is the subject of the Virgin Birth. Many dispute the reality of the Virgin Birth at all. Others accept it, but there, all agreement ends. Between the theological issues stemming from the Incarnation and the introduction of modern scientific evidence of everything from DNA—which has some extraordinary contributions to our understanding of how the virginal conception of Jesus is not only scientifically possible but necessary—to subtle energies, there is still a lively debate about exactly how Jesus came into the world. Complicating all this, the ancient Gnostics raised interpretations of their own that the Early Church had to deal with along with resolving their own questions, and many of those ancient variations have resurfaced in the Neo-Gnostic modern theology of New Thought and a few New Age groups with their metaphysical interpretations of Scripture. If the Church is to retain its viability in the atmosphere of this new religious era, it must have an educated body of believers who know the substance and issues of these doctrines and can discuss them knowledgeably and adroitly.

It is amazing how many people can get so upset over what appear to be such trivial issues as well as the big ones concerning Christ’s birth. There are theologians who can be stubbornly rigid about the date of Jesus’ birth and others positively rabid over whether we should even celebrate Christmas at all. Many of those who accept Christmas as a legitimate Christian holiday can then turn and become as rigid as their other brethren over what constitutes proper or biblically acceptable celebration. Probably no other targets have received more such contumely than Christmas trees and Santa Claus. We need to respect the seriousness with which so many take these issues. Regardless of what one may think of them or the subjects, the fact is that their concerns do arise from an appropriate regard for real biblical principles.

Therefore, the final part of this book will deal with the theology of holidays in general, of Christmas especially, and of the chief elements of modern Christmas celebrations that have drawn such fire. Depending on the disposition of the reader, my views may or may not be appreciated, but I will do my best to respect both the concerns of those who have difficulty with the holiday festivities as well as those who accept them all uncritically, and put it all into what I believe to be a proper biblical context.

Of course, these areas are not strictly separated. There is psychology and theology involved in the historical events just as there is history and theology in the personal journeys and deeply personal matters in the theology. Therefore, my divisions are practical, not strict. I have not attempted to be exhaustive in any area; that would turn this one volume into a small cyclopedia. There are any numbers of books on each subject that can give fuller detail for those who wish to pursue it. Unfortunately, many of those books are so academic in content and scholarly in style as to be rather unfriendly to the average reader. My attempt here is to combine in one volume a succinct and academically sound presentation of facts and logic that cover the whole subject comprehensively in a way accessible to all. At the end of reading, it is my intention that the reader will lay down the book with a reinvigorated appreciation of the Nativity and new joy in the story and the season.

Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version. All documentation follows the Modern Language Association (MLA) style as closely as possible; see the introduction to the Bibliography for further details.

SECTION I:

HISTORY AND CULTURE

CHAPTER 1

ENTER GABRIEL—THE STORY BEGINS

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

(John 1:6 KJV)

Introduction

A boiling pot in a wagon pulled by galloping horses over an old dirt road would hardly have been any more unsettled than the end of the last century BC — except no one knew it was end of the last century BC . They did believe that it was the end of an era; they just did not know what to expect. The Romans were expecting a new divine ruler to come out of the east at any time. All the astrological signs indicated that—and there were plenty of extraordinary signs, which everyone highly respected. It was a time of exceptional peace and prosperity, the beginning of the Pax Romana , the Roman Peace under the divine Augustus. The far eastern end of the empire was securely anchored by a bloody, sociopathic genius tyrant, Herod the Great of Judea, who had turned his backward agricultural country into marvels of urban prosperity and engineering innovation even if he had murdered half his family in the process.

Indeed, Judea was flushed with gold and glory, and torn by rival faiths and philosophies to the point that rebellion seethed just under the surface of every festival. The Pharisees were proclaiming the imminent appearance of a new messiah-king, the Romans were demanding loyalty oaths, and the faithful and the pagan jostled each other in prosperous but turbulent streets. In the middle of this tumult, quietly, without much public fanfare at all, the seam of space and time was ripped and the traditions of thousands of people and thousands of years were turned forever. An old priest of an ancient priesthood went alone quietly into the small and dimly lit interior of the opulent Temple built more for Herod’s pride than Jehovah’s³ glory and came face to face with a blazing messenger from the throne of the Living God—Gabriel.

The greatest adventure ever wrought had begun. The curtain had lifted on the greatest story ever told, Act One—the Nativity.

The Old Priest & the Angel: Zacharias and Gabriel

The story of Jesus’ birth begins with the birth of His cousin, John the Baptist.

Old Zacharias must have been a little nervous that spring day. He was about to go into the Holy Place alone and offer incense for prayers, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for any priest. He had been chosen by lot according to the Law, and with so many priests serving in any one course; few were ever chosen at all. His course was the eight of the twenty-four priestly divisions, the Abijah division, established by Solomon long ago. In all his years, this was his one chance. So, at the proper moment, he set himself and walked in with the dignity that befitted his station.

The Holy Place was small and dimly lit by only the Menorah on one table. Before him, separating him from the Holy of Holies wherein the very presence of Jehovah was, hung the veil. More like a stack of carpets a foot and a half thick held together by gold wire stitched into the figures of giant cherubim, and hung on huge gold rings on a wooden beam the size of a telephone pole, the veil absorbed all sound. The Holy Place was intensely quiet, intimately dark, a sacred solitude for holy work. Offering the spicy sweet incense and the ritual prayers, Zacharias, whose name meant Jehovah Remembers, also offered the supplication for God to remember His ancient prophecy for the return of the mighty Elijah before the day of the LORD (Mal. 4:5-6).

In the moment he lifted the prayer for Elijah, the little room came ablaze with shadowless light. Zacharias stood frozen in fear and awe. There, at the right side of the altar, as if light were coalescing out of the very mist of the incense, there emerged the glistening figure of him who stood in the presence of Jehovah—Gabriel. Knowing the old man’s heart, Gabriel’s first words were to calm, Fear not. Your prayer is heard.

What prayer? There were actually two prayers inextricably intertwined in a way that Zacharias had not comprehended until now. There was the ritual prayer for the return of Elijah, and there was the secret prayer of his and his wife, Elizabeth, for a son for she was barren. Now, Gabriel delivered his message that Zacharias and Elizabeth were to have their son, a miracle child as was Sarah’s ancient conception of Isaac or Hannah’s of Samuel. This child, who was to be named John contrary to the tradition of naming a son after an ancestor, was also to be the answer to the ritual prayer for Elijah for John was to come in the spirit and power of Elijah to prepare the people for the Messiah.

We may forgive Zacharias his human frailty. The fullness of Gabriel’s words rolled over him in waves of silent thunder. For over four hundred years, the land had lain in prophetic silence. In the last several decades, Israel had come to prosperity and peace but only under the blood-dark shadow of Herod. He could not accept it all. In the very presence of Gabriel on whose brow sat authority and in whose aura was certainty, he questioned how it could be for he could not believe past his age. Gabriel reassured him, but because Zacharias had not believed him, he set a sign upon him until the child was born—he took his speech. Then, he folded himself back into the light out of which he had emerged and left. The Holy Place was dim and quiet again. Just as Luke begins his story with the old priesthood in the Temple receiving the word that the promises were now beginning to be fulfilled, delivered to one named Jehovah Remembers, he ends his Gospel with the new priesthood joyfully worshipping God in the same Temple having seen the promises finally fulfilled because Jehovah never forgot them (Lk. 24:52).

Outside, the people wondered at Zacharias’ delay. When he emerged, he could not speak, so, he frantically gestured and probably managed to get something to write with and conveyed that he had seen a vision. This caused quite a stir. Whether the head priests allowed the details of such a revelation to be publicly disseminated is doubtful because there is no indication that any rumors arose about either a new prophet or the return of Elijah. According to the traditions, being married to the daughter of a priest (Lk. 1:5d) would have given him double honor. On the other hand, Zacharias lived in the foothills, not in either of the two principal priestly enclaves at Jericho or in the Ophel district inside Jerusalem. He would have been considered a common priest, not especially educated beyond his priestly duties. It is doubtful that the rulers of the priesthood with their more aristocratic attitudes would have taken such a vision too seriously from a rustic not part of their sophisticated circle.

There was also a larger consideration—Herod. King Herod was savagely jealous of his power. If a rumor that a priest had had a visitation of an angel inside the Temple regarding the return of Elijah had started circulating among an oppressed people spoiling for a fight with the Romans and sweltering under the reign of a cruel, Edomite⁴ king, the political consequences could have been disastrous. There had already been a serious collision between Herod and a group of Pharisees who had decided, based on their scholarship, that this generation was the time for the Messiah and the ruin of Herod’s reign. A vision of a priest about the Day of the Lord would have only thrown lamp oil on the fire. I believe that the priests decided collectively to just keep quiet about it all and wait to see what would happen assuming that if it were really an act of God about to occur that it would take care of itself. Elijah himself, the Prophet of Fire, had handled the 450 priests of Baal and King Ahab with no problem. So, they would have probably decided to rely on that anointing being with his successor too, and remained safely quiet. Perhaps, to satisfy the crowd, they let out a generic report that a priest had seen a vision of God’s glory.

Under these circumstances, Gabriel’s act to remove Zacharias’ speech was providential grace. According to the Law, Zacharias was now disqualified from serving as a priest (Lev. 21:16-23). That made it convenient for the leaders of the priesthood to quickly hustle him out of town to his isolated home in the foothills where he would not be so available to the public to publicize his vision. It also put him back with Elizabeth so that John’s conception would be on schedule. This just may help explain why Elizabeth went into seclusion once she became pregnant (Lk.1:24); it was safer. God, however, appears to have not been quite so concerned with this because He brought forth a rather explicit prophecy through Zacharias when his tongue was finally loosed at the time of John’s circumcision according to Gabriel’s word (Lk. 1:59-79).

Nevertheless, that prophecy was disturbing enough that Luke records that even though it was discussed throughout the hill country of Judea where Zacharias and Elizabeth lived, the people feared, keeping it all in their hearts and watching John to see what he grew into (Lk. 1:65-66). This supports my theory above that even though the groundwork was being laid for future events, the people were keeping it all rather quiet, probably for fear of the social consequences. At the time, one just did not wave such things in the face of either Rome or Herod. If they were genuinely convinced that all this was real and supernaturally driven, then, they had the history and social discipline to quietly wait on God for whatever was to happen next and not disrupt things by prematurely making it a public controversy beyond those who were directly involved. Besides, they were dealing with a baby who had decades to go before he was mature enough to fulfill such a prophecy.

This tacit collusion to keep these matters quiet within the village and its environs should not surprise us. Many times all across the world, we have seen small towns, rural areas, oppressed people, and tribes keep secrets from officials or oppressors about everything from scandals to military conspiracies even though large numbers of them knew all about it. Every military man knows that an invasion begins long before the armies hit the beach or cross the border. Many preparations must be made, commando raids are executed, and Fifth Columnists⁵ are developed for months preceding the invasion itself. God Almighty was turning the courses of the cosmos and history to prepare the way for the definitive turn in all history between the Fall and eternity. Gabriel’s quiet annunciation in the Holy of Holies was not even the first such act, just the most obvious up to that time. The people of Judea were quietly being prepared.

Reincarnation: Was John the Baptist Really Elijah?

Although John the Baptist does not figure in the Nativity story except for his conception and birth, his mere introduction raises two issues: his function (why was he introduced at all?), and reincarnation. His function is important because he was the forerunner of the Messiah, so, his presence gives Jesus’ arrival special significance and validity. Reincarnation is important because two statements regarding him have given non-Christians and neo-Christians a reason to claim that the Bible supports the concept of reincarnation.⁶

On the subject of reincarnation, the first Scripture used is Luke 1:17 He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah. It is claimed that John’s being in the spirit of Elijah without actually being Elijah indicated that he was the reincarnation of Elijah. This is wrong. The explicit prophecy is Malachi 4:5, Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. Taken literally, this prophecy led the priests and later the Pharisees to expect the real original Elijah to be returned to Israel to bring in the time of God’s judgment upon Israel’s oppressors, as they interpreted it. This was logically possible because Elijah had not known physical death; he had been caught up into heaven in a whirlwind generated by a chariot of fire (2 Ki. 2:11). (Christian theologians refer to such an experience as being translated.) To the priests and Pharisees, the fact that Elijah had been caught up alive into heaven meant that he could just as easily be sent back, therefore, they looked for his actual return, traditionally at Pentecost. None of this is workable in reincarnation, which at least requires the original person to die and then be brought back as a different person. Elijah did not die, and it was the original Elijah who was expected.

When priests came to inquire about who John was, they asked him if he were Elijah, and he plainly said that no, he was not (Jn. 1:19-20). If John were the reincarnation of Elijah, he was unaware of it. This is in full contradiction of the frequent claim of many that they know of at least one past life and are using it to help guide their present life. Surely, knowing that he had been Elijah would have been extremely important to John in being a prophet then. Yet, he was fully aware that he was only fulfilling the prophecies regarding Elijah. In verse 23, he says, "I am ‘The voice of one crying, In the wilderness, make straight the way of the LORD, ‘ as the prophet Isaiah said."⁷ This passage was always associated with the prophecy of Elijah in Malachi quoted above. It strikes me that John would have been a pretty poor prophet if he knew he was fulfilling the prophecies about Elijah but did not know that he was the reincarnation of the Elijah the prophecies were about.

Later, Jesus took up this same issue. The context of that is extremely significant. Matthew 17:1-11 and Mark 9:1-12 record the event on the Mount of Transfiguration. In this event, Jesus took Peter, James, and John with Him up onto a mountain, and while they were there, a cloud of glory settled upon them, and Jesus was transfigured in their sight. They were allowed to glimpse His inner nature as the Son of God and also that of His ultimate glorification as a resurrected man as He would be after He returned to His Father. It is important to note that Moses, who had died, and Elijah, who had not died, both also appeared with Jesus in that glory. After the event was concluded and the glory cloud had lifted, Jesus told them to not disclose the vision until after He had risen from the dead. The disciples knew enough of the prophecies to realize that Elijah was supposed to return before all that, yet, Jesus was telling them to not tell about it. Apparently, they considered Elijah’s appearance with Jesus on the mount to be the fulfillment of the prophecy that he would return, and they were puzzled over why they should not tell it. So, they asked, Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first? Jesus answered:

Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. (12) But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands." (13) Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist. (Matt. 17:11-13)

Notice that Jesus said that Elijah had already come and that they had done to him what they pleased. That Elijah has come already referred to John the Baptist, which the disciples recognized. Clearly, John could not also be Elijah because the original Elijah had just appeared to them on the mount as himself, Elijah. That they [had done] to him whatever they wished referred to Herod’s murder of John in response to Herodias’ request (Mk. 6:17-28). So, John was dead, but he did not show up on the mount as either John or Elijah. The reason is because John was not the reincarnation of Elijah. The real, original Elijah appeared with Jesus and Moses on the mount; John remained in his rest in the spirit-realm and made no further appearance at all. Gabriel’s reference to John’s coming in the spirit and power of Elijah clearly referred to exactly that, a spiritual, metaphorical return in the person of one who was similar to Elijah in personality and spirit, a chip off the old block so to speak, who would minister under the same kind of anointing. Reincarnation, even if it were a legitimate spiritual phenomenon, which it is not, is totally irrelevant to Elijah and John the Baptist.

Six Months or Twelve Years?: John’s & Jesus’ Birthdates

At this point, we need to take a short look at an issue regarding the birthdates of John and Jesus. Traditionally, it has always been assumed that John was about six months older than Jesus. There is, however, an academic question as to whether John may have been as much as twelve years older than Jesus. This theory has been especially used by skeptics. The timing of Elizabeth’s pregnancy is crucial to setting a date for Jesus’ birth; however, the full significance of that issue will be discussed later in the chapter devoted to the date. Right now, it is enough to know that this matter is not some idle preoccupation of scholars that the every-day Christian may ignore. Actually, it is at the heart of a few of the most important questions about the historical validity of the biblical texts. So, I want to look at whether it is a serious possibility that John was so much older than Jesus.

First, those who believe in a twelve-year age difference find significance in the tenses of the verbs. In Luke 1:31-37, every statement of Gabriel’s is in the future tense, e.g. "you will conceive"; no time limit is given. Technically, that is true, but in the context, the future could just as well have been twelve minutes later as twelve years. Besides, Gabriel seems to emphasize the very imminence of her conception by calling her attention to the fact that Elizabeth had already conceived, implying that the intention of God had already begun manifesting and was now settling upon Mary in that very moment.

Second, they call attention to the fact that although Elizabeth refers to Mary’s baby in the present tense in v. 42 ("Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!), she uses the future tense in v. 45 ( there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her). They connect this to Deuteronomy 28:4 (Blessed shall be the fruit of your body…"), and assert that just as God was obviously making a reference to general future blessings in Deuteronomy, Elizabeth was only acknowledging that God had commanded His blessing without necessarily confirming that Mary was already pregnant.

There are several problems with this interpretation. First, everything Gabriel said was future until Mary accepted it and yielded to God’s call, which she did right on the spot. There is no textual or logical reason not to believe that the miracle of virgin conception was worked upon her right there in Gabriel’s presence in the moment she said, Let it be to me according to your word. Such an immediate inauguration of God’s word once accepted by the one who was called is a typical pattern in the Old Testament. There is no reason it was not consistently so here. When Elizabeth said that there would be a performance of the promises, she could possibly have meant that to include a conception that had not already taken place, but just as easily could have meant that everything else that had been promised to Mary was as certain in the future as her pregnancy was certain in the present. This would seem to be confirmed by Mary who says in her Magnificat, "For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed, and For He Who is mighty has done great things for me. The word henceforth" is the Greek nun, and is the primary particle of present time equal to now and can also mean present or immediately. Combine that with her saying that God has done great things for me, indicating an accomplished fact, and it is clear that Mary herself was declaring that she had already entered into the venture, not that she was anticipating some future event; i.e., she was already pregnant and knew it.

There is no point in even referring to the text in Deuteronomy because that was a blanket statement of general blessings for the whole nation as an on-going dynamic whereas Gabriel’s statement was a specific promise to a single person regarding a unique, one-time event. Such a comparison is apples-and-oranges.

Some of this is also based on the speculation that later scribes misunderstood and miscopied Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar mistaking the Greek reference for two for fifteen.⁸ While this is technically a theoretical possibility due to the way the Greeks wrote their letters and used letters to represent numerals, all other textual evidence operates against it. Besides, it assumes, once again, that the biblical text must be in error but that the theory of a historian must be credible. Such a scribal typographical error would need an abundance of other evidence in the Scripture and from other sources to prove it was an error, and there is no such support. It is just another outlandish stretch of the imagination that does not integrate with the rest of the facts.

The twelve-year length of time between the two births that skeptics and a few Christian scholars use is also partly derived from the chronological difficulties in reconciling the date of Jesus’ birth stated by Matthew and that given by Luke. That will be dealt with in chapter four. Suffice it to say that such a situation would have also necessitated a twelve-year betrothal between Joseph and Mary, or at least a very long one. This actually would have been possible in that era but only under exceptional circumstances. Arranged marriages were frequently made early either by parents who wanted their families united for practical reasons or because the marriage was desirable but had to wait for the prospective husband to collect the bride price, which could have taken a while if he were poor.⁹ However, because there is no other practical reason to believe that there was such a long gap between John’s birth and Jesus’, it is a moot point.

CHAPTER 2

TENDER ANGEL—

GABRIEL WITH MARY AND JOSEPH

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:

(Matthew 1:18 KJV)

Introduction

W e must now turn our attention to Joseph and Mary historically and culturally—their betrothal, Joseph’s near-termination of their relationship, their marriage, their dealing with the world around them. It might be asked why we need to be so inquisitive. There are at least three reasons.

First, if we are going to base our faith and conduct, the development of our souls on the Bible as God’s Word, then we must verify that it is true. It must be shown that everything in it makes sense, is historically accurate—or at least plausible if the events cannot be objectively verified—when it speaks of historical events, and is internally consistent in its themes. Many sincere men may study the Bible and disagree responsibly about the meaning, priorities, or application of it, but if it is not the true and trustworthy Word of God given by God Himself (considered in the context of how He was working with men when He gave it), then, its verity is broken. It is just another bunch of myths. In that case, all interpretations are valid, meaning that no interpretation has any real authority. There are peculiarities in the text that raise legitimate questions, so, they must be properly addressed.

Second, because this is the record of the most sacred single family is all human history and one of them almost rejected the other, their story has become a theological football on the subject of divorce. Extreme conservatives, extreme liberals, and all in between have sought to understand Joseph and Mary’s relationship and then to capitalize on it for the benefit of their own doctrinal positions. I will not try to address the issue of divorce as a moral or theological question. I will try to explain what they did and why in the context of the biblical Law and the cultural circumstances of that time.

Finally, whatever we derive from the Nativity story for our own use cannot help but be improved by an accurate understanding of what actually happened and why.

Shadow over the Holy Family: Betrothal and Divorce

I will discuss Mary personally and the issue of the Virgin Birth later. Here, we are concerned with history. Mary would surely have known about Zacharias’ visitation by Gabriel. She was, after all, a member of the family, being Elizabeth’s kin (Lk. 1:36), and even if people were keeping it all quiet, the family would have known. Jewish families were and still are close-knit, and such a thing would not likely have been hidden from the family. However, it is clear that she did not know that Elizabeth had actually become pregnant; Gabriel had to tell her that. At this point, Mary had just received her annunciation from Gabriel, and as I see it, she immediately left to see Elizabeth, who was probably in her fifth month.

At the very greeting of Elizabeth by Mary, John leaped within Elizabeth’s womb, a clear token of spiritual discernment by John of the presence of Jesus as well as a token of spiritual consciousness in the womb. Mary then broke out in a prophetic song of worship known as the Magnificat, the elements of which closely