What was Paul’s background? Paul was trained to be a Pharisee and he seemed to be top of his class (Ac 22:3; Pp 3:4-6). He was also a Roman citizen (Ac 22:27) which gave him special privileges. Peers would say he had it all—all that any Jew could ever hope for—wealth, special spiritual training, respect of their Jewish leaders and all the privileges that a Roman citizen could receive. Paul also had a zeal for doing God’s work—just misguided. No one else could see his potential, but it was truly clear to God.

So, why was Paul’s background so important? Well, let me ask you. If you were going to accomplish a paradigm shift: going from using a Jewish nation to individuals and not just Jewish individuals but Gentile individuals also, who would you want to help accomplish that? You would need someone who could understand Jewish law and how that now relates to the teachings of Christ. You would need someone that could stand up to criticism of this new paradigm and be able to defend it with Jewish scripture. You would need someone who could gain the respect of the Gentiles as well. What better person than Paul? He had special training in Jewish law. There was no one who could argue he did not know the Jewish Scriptures. He had originally hated the Christians, so he could identify with how the Gentiles must feel going from their current culture to becoming a Christian which would seem rather foreign at first. He would be able to tease out from Scripture what was necessary for the Gentiles and what was optional and was just Jewish tradition. He could tease out the meaning behind the Jewish traditions and not just feel the tradition, in itself, was sufficient. He could put Christ’s teachings into their proper Jewish scripture context and explain it in a way that would make sense to the Jew as well as to the Gentile. Yes, God needed someone like Paul. And Paul did not let God down. Yet, God had to be quite blunt with Paul and stop him dead in his tracks in order to get his attention (Ac 9:1-6). Once on the right road, however, there was no stopping him.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

So, how many apostles are there? It seems the number has always been reported as 12. Jesus had twelve disciples, but Judas betrayed him and committed suicide. Peter initiated a replacement and Matthias was chosen (Ac 1:12-26). Then, later, Paul states that God called him to be an apostle (Ac 9:15; Ro 1:1). So, are there 12, 13, or 14 apostles? Well, if we take at face value that the information in Revelation is speaking of the future, it seems to indicate there are only 12 (Rv 21:14). If this is true, how do we come to grips with this? Well, let’s go through this step by step.

The first question would be did Judas have faith in Jesus as the Messiah before he died? There are several things that would seem to indicate he did not. Several scriptures suggest Judas did not have faith in Christ’s reason for coming (Jn 17:12; Ps 41:9). This point is addressed more fully in my book, Why is a Gentile World Tied to a Jewish Timeline?. However, Peter, knowing the state of Judas, and knowing that scripture stated he should be replaced (Ac 1:20; Ps 109:8), likely felt Judas had not been a true follower of Christ, and is likely one of the reasons Peter was advocating a replacement for him. However, let’s look at the circumstances around this event. This was on the heels of the disciples seeing Christ ascend back into heaven. But let’s see what Christ told the disciples. Christ stated the disciples were to go to Jerusalem and wait for the Holy Spirit (Ac 1:4, 8). Peter, as his previous actions imply, was not a patient person. He was a man of action—sometimes to his detriment. Yet, he was definitely a leader. Perhaps because there was not a specific time given to them and knowing that the Feast of Pentecost (Weeks or Shavuot) was fast approaching, which would bring a lot of activity, Peter may have felt they should be doing something. However, if Jesus had wanted the disciples to choose another disciple at this time, it is likely he would have given that request before his ascension or even chosen another before his ascension. Remember, Christ’s request was for them to wait. Waiting usually implies just that—to wait.

The other thing to look at is how the decision was made. They used lots (Ac 1:26). This is similar to flipping a coin and making a decision as to whether it lands heads or tails. Now, granted, this was not something unusual. The casting of lots was a customary thing to do to know if a decision was of the gods or not (Jh 1:7). However, for the Jews, this was usually done by the High Priest (using Urim and Thummim; Nu 27:21) because they were expecting an answer from the One True God. Sometimes lots were cast (Nu 26:55) and God was expected to be in the correct decision of the lot. Therefore, Peter most likely thought this was an acceptable way of making the decision. After all, they did pray before casting the lot. However, the way this was done, a decision would be made whether God was in the decision or not. Two candidates (Justus and Mathias) were chosen, and the lot was to choose which one would become the replacement for Judas. Once the Holy Spirit came to indwell each believer, the need for lots was no longer required as the Holy Spirit could minister and impress upon one’s human spirit the right course of action. Maybe this was why Jesus asked the disciples to wait for the Holy Spirit? I am sure both of these men were very good men, or the disciples would not have put them up for nomination. It is interesting that scripture does not mention Mathias again after this selection process. Could this be a silent statement of scripture that this was not really God’s plan? Did the disciples know their error after the Holy Spirit came to indwell them? Again, scripture is silent. However, if Paul was indeed called to be an apostle, as he claimed (see 30-Jan-2013 post), then Paul would complete the 12, and not Matthias. It seem obedience is always the best choice.

A caveat here, though. The Bible does not condemn Peter for his actions, so we can’t know for sure if this was indeed rash on his part or not. As they say, time will tell. Or, in this case, eternity. There does seem to be historical evidence that Matthias was just as dedicated to the spreading of the gospel as any of the other apostles and met a martyr’s death as did almost every apostle.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Paul definitely claimed to be an apostle (Ro 11:13; 1Co 9:1; 2Co 12:12; Gal 2:8; 1Tm 2:7; Tt 1:1) and even claimed his appointment as an apostle was given by God (Ro 1:1; 1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1; Ga 1:1; Ep 1:1; Cl 1:1; 1Tm 1:1). So was there any proof of this being true? There were two things that usually defined an apostle: (1) being an eye witness to Jesus Christ and (2) being able to do signs, wonders and miracles (2Co 12:12).

Paul was born under the name Saul in the city of Tarsus, Cilicia (which is now part of Turkey) around 3 to 5 AD. Therefore, by the time Jesus was crucified, Paul would have been around 30 years of age. Since Paul was taught by Gamaliel (Ac 22:3), who was a key figure in the Sanhedrin in the middle of the first century and the grandson of the great Jewish teach Hillel the Elder, it is likely Paul would have met Jesus during his lifetime since he would have been in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus’ ministry. Yet, he would likely have been opposed to the teachings of Jesus like many of the other Pharisees would have been. Therefore, he would not have had an intimate relationship with Jesus and his teachings—at least not until Jesus met him on the road to Damascus (Ac 9:1-9). It really shows how Paul had the zeal to serve God, but his zeal was just misguided. After he understood that Jesus was indeed Lord, he had the same zeal to serve Jesus Christ as he did previously to stamp out those proclaiming to be Christians. This wasn’t the only experience with Jesus Christ, though. We find that he had a vision where he was translated into the third heaven and heard inexpressible things (2Co 12:4). This was an experience not held by any other apostle. This likely occurred not too long after his conversion—maybe when he spent his time in Arabia (Ga 1:17). This is also likely when God revealed to him the mystery of the church and how the Gentiles will be heirs with Israel (Ep 3:4-11; Cl 1:25-17), and how the rapture will occur before Christ’s second coming (1Co 15:51-52; 1Th 4:13-18). Do these events not qualify him for the first criterion of being an apostle?

Miracles were usually characteristics of an apostle. One could point out that Stephen, who was a deacon, also performed miracles (Ac 6:8). Yet, as the church grew, the people capable of miracles remained mainly around those characterized as apostles (2Co 12:12). There were many miracles that were accomplished by Paul: he told Elymas that he would become blind for a season, and he did (Ac 13:9-11); he performed signs and wonders in Iconium (Ac 14:3); he healed a crippled man in Lystra (Ac 14:8); he healed a demon possessed girl in Philippi (Ac 16:18); he performed extraordinary miracles in Ephesus where people were healed with handkerchiefs that had touched him (Ac 19:11-12); he brought Eutychus back to life in Troas (Ac 20:9-10), and even though bitten by a poisonous viper, he had no ill effect from it (Ac 28:3-6).

Based upon these criteria, it would seem Paul would meet the criteria for being called an apostle. So what about Matthias who was chosen by Peter and the disciples shortly after Christ’s ascension (Ac 1:12-26)? And what about Judas? Do we have 12, 13 or 14 apostles? We will discuss this next time.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

In the last few posts we have talked about several different kinds of Biblical conundrums. The reason these conundrums (or paradoxes or antinomies) are there is because God is a part of them. We cannot fully understand God, how He works, or even why He works as He does. Therefore, He and His actions appear conundrum-like to us. I think this is one reason why so many people have trouble with the Gospel message. In one case it is quite simple and even a child can understand and accept it. However, the more deeply you think about it, the more complicated and anti-logical it seems and since people cannot rationalize it in their mind, they are skeptical of believing something that seems paradoxical.

So, how does one come to grips with all this? Well, first we need to understand how we think about God. What is your view of God? Do you want a God you can logically understand and figure out? Yes, it makes Him seem more rational, but is that how big a God you really want? If I can figure God out, how can I really expect Him to handle all the things I can’t figure out? I want a God who is bigger than what I can conceive, and who can do more than I can imagine—One who is totally mind-blowing! Isn’t that the kind of God you want? If that is the case then you want a God who is a conundrum, whose works are paradoxical, and who can make antinomies true. If that is the kind of God you want, then the next step is really not that big.

What step am I talking about? Faith. It is the glue that ties all these Godly conundrums together for us. If we want and believe in a God who is like we just described, then all we have to do is accept Him: who He is (a conundrum) as described in the Bible (Trinity), what He has done for us (a paradox) that we cannot do ourselves (salvation), and how he works and draws people to Himself (an antinomy) and makes us his (you can call it free will or predestination). This acceptance is by faith. It is what God requires. You can go only so far on human logic. It almost gets you there—but not quite. There is still a small gap. It is like Indiana Jones when he was seeking the Holy Grail to save his father. He was almost there. He could see where he needed to go but he couldn’t quite get there with his own efforts. He had to take that step of faith. It didn’t seem right. It didn’t seem logical. But he was desperate and so he took that step that in his mind would plummet him to his demise. However, the step was firm. It didn’t make sense—at first. But it was only after taking that step that it all made sense, and he was able to complete his mission and save his father. Are you at that place? You are almost there but the next step just does not seem logical. Trust me. Just take that step. Only after taking that step can the conundrum, the paradox, the antinomy of God begin to make sense. You will never fully understand Him, but you will know you can trust Him. That, my friend, makes all the difference.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

This topic may be a little scary for some and one may wonder why I have brought up such a controversial subject. After all, this debate has actually split congregations into different denominations. The Bible does teach both (Ro 8:29, Jn 3:16) but they seem almost opposite in definition, so how could they both be true? Ah, is that not a true antinomy? So, how do we deal with such a topic? Some have divided into camps: one states that God sees what man is going to do and so a person is predestined to know him, another states that God foreordained some to finally know Him and others to not. Free will versus predestination: yes, it can make one’s head hurt if you think too long and try to reconcile the two with human logic. So what is one to do? Some say that this is not a crucial belief for one’s salvation, so we can just agree to disagree. Well, that is certainly true. But I had to ask myself, do I have to choose. Since the Bible supports that both are true and that all scripture comes from God (2Tm 3:16), can I rectify this in my mind without twisting my brain into knots?

After thinking further, I think the answer is that not only are both true, but they are the same thing. Preposterous you say? I think we have to know that human logic is not the same as God’s logic (Is 55:9).I also think God has provided us evidence of this in the natural world so we can apply it in the spiritual world. The picture at the beginning of this post is the first example. The picture is an ambigram where it can be read as either wave or particle. The electromagnetic spectrum, including visible light, can be considered as a wave or as a particle. This is known as wave-particle duality where light can be viewed as a wave or as a particle but not both simultaneously. The same seems to be true with electrons and other subatomic particles as well. This would seem to imply that we don’t really understand these particles because they can’t be one or the other. And that is what has happened because along came string theory to try to better “interpret” these particles as being like a one-dimensional string that vibrates and the frequency of vibration will define what type of subatomic particle one is describing. Even this theory doesn’t explain everything, but I think you get the point. We have a particle but we don’t fully understand it, but we know you can look at it from different perspectives yet it is still describing the same particle.

Now, doesn’t that sound similar to this spiritual concept? You can view one’ acceptance of Christ as either free will or predestination but you can’t reconcile them together. This means that it is not really one or the other, we just have not been able to understand the true concept. So, this means you can look at this as predestination or free will and you will be describing the same concept—just not fully, because the true understanding is something in between. Perhaps that is why Paul did not try to explain the predestination concept because it really is not different from free will after all. It may appear different to us but not to God. God fully understands it. We just need to accept it.

Is that hard to swallow? Well, scientists no longer fight over an electron or other subatomic particle being a particle or a wave or a string. They have come to accept that these are all true, but inaccurate, descriptions of the same concept. They accept that. Is that faith? They may not say so, but if we accept something without fully understanding it, isn’t that faith? Isn’t that what God expects of us? We don’t have to understand Him to accept Him. It is all possible with faith.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Why would I say salvation is a paradox? Well, God states that salvation is something He provided for us, and there is nothing we can do ourselves to earn it. Therefore, if we work toward our salvation, we cannot attain it; but if we don’t work for it, we attain it. See, doesn’t that sound like a paradox? However, there is a logical answer to this mysterious statement.

Adam’s act of disobedience—actually, rebellion (read chapter 4 of my book, Why is a Gentile World Tied to a Jewish Timeline?) forever separated mankind from God. This is a chasm that mankind cannot bridge. Our best is still counted as equivalent to a filthy rag to God (Is 64:6). Therefore, we were forever destined to be separated from God. However, God loved us so much that He decided to bridge this gap for us. The second person of the Godhead, who became Jesus Christ, became known as the Son of God, came, and died on the cross for the payment of all of mankind’s sin: past, present, and future. All of the work needed to restore us to God was done by God. This neither means our salvation is cheap nor is it automatic. Jesus Christ paid a huge price. Although he was God, he came in human flesh and sacrificed his life for us. This was a payment God required for sin. The past sacrifices had been done, and were required to be done, on a repeated basis. These sacrifices were instituted to show that mankind cannot get to God on works alone, and pointed toward the one Messiah who was to come to be the ultimate sacrifice, and pay the universal debt these animal sacrifices could not pay. Also, God is spirit and, therefore, each personality of the Godhead was spirit. By Jesus Christ coming in human form, he forever remained human so he will always identify with us—in human form when he was present on earth, and in glorified form in our eternal future. Jesus Christ paid the necessary price to restore our relationship with God; however, each individual must accept that offering. It is not granted automatically. God is not going to force this gift on us if we are not willing to accept it. Although the price was great, it’s acceptance is available to all just by the act of acceptance, with humility.

Faith is the element that is need for our salvation’s acceptance. To accept what has been done for us, we have to accept, by faith, that this is our only way for being accepted by God: not on our own merit but on the merit of Jesus Christ alone. There is no work, no act, no moral goodness that we can rely on for God’s acceptance of us. It must be on Jesus Christ alone. There is no other name on which we can be saved (Ac 4:12).

Connected to this, and tied to this paradox, is the virgin birth of Christ. Without his virgin birth, there is no way Christ’s act of salvation could be possible for us. There is no human that can pay for the sin of even one person, much less that of all mankind. Without His virgin birth, there would be no salvation. Therefore, belief in Christ’s virgin birth is essential to our salvation. Just as faith is needed to trust in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection for our right standing with God, faith is also needed to believe in Christ’s virgin birth. Both are essential. The latter cannot be achieved without the former being true.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

The idea of God being Trinity is a little hard for humans to comprehend. However, this concept is definitely supported in Scripture. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament supports this view of God. Here are three examples from Scripture:

1. In the first verse of the Bible it states, “In the beginning God [Elohim] created…” (Gn 1:1). Here we have a plural noun with a singular verb. In the next verse we have, “…the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” One, of course, could argue that this does not necessarily support God being exactly triune, but it does support it. It does, however, show that God is multi-dimensional.

2. When God visited the Israelites at Mt. Sinai after they left Egypt under the leadership of Moses, God first appeared to them as a cloud of fire and smoke that settled onto the mountain (Ex 19-20); He then met with Moses and several of the leaders and ate with them (Ex 24:9-11); He then descended in Spirit form on the leaders so they could discern wisely (Nu 11:24-25). Therefore, we have the three components of the Godhead: the first person of the Godhead who appeared as fire and smoke, the second person of the Godhead who appeared in human form to them, and the third person of the Godhead who descended upon them as Spirit.

3. When Jesus Christ was baptized by John the Baptist (Mt 3), we have the second person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ, who was in human form; and we have the third person of the Godhead, God the Holy Spirit, descending upon Jesus as a dove (Mt 3:16); and we have the first person of Godhead, God the Father, speaking from heaven, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased” (Mt 3:17).

If we put all three of these together, we have a multidimensional God, and in two places (both Old and New Testament) presenting God as triune.

The reason I call this concept a conundrum is that this concept is indeed a great mystery. Our human brains just cannot truly grasp a concept that God is three individuals in one. It is not really a paradox because although we can believe the concept to be true, we cannot truly rationally describe or understand it. I don’t think it is really an antinomy either because we are not really comparing two different concepts. Many have used various metaphors to try and explain it (like water can exist in three phases, solid, liquid, and gas); however, these are not exact parallels in concept.

They seem to be three individual personalities but composed of one will. We know that Jesus Christ stated that he was one with the Father (Jn 10:30) and stated that he existed even before Abraham (Jn 8:58). However, we also know that the relationship between each of these personalities can change. Before Jesus Christ came to earth in the form of us humans, he was spirit (Jn 4:24). When He ascended back to heaven he did not return as spirit and re-enter the same relationship with God the Father; he returned to the Father as our High Priest and mediator as a man (1Tm 2:5), but in glorified form, a form that we one day will also have (1Jn 3:2).

This concept about God may be hard to understand but we know that Jesus Christ came to present truth (Jn 18:37). Therefore, we can trust this concept. Although hard to understand, we can see that it makes sense because it makes God the most perfect relationship builder—ever! We truly serve a unique and holy God. Hallelujah!

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

The picture presented here is known as a Möbius band. It is a three-dimensional object but has only one side. If you draw a line starting at a point on the band you will end back at the same spot from where you started and there would be no reverse side without that same line you drew. So is this a conundrum, a paradox, an antinomy or a contradiction? Well, let’s first look at their definitions.

Conundrum: This is a statement that is puzzling or mysterious

Paradox: Two statements that at first appear to be contradictory but can be rationally resolved.

Antinomy: Two statements that at first appear to be contradictory and cannot be rationally resolved but are both considered true.

Contradiction: Two statements that are not in agreement.

Depending upon one’s point of view, it could be considered any of these. It is a conundrum because it is mysterious how a band could have only one side. It could be considered a paradox because we know how it was created so it has a solution. It could be considered an antinomy because in true three-dimensional space, it does not seem to follow what we know about three dimensional objects. It probably would not be a contradiction since it is known to exist.

What about these concepts from a Biblical point of view? Well, I thought we would explore a few Biblical concepts over the next few weeks that fit these definitions. From these definitions, one could ask the following:

 1. Is a paradox or antinomy a subset of a conundrum?

I think it would not be incorrect to say ‘yes’ since both a paradox and an antinomy are mysteries that one tries to solve. However, from a Biblical point of view, there may be some subtle differences. For example, many may say that Ezekiel’s statements about the King of Tyre (Ek 28) is a conundrum because it poses the question of whether it is about the human king of Tyre, about Satan’s downfall, or both? While mysterious, I don’t think it falls into a paradox or antinomy. Paul also stated that the church was a ‘mystery’ that was revealed to him (Ep 3). The church is somewhat of a conundrum in that it is somewhat of a mystery as to how it fits into Old Testament prophecy of Christ’s first and second coming. I think we could say that a paradox or antinomy is a conundrum but not all conundrums are either a paradox or antinomy.

2. How can one know that an antinomy is not an unresolved paradox or an actual contradiction? In most cases, one cannot. However, if we assume that the Bible is inerrant then a Biblical statement or concept cannot be a contradiction. It is possible that an antinomy is an unsolved paradox. However, that is somewhat immaterial as to the truth of the Biblical concept. For example, when Jesus stated that the person who saves his life will lose it and if he loses his life he will save it (Lk 17:33) seems paradoxical until one really understands the principle Jesus is teaching. We can understand the meaning: if one denounces Christ in this present life then he will forfeit his life in the next but if one sacrifices his life in this present life to serve Christ he will gain an eternal life in the one to come. If we consider the principle that the Bible teaches both free will and predestination, then, at least to our current understanding of these concepts, we cannot reconcile them even though we know both must be true because the Bible teaches both. Therefore, this is an antinomy. However, if we can resolve these two concepts either by redefining or understanding these concepts differently or finding a way they can be reconciled together, then it becomes a paradox. However, as stated, even if it stays an antinomy, it does not decrease its truthfulness.

We could also ask the question of whether it matters if these Biblical questions need to be characterized? Probably not, but I think it does help us put them into a better context. As we go forward in the next few weeks, we will take some of these and discuss. However, there are many that people have identified, so we will have to pick and choose. If you have a favorite, let me know.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Last time we talked about what the Jewish audience to whom John and Jesus preached would have been thinking when spoken to about the “kingdom of God.” So, it would appear they were speaking of a literal kingdom. After all, the mere word ‘kingdom’ implies a king, subjects over whom to rule, and a land over which to govern. So, that makes sense. But if that was the case then, what happened to make so many people think it is something spiritual rather than something literal?

I think one thing that has led to this is the misconception that Jesus came to change things. Therefore, a change in definition would not seem too out of line since he changed so many things. Jesus certainly did come to challenge and to correct but not to change. It wasn’t that the Jewish leaders were wrong in applying the Law—just in their way of executing it. They were making man-made “laws” equivalent to God’s Law, and it caused a misapplication of what God had originally intended. Therefore, Jesus did not come to change the Law or to null the Law but to fulfill it. Jesus himself stated this: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Mt 5:17-18).

But wait a minute, you may say, Paul stated that we are no longer under Law but under grace. That is true but not because Jesus did away with the Law. After all, if Jesus did away with the Law even the Ten Commandments would be null and void, but they are still in effect. So, how do we put this together? We must recognize that a large part of the Law was prophecy. When a prophecy is fulfilled, you don’t go back and say the prophecy is in effect. It is now a done deal and, in some way, null and void—not because it won’t happen but because it did happen. The same is true here. Jesus fulfilled the Law. He was the one to whom all the sacrifices and rituals pointed. When he came, died, was buried, and rose again, these animal sacrifices and rituals were made null and void. Again, not because the concept was no longer needed, but because Jesus fulfilled the concept. A sinless sacrifice was needed, and Jesus fulfilled that requirement. There is no longer a need to use an older system when something newer is now in effect. Therefore, Paul could say he was dead to the Law because he was now alive in Christ, the fulfillment of the Law. And we can only keep the Ten Commandments because of the Holy Spirit who indwells us—not because we can do it ourselves.

So . . . if Christ did not come to change but to fulfill, how does that relate to the term “kingdom of God.” Well, he was preaching He was the fulfillment of that—if only the people and the Jewish leaders would accept him. He was also referring to a literal kingdom and not a spiritual kingdom.

Let’s look at a few scriptures where the misalignment has occurred. To better understand, we will need to look at the context of what was said and not just what was being said.

The scripture that has been the linchpin of Christ teaching a spiritual kingdom has been Luke 17:20-21: Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘there it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” The Greek word for ‘within’ is entos. While it can mean ‘within,’ it can also mean ‘among’ or ‘midst.’ So, how do we know which one is implied? We need to look at the context surrounding the statement. Jesus was talking to the Pharisees so it would seem odd to say to them that the kingdom of God was within them. After all, Jesus had called them “hypocrites,” “whitewashed tombs,” and that they were condemned (Mt 23:25, 27, 33). How would Jesus then state that His kingdom was within them—or in their hearts? Jesus was rather saying that the kingdom was in their midst. Actually, right in front of them. Jesus had been preaching he was the one to bring the kingdom to them. Therefore, Jesus was saying that if they would only believe in Him, the kingdom would be established at this time. Still not convinced? Then look at the next few verses. Jesus is then telling his disciples he must first suffer many things before his kingdom is established; but when it will come there will be no doubt in anyone’s mind then—it will be as obvious as lightning (Lk 17:22-25). This further proves that Jesus was referring to a literal kingdom and not a spiritual kingdom. With this verse now being shown to be consistent with a literal interpretation of “kingdom of God,” it then sheds different light on other scriptures that have been interpreted in light of Luke 17:20-21.

What about all the parables of the kingdom? To be honest, I am not sure how they get interpreted as being spiritual or of the kingdom being in our hearts. They all end in a separation of the “good” and “bad” at the “end of the age” (Mt 13:40) or as the literal Millennial Kingdom is set up. The parable of the sower (Mt 13:1-23), of the weeds (Mt 13:24-30, 36-43), of the mustard seed (My 13:31-32), of the yeast (Mt 13:33), and of the net (Mt 13:47-50) all show Satan will have followers disguised as those of the light to create confusion and deceive many. However, God knows who is who, and all will be sorted properly in the end (Mt 13:49). Then the parable of the hidden treasure (Mt 13:44) and the pearl (Mt 13:45) show the priceless value of understanding the importance of the kingdom of God. Actually, the interpretation of these parables could apply to our current life looking forward to the literal kingdom or could apply to the literal kingdom itself. We know that in the millennial kingdom not everyone will be pleased with King Jesus (Ps 2:9; Is 65:20). Then when Satan is let out of the Abyss (Rv 20:7), he works with those dissatisfied and again makes war with Jesus and Jerusalem (Rv 20:8). He is ultimately defeated, but it is surprising just how many recruits he gets even after a perfect environment is established (Rv 20:8-9). This shows how wicked our human hearts can really be. We cannot blame our state entirely on Satan. He only uses what we make available to him.

There is no place in scripture where Jesus redefined what the Jews were expecting when he preached the kingdom of God. What he preached, how he taught his disciples how to pray, and the parables he told were all about a literal kingdom and not a spiritual kingdom. So what is happening today, the time between Christ first coming when he died for our sins (fulfilled the prophecy of the Law and the first 3 Jewish festivals) and his second coming when he will set up his literal kingdom (a fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles)? If we are not part of his spiritual kingdom, what are we? We, as the Church, are his bride (Ep 5:22-23) and will rule with him in his kingdom. We are not ruling now, we are preparing ourselves for our bridegroom to return. We are seeking to help others know of his coming so they, too, can be part of the ceremony and rule with him as well (2Co 5:11). After all, Peter states that we are no longer of this world (1Pt 2:11), so our kingdom is not in this world but of the world to come. We, too, can state with John, “Come Lord Jesus” (Rv 22:20) because our happiness will only become greater in the life to come in the real and literal kingdom of God.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

When John the Baptist started preaching, he preached, "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mt 3:1-2). When Jesus came on the scene, this was also his proclamation as well (Mt 4:17). Jesus instructed his disciples and others he commissioned to go throughout the country to preach the same (Mt 10:7; Lk 10:9). Can we know what Jesus really meant? If so, why is there so much confusion around the term “kingdom of God” today? Why didn’t Jesus just define what he meant?

Let’s remember that the term is Jewish in nature as John and Jesus were Jewish and spoke to a Jewish audience. If that is the case then that begs the question, “What did Jews think about the phrase?” Is this term mentioned in the Old Testament?

The exact phrase is not actually mentioned in the Old Testament, but the concept is certainly there. So let’s examine some of these Old Testament scriptures to see what the Jews were actually expecting to happen in their future. I would not say this is an exhaustive list, but I think this will give us a clue as to what the Jews were expecting for their future:

 1.   2Sa 7:16: It is stated that David’s kingdom will last forever

 2.   1Ch 17:14: It is stated that David’s kingdom will last forever

 3.   Ps 45:6: God’s throne will last forever, and justice will be His scepter

 4.   Ps 145:11: God’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His saints will extol his glory to all the earth

 5.   Is 9:7: There will be no end to the government of the Lord, and he will rule on David’s throne

 6.   Is 32:1-8: A kingdom of righteousness will be established; the land will flourish and infirmities of people will be removed

 7.   Jr 23:5: The Branch will be the king and reign wisely, and bring Judah and Israel together to live safely

 8.   Jr 33:15: The Branch will be called the Lord of Righteousness, be a descendent of David, and will cause Jerusalem to live in safety

 9.   Dn 2:44: God will set up an earthly kingdom and it will never be destroyed

10.  Dn 4:3: God’s kingdom is an eternal kingdom

11.  Dn 7:18: The saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever

12.  Dn 7:22: The Ancient of Days came and gave the kingdom to the saints of the Most High

13.  Dn 7:27: The kingdom is given to the saints of the Most High; the kingdom of the Most High will last forever and all of the rulers will worship and obey him.

14.  Ho 14:4-9: The land of Israel will be prosperous.

15.  Jl 3:17-21: A fountain of water will flow from the temple and water the land; the desert will blossom; Jerusalem will be inhabited forever; the Lord will pardon Israel’s sins.

16.  Am 9:11-15: The land of Israel will be prosperous; the people of Israel will never be uprooted.

17.  Mi 4:7: The Lord will rule in Mt. Zion forever

18.  Zp 3:15: The Lord will be Israel’s king, gather his people together so they will never again fear any harm; his people will receive glory and praise from all of the people of the earth

19.  Zc 3:8: The Lord will remove sin from the land in a single day

20.  Zc 6:13: The Branch will build the temple of the Lord and will be both ruler and priest from his throne.

21.  Zc 14: The Lord will fight for Israel; living water will flow from Jerusalem; the Lord will be king over all the earth; the land will be prosperous, and the waters will teem with fish; Jerusalem will forever be secure.

If we take all of these scriptures together, it would seem that what has been promised to Israel is a kingdom provided by God and ruled by God who would also be a descendant of David and will rule on David’s throne. This reign will occur on the earth, be everlasting, and produce a time of peace, prosperity, and health to its people. Therefore, this, or some form of it, is what the people of John's and Jesus' day were thinking when the term "kingdom of God" was used. Jesus did not define it because the concept was already known by the audience to whom he spoke.

Now, it is true that not all Jewish teachers/leaders were united in how all of this was going to come to pass. Actually, they were looking for a Messiah who would accomplish this by defeating Roman rule over them. Hence, this Messiah would be the Branch, a descendant of David. However, there are other scriptures that talk of a suffering Messiah which seemed incongruent to many rabbis so they even contemplated that there may be even two Messiahs. It also appeared that the Messiah had both God-like characteristics as well as man-like characteristics. This also led them to think of the possibility of two different Messiahs.

However, although not everyone agreed on the exact how the "kingdom of God" would come to pass, the idea of "the kingdom of God" was not in question. That is not the case today. Why is that? We will discuss this further next time.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Some may see these differences like the comparison: all robins are birds but not all birds are robins. Therefore, Jews are Israelites who are Hebrews. However, it is a little more complicated.

Hebrews. First of all, who are the Hebrews? They are descendants of Eber (Gn 10:21-25). Eber was a descendent of Shem (Shem → Arphaxad → Shelah → Eber). Remember, Shem was one of three sons of Noah (the other two being Japheth and Ham) who survived the flood. Eber had two sons: Peleg and Joktan. We later learn that Abraham was a descendent of Peleg and was known as a Hebrew (Gn 14:13). It is likely that Job was one of these descendants (Jobab, Gn 10:29). All the sons of Eber were Hebrews. So, what about Joktan’s descendants?

It seems that ever since Noah and his sons exited the ark on Mt. Ararat (today in modern Turkey), they began to migrate and settle eastward as their population began to grow. We know that the descendants of Peleg settled in the area today known as Iran since this is the area from which Abraham came (i.e., city of Ur in southern Mesopotamia; Gn 11:27-30). However, it seems that those of Joktan continued to move eastward (Gn 10:30). Therefore, some have proposed that the Joktan Hebrews are the ancient descendants of the Orient. We know that after God caused the people to possess different languages due to the sin of Nimrod building the tower of Babel in the plain of Shinar (later known as Babylon), these other descendants of Noah then began to scatter to other parts of the world. The descendants of Ham went west, and also south into Africa; the descendants of Japheth went toward the north and west into Europe; and the descendants of Shem remained in the general geographic region. This could be why most of the world has a common language ancestry and not tied to the oriental languages since the descendants of Joktan would likely not have been affected as they were not disobedient to God’s message to spread throughout the world (Gn 9:1). This would then imply that most of those in the Middle East and Orient are common in that they are all of Hebrew descent. That would also explain why Abraham was noted as a Hebrew after he entered the land of Canaan. Most of the indigenous people of that geography were descendants of Ham and not of Shem (Eber was the largest group of descendants of Shem).

Israelites. The Israelites then are a small subgroup of Hebrews. They are descendants of Abraham (Abraham → Isaac →Jacob [name later changed to Israel]). Israel had twelve sons, and these became known as the 12 tribes of Israel and were whom God chose to work through as a nation to reveal Himself to the world (Ex 19:6). However, we also need to remember that Israel as a nation became split when Rehoboam became king (1Ki 12:16-17). The Southern Kingdom, composed of Judah and Benjamin, became known as Judah with Jerusalem remaining as its capital. The Northern Kingdom, composed of the other 10 tribes, became known as Israel with Samaria as its capital. None of the kings of Israel were considered good or righteous. Because of their sin, they were eventually, as prophesied by many of God’s prophets, taken into captivity by Assyria. However, it has been shown that prior to that time many of the Israelites left to other areas, with a large number migrating to what later became known as Armenia. We only have to look at the old city of Jerusalem today to see the connection. The old city portion of Jerusalem today is divided into four quadrants: Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Armenian. Therefore, there is still an Israelite connection to Jerusalem today.

Jews. The term Jew is an abbreviated form of Judah, one of the tribes of Israel and the name of the Southern Kingdom as mentioned above. There were some of its kings who were considered righteous, but others were considered wicked and their wickedness was the main reason for Judah also being taken into captivity; this time by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. However, when Babylon was captured by the Medes and Persians, King Cyrus allowed the Jews to return and rebuild Jerusalem (Er 1:1-2). From that time to 70 AD, Jerusalem, its temple and the land was re-established. After the Romans destroyed its temple in 70 AD, the nation went through many conquests and the people displaced. Even today there are more Jews outside Israel than in Israel. It was not until 1948 that the nation was re-established and recognized. Therefore, most of Israel today is composed of Jews but those with an Armenian connection are likely of Israelite descent. Although many today may not be able to trace their ancestry to a specific tribe, it may be that all are represented in some form.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

I have made a few statements in previous posts about how important and critical Israel is for us understanding the fate of our world. So why is that? More is explained in my book, Why is a Gentile World Tied to a Jewish Timeline?, but I will try and summarize here so we can understand better this issue. First, let's look at a few scriptures to see what God said about Israel:

Gn 13:14-17: The Lord said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you."

Pretty nifty promise, huh? However, this promise did not progress to all of Abrahams descendants, but just to Isaac (Gn 26:3-6) and then to Jacob (Gn 28:13-15) whose name was later changed to Israel (Gn 32:28). There are many scriptures that re-emphasize this promise to the nation of Israel. Perhaps Jeremiah sums it up best: This is what the Lord says: "If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them" (Jr 33:25-26).

Even Paul, who was the apostle to the Gentiles and yet still a Jew, stated the following: "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: 'The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.' As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Ro 11:25-29).

Therefore, God keeps his promises no matter if anyone else even remembers them. God doesn't forget, even if we do. Some say that because Israel as a nation rejected Jesus Christ as their Messiah when he came the first time, that Israel is no longer in the picture. Jeremiah and Paul seem to disagree. They may be set aside for a while but will come back into the picture in a huge way.

Paul also defines the Israelites thusly: "Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen" (Ro 9:4-5). Therefore, all that we know about God has come through Israel. It would seem odd that would be the end of the story about them. We should also remember that in Exodus when God first established His covenant with Israel as a nation, he made the following statement, "you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex 19:6). Therefore, they were to be those who revealed God to the rest of the world. Although they did not fulfill this as God had laid out the plan for them, i.e., their obedience would heap all sorts of blessings upon the nation that would then draw other nations to want to know their God, we see that Paul is stating that God did accomplish a lot through Israel. In the end, Jesus Christ was revealed through Israel, even though, as a nation, Israel rejected Jesus Christ as their Messiah. This then led to the allowance of Gentiles to become part of God's family. All of this was by God's design, as Paul pointed out.

So, back to the intent of this post. Why is Israel important? We see that Israel was the one to point the world to God and revealed God to the world through the life of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Israel has partially fulfilled God's command to them back in Exodus. However, the full fulfillment is yet to come. In the future, Israel is going to lead the entire world in praise and worship of Jesus Christ, their Messiah—and ours! God is going to allow Israel to fulfill the command He gave to them so long ago. That is why He is not done with Israel. God has chosen Israel to be the leader of mankind's praise to God for all eternity. Wow! What a great blessing! A missed opportunity that God is still going to allow to happen. And, if you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Messiah, your Savior, by accepting his payment for your sins on the cross, you, too, will be able to witness this prophetic fulfillment and be able to join in that praise as well. Hallelujah!

That is why Israel is so important. God promised it and He is not going to allow it not to happen. That is why Israel has been so persecuted for so many generations. Satan, the Adversary, does not want this to happen. If he can get rid of Israel, then all of God's promises will fail and he will be the victor. Do you think God is going to allow that to happen? I don't think so. Want to be a part of all of this? You can. Just be willing to humble yourself and admit that you cannot save yourself and that you need a Savior.

Now, what about you that are Jewish now. Well, you can have your cake and eat it too! You are the remnant of which Paul spoke (Ro 11:5). You have access to all of Israel's previous promises and to the promises for the Church, His Bride. You have the best of both worlds! Isn't God good? Think about that.

Until next time. God bless!

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

I have seen several discussions on this topic on other websites - some very heated. However, I think the Bible gives us some clues as to how to approach this topic. Let's see what Paul stated about similar mixed feelings about a related topic. I think Paul was a good choice for God to bring in as a late apostle. He was a Jew, trained to be a Pharisee, so he really understood the Law and the Jewish perspective. God also utilized him to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, so he understood their perspective as well.

In the early church, it was not too long before there were more Gentiles in the church than Jews. However, many of the Jews had a hard time letting go of their Jewish traditions to only follow Jesus Christ by faith. Paul spoke of this in Galatians chapter 2. Paul is very clear here that faith in Jesus Christ alone is sufficient for salvation and keeping the Law in no way adds to this. He is also clear that it is not keeping the Law that was necessarily an issue but believing that keeping the Law was a necessary part of salvation - that was the issue. Also, those that were keeping the Law were believing themselves to be more spiritual than those who were not. Paul also condemned this way of thinking. Observing the Jewish holidays are part of the Law as they were required by God for Israel to follow. So before we go much further, let's think of the pros and cons of Christians observing Jewish holidays.

Pros:

1. The prophetic fulfillment, or the future fulfillment, of the Jewish holidays noted in scripture (i.e., Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Feast of First Fruits, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot) is related to a Christian's past and future as well. Therefore, celebrating these holidays could be considered important for Christians. After all, Christ was resurrected on First Fruits and not Easter.

2. Understanding, and celebrating, these holidays can help scripture come more alive to Christians. They can better understand how the Bible relates to their lives, their spiritual history and their future (both spiritual and physical). After all, these holidays will be celebrated in the Millennium (Christ’s Promised Kingdom).

3. Understanding and celebrating these holidays can help Christians better identify and understand what it means to be Jewish and build better cultural bridges.

Cons:

1. Keeping these holidays can make Christians feel more spiritual than other Christians and thereby create divisive feelings.

2. Keeping these holidays can make Christians lose focus on more important matters of spreading the gospel message itself.

3. Christians keeping these holidays can cause confusion to those non-Jews to whom they are witnessing to help them understand the good news of Jesus Christ and how salvation comes through faith in Christ alone.

So . . . what is the answer? Should we or shouldn't we? I feel the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I think it boils down to what has been termed as Christian liberty. Paul spoke of this in 1 Corinthians chapter 8. The issue in the church at that time was about eating food offered to idols. After all, abstaining from food offered to idols was one of the few commands the leaders of the church in Jerusalem had stated Gentile Christians should follow (Ac 15:20). Some may feel that Paul straddled the fence on the issue. However, his answer in some ways is no different from one of the models of being a successful communicator: know your audience. What do I mean? Know the message you are conveying and not confuse people from the root message of the gospel. In other words, for our topic here, if you as a Christian want to celebrate the Jewish holidays because it brings significance to you personally, then by all means do so. However, don't necessarily be overt with it to the point that you make others feel they are inferior if they don't, and don't confuse other Christians about what it really means to be a Christian.

How important was it for Israelites to obey the Law anyway? It was very important, but they also got lost in the reason for the obedience. God many times stated that he was sick of their sacrifices; he wanted a broken and contrite heart instead (1Sa 15:22; Ps 51:17; Ho 8:13; Ml 1:10). They misunderstood that the action of sacrifice was to be an outward show of what was in their hearts. We as Christians need to understand the same thing. If celebrating Jewish holidays helps one to understand, appreciate and obey God better, then I am sure God is all for that. However, if it is all about the ceremony and one feeling proud they have kept an observance, then it is all in vain. I feel that understanding the holidays and their prophetic significance is very important. However, one does not necessarily have to celebrate these holidays as do the Jews to appreciate them. If you are in part of the country where Jewish holidays become school holidays, then it is a good time to remind your children and family about the prophetic significance of these holidays and what they mean in our future. It is not about the doing but the meaning that is most important.

Now, if you are Jewish and a Christian, then these holidays have an even more significant and richer meaning for you. As a Jew you have the history and tradition to build upon as a Jew but in addition have the same prophetic significance with which to celebrate. Yet again, do so to be thankful to Christ for who he is, what he has done and what he will do in the future. Whether we celebrate these holidays or just understand them, let's give all of the glory to our Lord and savior Jesus Christ to whom all of these holidays point. After all, our lives are really about us glorifying Him. If our actions are giving Him glory, then we are being successful.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

This year Shavuot occurs in early June. It is also known as Pentecost or Feast of Weeks, and occurs in the third month of the Jewish calendar, fifty days after the Feast of Firstfruit (Bikkurim). This is one of the Jewish feasts mentioned in Leviticus 23. They all have a prophecy component to them as well as a memorial component.

This is a feast marking paradigm changes. This marked the change from living under God’s promise to living under God’s Law. Israel became a nation before God on this day at Mt Sinai. The Israelites left Egypt on the 15th day of 1st month (Nu 33:3 – 1st day of Unleavened Bread). The following are the days up to Shavuot:

Day 1: 16th day of 1st month (Firstfruit)

Day 46: Arrived at Sinai 1st day of 3rd month (Ex 19:1)

Days 46-47: 2 days of consecration of people (Ex 19:10-11)

Day 48: God appeared as thunder, lightning, smoke and fire on the mountain, the mountain shook, and God spoke in thunder (Ex 19:16-20). God called Moses and Aaron up to the mountain, gave them the 10 commandments and other laws, met with Aaron, his sons and 70 elders of Israel (Ex 19:20 – 24:3)

Day 49: Moses wrote down all the words God had given him (Ex 24:4)

Day 50: Moses read the Book of the Covenant to them, they agreed to it and Moses offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, consecrated the people with “the blood of the covenant.” Moses, Aaron, his sons, and 70 elders of Israel ate with God (likely the Pre-Incarnate Christ) (Ex 24: 4-11).

On the 50th day after Firstfruits (Hence: Pentecost or Weeks), two loaves, made with fine wheat flower and yeast, are brought as a wave offering before the Lord. This was a picture of inclusion. One example of this was the inclusion of Rahab into Israel at the fall of Jericho (Js 6:22-23). The Israelites celebrated Passover (Pesach) shortly after crossing the Jordan River, they renewed their covenant by having all the men circumcised, met to worship, and then took the city of Jericho. The time for all these events to happen would likely take some time, so being at Jericho around the time of Shavuot would be likely.

Another example of inclusion was Ruth, originally from Moab, and Boaz, from Judah. Boaz married Ruth around the time of Shavuot: “So, Ruth stayed close to the servant girls of Boaz to glean until the barley and wheat harvests were finished. And she lived with her mother-in-law” (Ru 2:23). Barley harvest was at time of Firstfruit. Wheat harvest was at the time of Shavuot.

Christ’s birth marked another paradigm change. Christ was likely born on Shavuot 2 BC (Sivan or June). His conception was likely on Rosh Hashanah 3 BC (Tishri 1st or September 10th). Shavuot of 2 BC was Sivan 6th or June 8th. The Jewish calendar had another month added to the calendar in 2 BC – making the days between Rosh Hashanah and Shavuot 272 days (average gestation is 280 days). Therefore, a very viable period of gestation between conception and birth. Christ’s birth was definitely a paradigm change for Israel – and for the world. He brought the true meaning of Scripture back to life and his death was for all of mankind and not just for the Jews. Again, a message of inclusion.

The giving of the Holy Spirit on Shavuot (Pentecost) marked another paradigm change (Acts 2). The Holy Spirit was given to Christ’s followers 50 days after His resurrection. Christ’s resurrection occurred on Firstfruits. The Holy Spirit was given on Pentecost (Shavuot). This is considered the birth of the Church. However, the first followers were Jewish and/or Jewish proselytes. Later, Gentiles were added to the church – another message of inclusion. Because of the message of total inclusion, this is likely the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy.

Many have tried to understand the meaning of the two loaves of bread (made with yeast) used in this feast and what symbolic meaning they provide:

1.      Two tablets of the Law given at Mt. Sinai

2.      Two houses of Israel

3.      Old Testament; New Testament

4.      The two characteristics of the Messiah (suffering & reigning)

5.      Jew & Gentile

However, once you understand the reason for the feast, then the meaning is clear: the church is composed of both Jews and Gentiles. The conversion of Saul put the inclusion of Gentiles into the church on fast-track.

Why is this important? Shavuot marks the beginning of the Church Age. It is interesting that all the feasts from this point on allows Gentiles to be a part of them. Yet non-proselytized Gentiles were not part of the original church. We need to be sure that our world-view is correct to Biblical teaching. We need to look at all of Scripture to be sure we have interpreted specific parts correctly. Paul was very clear that the Church Age was a secret mystery revealed to him by God, but it would come to an end (Ro 11:25 – The Church Age will come to an end; Ro 11:26 – All of Israel will be saved). We have been allowed to be part of Christ’s kingdom due to God’s grace.

Isn’t it amazing how God’s word reveals such marvelous secrets to us, that when understood, seem not so much a secret after all – especially since it only echoes God’s character.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Christ was resurrected on Feast of First Fruits (3 days after Passover) and not on Easter. So why do we celebrate Easter as the day Christ arose? Believe it or not, it goes way back to the first century and a view of anti-Semitism! Shouldn’t Christians love everyone? Yes, but I think this is a reminder that we are all human and we have to be careful of our biases, and how we interpret Scripture.

So what happened to turn the tide? I feel it is important to remember that the first Christians were Jewish – all Jewish; there were no Gentile Christians at that time. Even in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit was given, those who were Gentiles and accepted Christ as their Savior were Jewish proselytes. There was no other reason for them to have been in Jerusalem at the time. They were there to celebrate Shavuot which was one of the three feasts that the Law required Jewish men to attend in person (Dt 16:16). It was not until the Jewish Christians began to be persecuted by the Jewish leaders that they began to scatter to nearby areas (Ac 8:1) and later throughout the Roman Empire as Gentiles began becoming Christians as well (Ac 10:45). Although there were always Jews that were Christians, the number of Gentiles who became Christians rapidly outnumbered the Jews. Unfortunately, people do not always leave their baggage behind when they become Christians, and many times the influence of a non-Christian world view creeps into Christian ways of thinking and interpreting scripture.

As early as the first century, there were those who began thinking that they should dissociate themselves from Jews because they were “Christ killers.” For some reason it did not click with them that the first Christians were also Jewish and if it wasn’t for the Jews no one would know about Christ anyway. Also, even though the Jewish leaders did work to get Christ crucified, it was Gentiles who actually had Christ placed on a cross. Can one side really blame the other? Also, ask yourself, if you were actually present yourself would you have been one in the crowd yelling, “Crucify Him!”? Would you have really known and accepted him for who He really was, and is? Also, if Christ had not been crucified we would still be in our sin, so it had to have been done and we all are responsible. At any rate, such people as the following began to teach that Jews were responsible for Christ’s crucifixion and that “true Christians” should separate themselves from the Jews.

Ignatius of Antioch (ca 50-117 AD) - Taught that those who partake of the Passover are partakers with those who killed Jesus.

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) - Claimed God’s covenant with Israel was no longer valid and that the Gentiles had replaced the Jews.

Irenaeus (ca 130-202 AD) - Declared the Jews were disinherited from the grace of God. 

Tertullian (ca 155-230 AD) - Blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus and argued they had been rejected by God.

Origen (185-254 AD) - He was responsible for much anti-Semitism, all of which was based on his assertion that the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus. Origen was also a big proponent of allegorical interpretation of scripture. Therefore, according to him, much of scripture was metaphorical and should not be interpreted literally. The danger to this is that one’s interpretation of a metaphor is just as good as anyone else’s. Therefore, he proclaimed that the Church is true Israel and that the promises to Israel, even in the Old Testament, were really about the Church. After all, if Christians are supposed to separate from Jews, how would the Old Testament even be relevant if these promises were for Israel and not the Church? One distortion always leads to another.

The Council of Nicea (325 AD in Turkey) - Changed the celebration of the Resurrection from the Jewish Feast of First Fruits to Easter in an attempt to disassociate it from Jewish feasts. The Council stated: “For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people ...”

Wow! Those are some pretty strong words for people that are supposed to be Christians! As stated above, we all need to be on guard about our biases and how we interpret Scripture. We need to ask ourselves if our interpretation is really in line and in the spirit of how Christ taught. After all, Christ came for the Jews, so why would his second coming not be for them as well? Also, even if it were true that the promises in the Bible were really for the Church, why would we exclude Jews from becoming part of the Church?

So, what was Easter anyway? It is a celebration of Spring and the belief that with spring comes new life and new fertility. It has always been a pagan holiday and has its beginning probably all the way back to Nimrod in the Old Testament. This was usually celebrated with sexual rituals and many of the symbols we use today are remnants of this: the rabbit, the chick, and eggs are all fertility symbols. Different cultures had different rituals and different fertility emphases. However, when the Council of Nicea decided to switch the celebration of Christ’s resurrection from First Fruits to Easter, it accomplished a couple of things. One, is that it put a Christian perspective onto a pagan holiday. Not a bad thing in itself, but it really caused a blending rather than a replacement. It sort of fit the theme: Christ arose from the dead and the concept of Spring where nature is reborn can be considered similar. However, it really does dilute the real meaning of Christ’s resurrection. It is kind of sad that the Christian leaders of that day chose to blend with a pagan holiday rather than a Jewish holiday which tied much better into the true meaning of Christ’s resurrection. After all, Christ’s resurrection was the literal fulfillment of the Jewish holiday of First Fruits.

So, that then begs the question of should Christians celebrate Easter or should we go back to celebrating First Fruits? I feel it is important to understand the history of our celebration of Easter, but what is more important is that we identify with the meaning of Christ’s resurrection. The day it is celebrated is a moot point and one of personal preference. The real question is whether you have accepted Christ as your Savior by accepting the payment he did on the cross for your sins and then identify with Christ’s resurrection as a reminder that because he conquered death, you also will be resurrected with him in the future and spend an eternity with him. That is worth celebrating every day of the year!

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

This year, Passover and Easter are very close to each other. Passover starts on April 19th and Easter occurs on April 21st. Passover occurs on the 15th day of the month Nissan which typically begins on the on the night of a full moon after the northern vernal equinox. Easter is similar as it occurs on the first Sunday after the first full moon occurring on or after the vernal equinox. The two usually fall close to each other but can be up to a month apart. Some feel Passover is a Jewish holiday while Easter is a non-Jewish holiday. We’ll get to understanding their relationship and this difference later. For this post, lets focus on Passover.

The Jewish feasts mentioned in Leviticus 23 have a prophecy component to them as well as a memorial component. We’ll look at the first three in this post: Passover (Pesach), Unleavened Bread (Matzah), and First Fruit (Bikkurim). They occurred back to back in the first month of the Jewish calendar.

Right before the first Passover (Pesach), on the 10th day of 1st month (Adar/Nissan or March/April of our calendar), a 1-year old lamb was set aside until the 14th day of the month. This ensured the lamb was unblemished. On the 14th day of the 1st month, a lamb was slaughtered at twilight and blood put on the sides and tops of the doorframe of one’s house. That night, the roasted lamb, along with bitter herbs and bread made without yeast, was eaten. None of the lamb was to be left at morning and none of its bones were to be broken. They were to eat the meal in haste while being dressed for travel, as the angel of death would pass over their houses because of the blood on their doorposts. This was to be a lasting ordinance – one to be celebrated for all time.

From the evening of the 14th day of the 1st month to the evening of the 21st day of the 1st month (7 days), leaven (yeast) was purged from one’s house and only unleavened bread was eaten for 7 days. This was the Feast of Unleavened Bread or Matzah. This was celebrating the day God separated Israel from Egypt. This was a lasting ordinance – one to be celebrated for all time. This represents sanctification. The Israelites left Egypt (sinful ways) and pledged themselves to God; traveled through the wilderness (our earthly life) understanding more about God who delivered them to their Promised Land (7th day of Feast – number of completion). This also points to Christ’s sinless life and the understanding of the matzah of Passover.

First Fruits (Bikkurim) occurred the day after the Sabbath (i.e., the day after the first day of Unleavened Bread which is treated as a Sabbath). The first sheaf of the barley harvest was brought to the priest. The priest was to wave the first sheaf before the Lord. Also, an offering of each of the following was made: a 1-yr old lamb as a burnt offering, a grain offering, and a drink offering. This was a lasting ordinance – one to be celebrated for all time.

There were a couple of reasons for these feasts. It became a relationship builder with their God by setting up memorials of notable events in Israel’s history. The feast countered pagan influences, offered an alternative to pagan harvests festivals, and represented their dependence upon God for everything.

Passover points to Christ as our acceptable sacrifice. As the blood on the doorposts caused the death angel to pass over that household, Christ’s blood and our acceptance of his payment, by faith, causes death to pass over us.

Unleavened Bread (Matzah) points to yeast as a symbol of sin (not always, but usually). Christ’s death was acceptable because it was free of sin.

First Fruit (Bikkurim) represents the first of something more to come. Jesus was the first fruit of the resurrection (1Co 15:23), and points to the fact that one day we also will be resurrected.

Jeremiah 23:5-8, tells us that Passover in the future will be different from today’s Passover: “The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness. ”So then, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when people will no longer say, ‘As surely as the LORD lives who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt,’ but they will say, ‘As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the descendants of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.’ Then they will live in their own land.”

This is important because it shows us that God keeps His promises. Time is not a factor in whether a promise of God will be kept. This gives us hope that promises that God have given to us will also be kept. What seems impossible to us is not impossible to God. We can trust in what God has stated no matter if how it will be accomplished cannot be understood by us. The Passover will be important for all who put their trust in Jesus Christ. Passover is a “forever” ordinance. We should therefore understand its significance. We have a very promising future. Are you ready for it?

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Well, we are almost at the beginning of another year. Many people make New Year’s resolutions. However, they are usually forgotten before March can ever arrive. Somehow, we have turned the word resolution into an oxymoron. After all, what is a resolution but a choice that one makes resolute. The word ‘resolute’ means “admirably purposeful, determined, and unwavering.” Yet, we have made this a tradition of wishes and not resolutions. Wishing or being resolute can make all the difference.

Our choices have consequences: either good or bad. But the consequences may affect others and not just ourselves. Let’s look at a few that others have made. Adam, for example, decided that he wanted things his way and bound the whole world to being born into sin. Yes, that was a choice with consequences – severe consequences. Even David, the man after God’s own heart, disobeyed by wanting to know how many was in his kingdom rather than just relying upon God’s protection and caused severe consequences that affected many within his realm. Then there is Joshua who made a choice to follow God and was able to defeat all of Israel’s foes. Or Gideon who decided to fight a war that most would consider impossible to win yet God won the war for him. Therefore, small decisions can have huge consequences or huge rewards. Many times it is not the actual action that makes the difference but the willingness to act that God honors.

Then there is one of the biggest decisions of all. God, before he even created Adam decided that he would redeem mankind (Ep 1:4). Even though He knew the decision Adam would make, he still allowed Adam to freely make his decision. However, God’s decision also had consequences. The second person of the trinity became man in the form of Jesus Christ who died on the cross for all the sins of mankind: past, present and future. This act of Christ becoming man forever changed his relationship with the first person of the trinity, whom we call God the Father. No longer would he be relating spirit to spirit. Christ forever remains a man (1Tm 2:5) so that he can forever relate to us humans. Although, not in our present state, of course, but in our transfigured, or resurrected, bodies (1Co 15:49). All of us who have accepted what Christ did for us on the cross will one day spend an eternity with our redeemer, our Messiah and King.

So, what decision will you make this year? Will it be a wish or a resolution? Can your decision be as resolute as God’s was for us? Will you accept His resolute decision and the action he accomplished on your behalf? If so, that will make 2019 a year like none other for you. Then what you wish for deep down will become a resolute decision that will take you on through life and through eternity to come.

Have a wonderful, happy and prosperous 2019! Both physically and spiritually.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Many of the events around Christ’s birth have been verified historically. Although, for some, the dates don’t seem to jive, but evidence is not always the force that causes one to believe. There is evidence that Caesar Augustus had 3 censuses during his reign with one being in 8 BC. As we have learned previously, Christ was likely born in 2 BC. So, is this a discrepancy? Not really. Think about how long it would take to do a census in 8 BC. Just because Caesar said to “make it so” in 8 BC, would it occur everywhere at the same time? We are so used to internet and microwaves that we forget the time in which we are referring. Taking six years to reach Palestine and getting the framework set up to taking such a census in that region is doing pretty good. Others have criticized Luke stating that “this taxing was first made when Cyrenius [Quirnius] was governor of Syria” (Lk 2:2). History does show Quirnius to be in Syria during this time period but not as Governor. He was governor in 6-7 AD. Again, a blunder? Not really. Just as our American words can have different meanings so can Greek words. The word translated ‘first” (i.e., prote) can also mean “prior to.” Therefore, the statement could be that this is the census before Quirnius was Governor in Syria. The historical placement of the event can be considered accurate.

Joseph had to return to Bethlehem to get registered for the taxation which was being implemented (Lk 2:1-3). He was from the lineage of King David, and Bethlehem was David’s home town (Lk 2:4-5). With Mary being pregnant and on the journey with him, it took longer than normal to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Yet, there were so many people traveling for this same issue, the roads were likely safer than they ever were previously. Yet, it took a lot out on Mary.

Back in the first century, Bethlehem was not a booming town. Even when the prophecy was given by Micah (Mi 5:2), it was not a booming town. It is only about six miles south of Jerusalem and was not a city where many people traveled since it wasn’t on a major Roman road of the day. Besides, even if someone was on such a road, would they stay in Bethlehem when Jerusalem was so close? In addition, the custom of the day was for family to stay with family—not in an inn or other places of abode. Inns were more common in large cities, like Jerusalem, and perhaps on major thoroughfares, as travelers would not have close relatives nearby, because they had not arrived at their final destination where family likely were located. In addition, the word used here (kataluma) is the same word used more definitely for a spare room (Lk 22:11) rather than a separate lodging (pandokheion, Lk 10:34; 11:22) which uses a different word for such. The guest room was already full of additional relatives (Lk 2:7).

Also, Bethlehem was a shepherding community and not one where travelers would frequently travel through. For someone to go to a place like Bethlehem, they had to be wanting to go there—not passing through. Therefore, the need for an inn was very low, and the number of visitors an innkeeper would get would likely be too low to make it profitable. The fields around Bethlehem was where the flocks for temple worship were kept and raised. This is a critical point for us to consider later.

When did Mary and Joseph arrive in Bethlehem? Most movies and plays about this story have them arriving while Mary is delivering, and Joseph is desperate to find a place—any place—anywhere. But is that what scripture is really telling us? Luke tells us that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem and “while they were there” she had her baby (Lk 2:6). This doesn’t sound like this was an immediate need or crisis. So, where were they? Well, since Joseph was of the lineage of David, he had to travel to his ancestor David’s birth place, i.e., Bethlehem. Therefore, he would have relatives there. As we just pointed out, relatives stayed with relatives. Let’s not put our social mores on this concept. Often, we would gladly stay in an inn than with relatives, but this was not the case in this culture. It was a privilege and honor, as well as a duty, to take care of visiting relatives, no matter the occasion. So, if they were with relatives, where did the stable, animals, shepherds, etc. come into the story? Let’s consider that.

Because of the need for so many people to come to Bethlehem because of the tax registration, Bethlehem became crowded—very crowded. Joseph and Mary were only one couple among hundreds to thousands who had to return. People’s homes were very crowded and filled to capacity. Mary and Joseph were very welcome to stay until she was ready to deliver. It may sound cold to us today, but Mary would not have been welcome to have her baby in a house filled with so many people. This is for two major reasons. One, there was no privacy. Second, she would be considered unclean for up to a week (Lv 15:19-23). But it is even more complicated as this passage tells us. Everything she touches, everyone she touches, become unclean. That is a problem in a house filled with so many people. The logistics to have Mary there as she gives birth and for the week after becomes untenable. Joseph has to find a solution. Where could Joseph take Mary where she could be taken care of in such a crowded place where there wasn’t an inn? Think about it, even if there was an inn, would an innkeeper want a delivery in his inn where his room, of which he would likely have few, would become unclean? It would be a big burden to get everything clean again. Certain things would have to be washed, some scrubbed, and some destroyed (Lv 15:12). So, as you can see, this was quite the dilemma for Joseph and Mary due to the customs and social mores of their day.

Looking for a place proved more difficult than Joseph thought. Because all the houses were so crowded, most could not bring their animals into their home at night as normal. Therefore, even the outside areas for animals were full to capacity and some people had to stay all night outside with the animals to prevent robbers from taking them or them wandering off in the middle of the night. Finding a place to have a baby proved extremely difficult.

So, where could Joseph find a secluded place that would not be a burden to others, yet would be comfortable for Mary to have her child? Migdal Eder. You see, God knew this all those years ago and had Micah prophesy of this (Mi 4:8). Joseph likely didn’t even know he was fulfilling prophecy. He was just looking for a logical, viable, and satisfactory solution to their need. You see, because Bethlehem was not only a shepherding community, it was a special shepherding community. The shepherds here were not regular shepherds, but were trained for how to raise sheep for the purpose of them being used as a sacrifice at the temple. Not just any animal could become a sacrifice. It had to be without blemish. Do you realize how hard it is to have an unblemished animal in the wild? All sorts of things could happen to the animal. These shepherds had to ensure nothing happened to these animals. It wasn’t just taking care of them, mending their injuries, and making them acceptable for human use. No, it was raised to another whole level. If the animal was injured, they were no longer acceptable for sacrifice, even if the animal recovered. It was now considered blemished. So, in order to ensure things went well with the sheep birthing process, a special place was made for the sheep to have their lambs. This was at Midal Eder, the watchtower of the flock (Mi 4:8; Gn 35:21). They built a place here. Maybe it was a cave or some type of shelter for both the shepherds, their supplies, and likely other animals they would need to take supplies from Bethlehem or from Jerusalem to this shelter for them to use as they watched after the sheep. When the lambs were being prepared for sacrifice, they would swaddle them to prevent the lambs from hurting themselves. They would then place them in the manger there made especially for this purpose to calm the animal so it could more easily be inspected for any blemishes. Because of these lambs’ special religious nature, nothing was taken for chance. All was a very methodical process to ensure each and every animal was without blemish (Ex 12:5). They tried to remove all obstacles that would cause or induce injury.

Once the cramping started, Joseph led Mary out to Midgal Eder on their donkey. Likely a few of the women went with him. It was now June, the time of Shavuot—a Jewish holiday which represented paradigm shifts and the inclusion of non-Israelites. The time of birthing sheep had recently ended, so there was no competition for using the shelter at Migdal Eder (Mi 4:8). While not ideal by our standards, I’m sure Joseph considered it pretty ideal, and he likely felt fortunate. It was a place still in Bethlehem, so relatives were close by if needed. Likely some of them helped with the baby’s delivery. It was almost abandoned that time of year, although it likely contained supplies for the shepherds and likely a donkey or two for hauling supplies. It may have had other animals, like goats and oxen, for various needs: milk, carrying cargo, and maybe even food. It provided a quiet place for Mary to have her baby and would be a place to stay until her uncleanness was over. Afterward, she could be welcomed back into the crowded house. Then everyone would ooh and aah over the infant.

Joseph thought back on the things that Mary had told him. The angel Gabriel had appeared to her in the sixth month (Lk 1:26), just before Rosh Hashanah which occurred on the first day of the seventh month (Lv 23:23-25). He now understood this was the time of the baby’s conception by the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35). Thanks to the Jewish leaders adding Adar II to their calendar, this Shavuot was now nine months later. The baby was conceived on Rosh Hashanah when all of Israel asked God to remember his covenant with his chosen nation. Now, the baby was being born on Shavuot when God instituted paradigm changes and when Gentiles were accepted. He was now being born at Midgal Eder where the sheep born to be temple sacrifices were born—where they were wrapped in swaddling cloths and placed in the manger for inspection. Joseph looked at this one born on this Jewish holiday. Did he recognize all the symbolism God had bestowed on this special day? Did the shepherds? They were the ones who provided lambs and goats for temple sacrifice. Now, this baby was lying in their special manager wrapped in cloths they used to swaddle newborn lambs so they could inspect them for any blemishes. Did they understand the significance?

After the baby was born, Joseph wanted to get back to Nazareth, but knew he needed to wait until the baby was older and stronger. His cousin insisted he stay with them a few months until the baby and mother could travel. When the time of purification was over, Joseph took Mary to the temple in Jerusalem to offer her offering of purification (Lk 2:22-24; Lv 12:6-7). This is where they met Simon and Anna who prophesied about Jesus (Lk 2:22-38). They then returned to the house in Bethlehem where they were staying. When Jesus was about six months old, they were visited by the Magi who gave the child gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Mt 2:1-12). These men told Mary and Joseph all they had seen and heard. An angel appeared to Joseph to have him take Mary and Jesus to Egypt (Mt 2:13) so he would not get killed by Herod’s order to kill all infants two years old and younger (Mt 2:16). Once Herod died, Joseph came back to Israel with Mary and Jesus, and took them to Nazareth (Mt 2:19-23).

Are you starting to see the symbolism here? Do you now see why swaddling was a significant sign? All babies were wrapped in swaddling clothes—that was their custom. Yet, only one was wrapped in swaddling cloth normally used for lambs born to become a sacrifice. And only one was wrapped in swaddling cloth, lying in the manger at Midgal Eder. The angel’s announcement was very specific and not vague at all. This was a significant sign, and one I am sure was not lost on these shepherds. This also explains why angels appeared to these shepherds—because they were not ordinary shepherds, but the ones taking care of sheep for sacrifice. The angels were basically stating that their jobs were now complete. The lamb they were waiting for had come. He was in their shelter, their stable, their manger, wrapped in swaddling clothes for special lambs born at Midgal Eder. This lamb was not just for a special sacrifice for someone’s sin debt, but for payment for the sins of the entire world.

While this is not the usual Christmas story, it seems to align more closely with scripture and with what the Jewish holidays represented. These Jewish holidays which God instituted with Israel back in Leviticus when he first formed their nation have many purposes. A significant purpose is their prophetic significance. Jesus’ conception and birth are two of them. Isn’t it interesting how God coordinates so much, and we take so much of it for granted? The Bible is full of such wonderment if we only look. May we be more attentive to what God is doing in our lives as we embark on the coming year.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

What was the Christmas star? Rick Larson in his DVD Star of Bethlehem [1] gives some very compelling evidence to what the star likely could have been. It could not have been something that would draw much attention to it because no one seemed to know about the star until the Magi came to Jerusalem and started asking questions. However, the star did do some unusual things for a star. Larson takes the scientific approach and does explain many of these occurrences. Ken Hamm, and others, state that only a unique event designed by God could explain the occurrence of it being over the house where Jesus was in Bethlehem (Mt 2:9). However, does it have to be all or none: i.e., does it have to be all scientific in explanation or all miraculous in design? Could it not be some of both? Let’s look more closely.

Larson gives compelling evidence to the date of Christ’s conception. At the time of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah, in September of 3 BC, the planet Jupiter (known as the king planet) made a very close conjunction with the star Regulus (known as the king star), and over the next couple of months Jupiter actually made three conjunctions with Regulus. Not only that, but this occurred in the constellation of Leo, which is the constellation representing a lion, both a symbol of Judah as well as of the coming conquering Messiah and would fulfill the prophecy of Isaac to Judah (Gn 49:9) as these three conjunctions would be occurring around the feet of Leo within this constellation. In addition, the constellation Virgo at the time of Rosh Hashanah in 3 BC would occur during the daytime, i.e., clothed in the sun, as described in Revelation, with the new moon at her feet (Rv 12:1-5). Rosh Hashanah was also known as the Feast of Trumpets (Lv 23:24-25) which was a memorial feast of the blowing of trumpets to ask God to remember His covenant with Israel [2]. Therefore, the conception of the Messiah would indeed represent God remembering His people after the 400 years of prophetic silence.

Before Jesus was born, Joseph, who currently lived in Nazareth, which was around the Galilee region of Israel, found that he had to return to Bethlehem for a census since that was the birthplace of his ancestors (Mt 1:1-17; Lk 2:1-4). Bethlehem was approximately 5 miles south of Jerusalem. The prophet Micah had prophesied some 700 years prior that the birth of the Messiah would occur in Bethlehem (Mi 5:2).

Again, the stars told the story. After the triple conjunction of Jupiter with Regulus, Jupiter continued its journey for a rendezvous with Venus, the Mother planet. With the naked eye, they would appear as one star– one very bright star. This would have occurred in June and would coincide with Christ’s birth.

Just because a star is bright doesn’t mean it would draw much attention by people in and of itself. Actually, not too long ago (12-Mar-2012) we had a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus which was made Venus brighter than ever. However, not many really paid attention except to perhaps think, “Wow, Venus is awfully bright tonight.” Only those watching and understanding the planetary movements understood the significance and rarity of the event.

Therefore, if Larsen is correct, then someone who would know and understand these movements of the planets would be needed. Who would that be? The Magi, of course. These were scientists and priests of their day who would have a knowledge of the stars, their movements, and astronomical events.

The Magi, or wise men, who came to visit Jesus brought gifts (Mt 2:1-11), were likely of Parthian descent [3]. Parthian kings were elected by the Megistanes which was composed of two houses: the “Royal House,” or Arsacids, which consisted of the male members of the royal line – called the “Magi,” and “the Senate” which consisted of the prominent secular leaders – called the “Wise Men.” Kings did not have to succeed from father to son but those selected for kingship did have to be a member of the Royal House and were elected by a concurrent vote between the two houses [4]. It is possible that these were actual descendants from Northern Israel and similar in function to the Levites in Judah. It was known by the Jews that many of the northern ten tribes of Israel still lived beyond the Euphrates, i.e., Parthian territory [5].

It is likely the Magi had their beginnings with Daniel as he became the chief of the Magi (wise men) during Nebuchadnezzar’s day (Dn 2:48) and was highly regarded by the reigning kings up through the reign of Cyrus (Dn 6:28). It is also very likely that Daniel would have influence on the house of Jehoiachin when brought to Babylon (2Ki 24:15; 2Ch 36:9-10) and when released (2Ki 25:27-30) and could have had influence on how to maintain the kingly succession when outside Jerusalem. He also had insight when the promised Messiah would be born (Dn 9:25). All of this could have started the watch for the proper king to return and the maintenance of the proper bloodline so the prophecy could be fulfilled and documented.

The Magi who came were likely more than three and were likely a very large delegation and likely had an armed escort [6]. Their arrival caused all of Jerusalem to be concerned (Mt 2:3). These were tenuous times between Rome and Parthia, so for such a large delegation to cross the Euphrates River into Judea – Roman territory – could likely have sparked another war if heads were not kept cool [7]. Herod could have taken insult to their question of “Where is he that is born king of the Jews?” (Mt 2:2) as that was the title Rome had given to him [8]. Although Herod plotted (Mt 2:8), the scribes told the Magi that scripture had predicted the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and the Magi continued their journey toward Bethlehem (Mt 2:5-9).

No one knows exactly when the Magi began their journey. They apparently arrived in Bethlehem as Jupiter entered retrograde motion on December 25, 2 BC over the town of Bethlehem. This would have given them at least 6 months to make their journey, likely from Persia. Jesus would have been of Arsacid descent and would explain the reason for the trip of the Magi as well as the elaborate gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh which they brought to give to this one they recognized as a king (Mt. 2:11). They likely also understood his prophetic significance as these gifts pointed to Jesus being prophet [myrrh], priest [frankincense] and king [gold] (again, likely from the teachings of Daniel and understanding Old Testament Scripture). Jesus would have been six months old at this time. It is likely that Herod’s decree of killing all children in Bethlehem up to the age of two was to be certain that the “correct” child was killed. After all, although the child was only 6 months, the signs in the stars occurred 9 months earlier which would make the total time to be slightly under two years. Herod, and the wise men, may have been unsure if the initial signs were of conception or of birth. Herod was making sure of either in case it was the later.

So the signs in the heavens got the Magi to Israel and they stopped by the capital city to find out where this king was living. The Jewish scribes repeated the prophecy of Micah stating that he was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem (Mi 5:2). Therefore, when they were leaving Jerusalem, they again saw the star and it led them to the house where Jesus was living (Mt 2:9-10). This is where some have a problem with Larsen’s scientific approach as this is hard to explain. However, I think this is where the Shekinah glory of God could have played a part (like it did in the Old Testament when it led the Israelites to their Promised Land [Ex 13:21]). It could have appeared in the form of the star the Magi had been seeing and could have hovered over the exact house where Jesus was living. That would be consistent with scripture, not be out of scope for God to do, and would have been rational in the Magi’s mind as it would form a continuity of their trek following the star and then pointing them to their final destination.

God revealed to the Magi that they should not return to Herod so they went back to their homeland via a different route (Mt 2:12). However, this is likely not the end of the incident. Herod, and Rome, would not have known of the Magi’s true intentions. After all, less than 40 years earlier, the Parthian king Antigonus had captured Palestine and ruled as “king of the Jews” for 3 years (40-37 BC) causing Herod to have to flee. Parthian rule had been popular with the Jews. Mark Antony was later able to defeat Antigonus, have him beheaded, and pushed the Parthians back to beyond the Euphrates River. However, further wins were not successful and Rome was unable to subdue Parthian territory east of the Euphrates River. Since that time détente had ruled, but now was the question of whether Parthia was trying to regain Palestine by looking for another Jewish king. History tells of a great summit conference between Rome and Parthia that occurred in 1 BC on an island in the Euphrates River (neutral territory) [9]. Therefore, the visit of the Magi may have been the spark or a contributing factor to this unrest that ended peacefully.

Therefore, we see consistency between scripture and history, between scripture and science and still being consistent with how God works.

______________________________________________

[1]Frederick A. Larsen, “The Star of Bethlehem,” Sound Enterprises, Inc., http://www.bethlehemstar.net/ (accessed 19-Dec-2012).

[2]Robert R. Congdon, An Appointment with God: The Feasts of the Lord (Bloomington, IN: CrossBooks, 2009), 99-119.

[3]Chuck Missler, “Who were the Magi?” Lambert Dolphin’s Library, http://www.ldolphin.org/magi.html (accessed 19-Dec-2012).

[4]Steven M. Collins, Parthia: The Forgotten Ancient Superpower and its Role in Biblical History, (Royal Oak, MI: Bible Blessings, 2004), 47-49.

[5]Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews in The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1987): 11.5.2, 294.

[6] The Ensign Message, “More about the Magi,” The Ensign Message, http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/moreaboutmagi.html (accessed 19-Dec-2012).

[7]Collins, Parthia, 126-127.

[8]Barry D. Smith, “The Reign of Herod the Great, King of the Jews (37-4 BCE),”Crandall University, http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/intest/hist7.htm (accessed 08-Sep-2012).

[9]Collins, Parthia, 147.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Sometimes I feel Christianity has created more confusion than clarity around the role of the Godhead. I think the term Son of God has been so used and misused that we tend to forget the original meaning of the term. One can argue that the term is widely used in the Gospels so why the concern? The concern is not the term but the definition of the term. Over time, the way mankind thinks of terms changes and can get distorted from its original intent. We often think of "son" and "father" as not being equal and so I think we have fostered the idea that the Son of God is not really equal to God himself and thereby people start to think that they are actually two different entities. Some have tried to counter this by saying, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit" but I think people often feel that three entities are being described. It is only a matter of subtlety you say? Perhaps; but even in his earthly ministry, Christ made subtlety important.

One day the Sadducees were asking Jesus about the validity of the resurrection (Mt 22:23-28). How did Jesus respond? He stated that they did not know the scriptures (Mt 22:29). They were incensed. Jesus told them that God stated, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Mt 22:32; Ex 3:6). Therefore, God was not their God; but is their God. Tense was very important. Yahweh was their God when on the earth and continued to be their God. As Jesus stated, "[God] is not the God of the dead but of the living" (Mt 22:32). Therefore, Jesus implied that life continues after death and therefore supportive of a resurrection. Hmmm, implication of scripture is just as important as direct statement in scripture.

So let's see if there are implications about God in the Old Testament. Many say that the idea of God as Trinity is not stated in the Old Testament and so is only a concept developed by Christians. Well, let's see if that is true. We don't have to go far to find a subtle clue. Genesis 1:1 states, "In the beginning, God created...." So let's see what is being stated here. God, or in Hebrew, Elohim, created. This is a plural noun but used with a singular verb. How clever. Subtle? Yes. Important? Yes.

If that was the only place we find such a clue then we might question the intentionality of this verse. However, there is another critical juncture in scripture that also speaks to God being Trinity.

When God led the Israelites out of Egypt, He met them at Mt. Sinai. The first encounter was quite ominous. They saw huge billows of smoke and fire coming from the north and descending on the top of the mountain (Ex 19:16-19). God even spoke to them and it sounded like thunder, the earth shook, and the people were very frightened. So much so that they asked God to speak only to Moses and then he relay God's message to them (Ex 20:19). There was no one that day that wanted to stand up and say, "I have a few issues with you God. Let me get them off my chest." No, they knew their place and it was not one of righteousness. Who can argue that this encounter was with the first person of the Godhead, who we today term, God the Father?

However, a few chapters later, we have a very unusual occurrence. Moses, Aaron and his sons (the priests of their day), and 70 leaders of the people met with God and ate with Him (Ex 24:9-11). This is a stark contrast to their previous encounter as described above. God suspended his original requirement that they could not approach him—because this was on his terms, not theirs. This showed a more personable side of God. This was the second component of the Godhead - the one who later came to earth in human flesh—the one who had walked and talked with Adam and Eve—the one of the Godhead who has always reached out to mankind. The one we today term, God the Son.

Then not too far later, we see the third component of the Godhead. Scripture states that God's spirit indwelled the 70 leaders who Moses had chosen so they could understand what God wanted them to do to help administrate God's will to the people (Nu 11:24-25). It is not too hard to see that this is the one we today term, God the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, although not stated specifically, even the Old Testament is in agreement with God as Trinity. Why is this important? Who else can be Trinity? No one. Who else could be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient yet still become human? No one. Therefore, God is unique and there is no other entity who can be his equal. Being Trinity allows him to be the most efficient relationship builder—ever!

This is what the Gospel writers were trying to portray about Christ—his uniqueness. He was born to a human woman but through the Holy Spirit—not through a human man (Mt 1:18). Because he was born, hence the term "son." Not a normal son, but the Son of God, meaning he originated from God but not separate from God. God's uniqueness is personified, not decreased. Who else could do that? No one. All of God put into a human form. He was brought low (Pp 2:7-8) in the sense he agreed to abide by some human limitations but not be limited by them. He still performed all the responsibilities as part of the Godhead. Again showing his uniqueness.

Therefore, next time you hear the term Son of God, think how the Gospel writers thought: uniqueness personified. It will bring a whole new level to your understanding of God, and a way for us to understand and show our humbleness toward Him.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens