​Biblical genealogies are things most of us read, accept and move on in our reading.  But the genealogy Matthew gives for Jesus at the beginning of his Gospel has a particularly interesting aspect.  Matthew divides the “family tree” he constructs for the promised Messiah into three sections of fourteen generations each, saying: “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah” (Matthew 1:17).

But if we look back into the Old Testament lists of the ancient kings of Judah who were among the ancestors of Jesus, we find that Matthew actually omits  three individuals between the kings Jehoram and Uzziah (Matthew 1:8): Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:25), Joash (2 Kings 12:1) and Amaziah (2 Kings 14:1).  In other words, there were actually seventeen known generations between David and the exile, rather than fourteen as Matthew states.

How can we reconcile this apparent contradiction in the Scriptures?  First, we must understand that Matthew follows a common ancient practice in structuring the genealogy he gives into clear units which were more easily remembered and taught.   That Matthew omits some individuals in order to accomplish this pattern is not surprising because if we look back to the very first verse of his Gospel, he does that to an even more striking degree in saying “This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham” – where the practice of “jumping generations” is clearly utilized to make his point: to stress that Jesus was the descendant of David (who is actually named first, before Abraham).

We must remember that because Mathew wrote to a primarily Jewish audience, he knew that his readers were familiar with the king lists of the Hebrew Scriptures and that they would understand he was “jumping generations” in Matthew 1:8 in exactly the same way he did in Matthew 1:1.

We can see this fact in another way.  Ancient genealogies usually omitted women in their reckoning, but Matthew includes four women who were Gentiles or had Gentile connections (Matthew 1:3, 5-6), even though he did not include the four great matriarchs of the biblical tradition – Sarah, Rebekah, Leah and Rachel.  The reason is clearly because another theme of Matthew’s Gospel is the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s plan for humanity. 

​Matthew adjusted the details of his genealogy of Jesus in order to make the points that were vital for his story.  So, rather than contradicting Old Testament accounts, Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus is carefully constructed to stress Jesus’ descent from David and from Gentile ancestors – which gave him the genealogy to be not only the King of the Jews, but also the King of all mankind.

​The Sermon on the Mount is a central part of the teachings of Jesus that we all know – it  demonstrates the essential nature of the Christian way of life as much as any part of Scripture. Many of us have memorized parts of the sermon as found in Matthew’s Gospel (chapters 5-7), but how much time have we spent thinking about the setting of the sermon as opposed to the sermon itself?
 
We tend to take for granted that the sermon was given on a mountain because we know that Jesus frequently climbed mountains (Luke 6:12, John 6:15, etc.) – though he usually did this to get away from people, to be alone and to pray.   In this case we are told specifically that he went up on a mountain with his disciples following him.

The New International Version tells us “Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them” (Matthew 5:1-2).  This gives the impression that Jesus simply went up on the side of a mountain – the lower slopes.  But “side” is not in the original Greek (or in most translations), and the Greek anebē  eis to oros  “he went up into a mountain” conveys the sense that he ascended  on to the mountain – certainly well up toward, or to, its summit.
 
Now this wording is interesting, because when we compare it with the Old Testament account of how Moses went up onto Mt. Sinai to receive the law from God, we find “When Moses went up on the mountain …” (Exodus 19:3, 24:12).  In fact, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures which many of the writers of the New Testament used, translates this with exactly the same words as those used of Jesus ascending the mountain: anebē  eis to oros.

Many Jewish readers of the 1st century would have recognized the beginning of this story of the Sermon on the Mount as being identical to the beginning of the story of Moses receiving God’s law.  This would have struck a deep chord for those readers because every devout Jew knew that God had told Moses:   “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him” (Deuteronomy 18:18). Every devout Jew expected this prophet like Moses, and the similarities between Jesus and Moses were clear for those ancient readers who knew the Hebrew Scriptures. 

For example, the infant Moses and Jesus both escaped death when a ruler attempted to kill the male Jewish children in the area, both hid in Egypt as a child, both gave up  life in a kingly home to lead a humble life of service,  both fasted forty days and nights, both communicated directly with God, both performed miracles, both provided the people with bread to eat, both sent out 12 individuals, both chose 70 individuals, both taught with authority – and both ascended a mountain for the giving of  key commands and instruction from God. 

With that background in mind, we can see the significance of the fact that throughout the first third of the Sermon on the Mount, the law of Moses is mentioned repeatedly, using the formula “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago …. But I tell you ….”  For example:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment” ​ (Matthew 5:21-22, and see also Matthew 5:27, 31, 38, 43). 

Within the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made it clear to his followers that he was not doing away with or replacing the principles of the law given through Moses (Matthew 5:17-19). Instead, in this pivotal sermon – the longest connected teaching of Jesus in the New Testament – he gave new insight into those principles, raising our understanding of their intent to the higher level to which we are called.

Although most of the world thinks that before beginning his ministry Jesus Christ was “the Carpenter of Nazareth,” biblical scholars know that it is not at all certain that Jesus was a carpenter. In fact, there are a number of reasons why he probably did not follow that profession, and why he most probably was a skilled worker of a different type.

Before looking at the evidence for the profession Jesus most probably followed, consider the reason that most people presume he was a carpenter.   There is one verse – and one only – in the whole New Testament that directly links Jesus to carpentry.

The Gospel of Mark tells us that when he spoke in their synagogue the people of Jesus’ home-town of Nazareth angrily exclaimed: “Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us? …” (Mark 6:3). The Gospel of Matthew records the statement a little differently: “Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?” (Matthew 13:55). This is not a direct statement that Jesus was a carpenter, although if his father was one it would be likely in that culture that Jesus would have followed the family profession.

But this is presuming that the Greek word used in these verses actually means “carpenter.”  In actuality, the word used by both Matthew and Mark was tekton which can mean someone who works with wood but can also signify what we today would call a contractor or house builder.  There is nothing in the immediate context of the two texts that can help us decide which meaning of tekton better fits the profession of Jesus, and we must look at the broader evidence of the New Testament in order to make an educated decision on this.

First, we should consider the fact that it is odd if Jesus made his living for thirty years as a carpenter making furniture or other items out of wood, that there is not a single example in his recorded teaching that uses an analogy or example from the carpenter’s trade.  On the other hand, it is interesting that all the Gospels record Jesus’ continual use of building in his teaching: his  comment on the stone wall that fell down (Luke 13:4), his story of the rich man who built a barn (Luke 12:16-21), the vineyard owner who built a wall (Matthew 21:33), the individual wanting to build a tower (Luke 14:28-30), the individual who built his house on rock as opposed to sand (Matthew 7:24-27), etc.  In fact, the Gospels contain more examples of Jesus using stories based on building than any other single activity.  So when we find one of the disciples commenting to Jesus on the impressive nature of the stones of the temple (Mark 3:1), it is in a way that would be very natural if he were a builder and interested in such aspects of building.

Archaeology also can contribute to our understanding of the possibility Jesus’ trade was actually that of a builder rather than a carpenter.  Good wood was scarce in Judea and was usually imported from Lebanon and too expensive for use by local populations in areas such as Nazareth.  On other hand, good building stone was readily available and even poorer homes were usually built of stone.

As it happens, Nazareth was only three miles from the town of Sepphoris, which was the focus of an intensive building program instituted during the reign of King Herod Antipas (c. 4 BC- AD 39) throughout Jesus’ lifetime.  Herod chose the site as the capital of his government and, as a result of his building projects, this lakeside town became the largest city in the region and was described as “the jewel of all Galilee” by the Jewish historian Josephus.  Importantly, its development doubtless required the involvement of every available tekton in the surrounding area.   So it is extremely likely that both Joseph and Jesus could have worked on this project which needed so many skilled builders.  Sepphoris was a reasonable “commute” from Nazareth and the road between them actually passed by a large rock quarry where most of the stone needed for building the town was obtained.

If Jesus was, in fact, a builder rather than a carpenter, then many of the things said about him in the New Testament may take on an additional layer of significance. When Jesus told the Jews regarding himself that “… The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone…’” (Luke 20:17–18 quoting Psalm 118:22), we may see an analogy that would have especially appealed to Jesus.  It was this thought that came to mind when the apostle Peter spoke of Jesus before the religious leaders of Jerusalem: “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone…” (Acts 4:11).  In Peters’ first epistle he also writes: “you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). Although we might expect Peter to say that believers were being built into a spiritual temple, the word oikos that he uses primarily means a regular dwelling house.

None of this proves that Jesus was a builder rather than a carpenter.  But when we compare the relative lack of carpentry work to the great demand for builders during his lifetime in the very area in which he lived,  the lack of carpentry analogies compared to the many building references in the teaching of Jesus, and perhaps even the  later New Testament spiritual references to Jesus in the context of building, it seems quite likely that Jesus was not a carpenter, but a builder.

​From the time of the early Church it has also been realized that the Old Testament predictions of a promised Messiah or "Anointed One" show that prophesied figure as fulfilling three distinct roles: not only that of priest, but also the roles of prophet and king (all of whom were anointed to office in ancient Israel).
 
Glimpses of the initial fulfillment of these roles can be seen throughout the life and work of Jesus; but what we do not always realize is that they all reach a climactic conclusion in the narratives of the crucifixion.

The Prophet

During his ministry, Jesus fulfilled the role of the “prophet like Moses” foretold in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and compare John 1:45). It was clear to those who heard him that Jesus was a great prophet. “This is the prophet Jesus …” the crowds affirmed of him (Matthew 21:11 ESV) and “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” (John 6:14 ESV). But in his final hours, Jesus exercised his prophetic office to an unprecedented degree. He made dozens of prophecies in the hours leading up to his crucifixion, not only predicting details concerning his own death, but also events that would occur after it. We see many of these prophecies in the “Upper Room Discourse” of his final evening (John 13-18), but they continue up to moments before his death (Luke 23:43). 

The role of Jesus as prophet that culminated in his crucifixion was certainly clear to his enemies. We should not forget that the soldiers who mocked and tortured him hailed him as a prophet when: “They blindfolded him and demanded, "Prophesy! Who hit you?” (Luke 22:64).  As far as the Jewish religious authorities were concerned, they were crucifying a “false” prophet (John 7:52) – unaware that in reality they were condemning the very Prophet their scriptures foretold, and that in his death, this role would be affirmed (Matthew 23:37).

The Priest

Jesus also fulfilled the role of the “priest like Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4 and compare Hebrews 7:17).  As the New Testament shows us, he carried out this priestly ministry by making an atoning blood sacrifice for all people. This is made clear by the author of the Book of Hebrews who concludes: “Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself” (Hebrews 7:27).

This principle – of Christ fulfilling the role of priest by offering himself –  is found throughout the letters of the apostles, as we see, for example, in the writings of Paul: “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood – to be received by faith” (Romans 3:25), and of John: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). But we must not forget that although Christ offered his life from the beginning, it is in the crucifixion that this role was fulfilled. And we see other glimpses of the priestly aspect of the crucifixion in the fact that Jesus was crucified at 9 am (Mark 15:25), the time of the morning temple sacrifice,  and died at 3 pm (Mark 15:33-38),  exactly the hour of the afternoon sacrifice.  It was also in his priestly role that Jesus offered a prayer from the cross on behalf of others –in this case his enemies, and by extension all of us (Luke 23:34).

The King

Although Jesus only began to fulfill the role of the “King like David” in his earthly life (2 Samuel 7:8-16 and compare Luke 1:32), his role as a king is directly spelled out in the gospel accounts.  He is identified as the king prophesied in the Old Testament throughout the Gospel of Matthew and also, occasionally, in the Gospel of John (John 12:15, 19:3, etc.). Even Mark, who mainly portrays Christ’s role as that of a servant, makes repeated reference to the kingship of Jesus in the passion narrative (Mark 15:2, 9, 17-18, 26, 32).

All four Gospels record the fact that Pilate referred to Jesus as the “King of the Jews” (Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3; John 18:33) when he appeared before him. And all four Gospels record the fact that Pilate had “King of the Jews” inscribed above the crucified Jesus (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:3). 

The royal robe, scepter, and the crown of thorns, along with the title “King of the Jews” given to Jesus by the soldiers who mocked him (John 19:3), may have been given ironically, but they nevertheless were elements in the coronation of Jesus the king at his crucifixion –  which foreshadowed his true coronation after his resurrection (Hebrews 2:9).  

Three Roles Fulfilled
​
The offices of prophet, priest, and king that were foreshadowed by Jesus in his physical life all reached a high point of fulfillment in his death.  Having prophesied the nature of his last hours, having served as a great priest in offering himself and praying for those he represented, and having been clothed, crowned, and hailed as a king, Jesus was finally enthroned on the cross.  The crucifixion was not only the fulfillment of Christ’s atoning work on our behalf, but also it was the initial fulfillment, before the resurrection, of his three eternal roles of prophet, priest, and king. 


*For more information on this topic, see our free e-book Inside the Four Gospels.

If you have read the Gospel of Mark, you may well have noticed examples of what scholars call “interpolations” or, more playfully, Markan “sandwiches.” These are sections of the narrative where a story is broken into two parts and a second, seemingly unrelated story is inserted in the middle – thus resembling two literary slices of bread with the sandwich filling in the middle.
  
Mark uses this technique frequently. For example, in the story of Jesus cursing a fig tree (Mark 11:12-14) he splits the story and inserts his account of the cleansing of the temple directly into the middle of the narrative (vs. 15-19). When we compare the parallel story in Matthew 21:18-22, where the same story of the cursed fig tree occurs, we find that it is not split in two as Mark does in his account.
 
We may be aware that Mark is making these narrative “sandwiches,” but we may not always realize what his point is in doing this.  There is, however, a clear pattern in what the Evangelist was doing. Time and again we see that Mark inserts material that may seem different, but which compares or contrasts with the outer story and in this way teaches additional lessons we might not have thought about otherwise. Take, for example, the story of Jesus being anointed at Bethany which is inserted into the middle of the story of Judas’ betrayal, as we see in the following three paragraphs from Mark 14:

Now the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were scheming to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him. “But not during the festival,” they said, “or the people may riot.” 

While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly ... .

Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them. They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over (Mark 14:1-11).

We may not immediately see the direct connection between these two stories – or any reason to insert the one inside the other – until we notice the common denominator, which is money.  In both stories Mark shows individuals going to extraordinary lengths either to get or to give money (or that which was of a great value specified in a monetary amount).  Mark’s juxtaposition of the two stories makes it impossible to miss the difference between the attitudes of get and give exhibited by Judas and the unnamed woman, along with other details. 

Even the small fact that the woman’s generosity was met with self-righteous scorn compared to Judas’ greed which was met with approval (Mark tells us the priests were “delighted” to hear his offer) adds another layer to the story.  We see the depths of Judas’ hateful attitude and grasping actions precisely because they are shown in contrast with the loving attitude and generous actions of the woman who anointed Christ.

The contrasting details are easy to see in this example, but each Markan sandwich has its own reasons for the insertion of one story into another. It is our job as readers of the Word to read carefully in order to see what the lessons are that Mark is showing us in each case. 

​
​“The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters... Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,  I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff,  they comfort me…” (Psalm 23:1-4).



It’s hard for modern Christians not to think of Psalm 23 when the word “shepherd” comes to mind.  But that beautiful psalm reflects only some of the aspects of shepherding. Leading the sheep to pasture – providing for them – and through the valley of darkness – protecting them – are certainly vital aspects of the job, but as a shepherd himself David knew that there was more to the job than just feeding and protecting the sheep.

We find additional insights into the role of the shepherd in another of David’s psalms: “Save your people and bless your inheritance; be their shepherd and carry them forever” (Psalm 28:9). In the first half of this single verse we see the same aspects of protecting the sheep and providing for them, and in the second half David also mentions guiding the sheep (the Hebrew urom is a verb – to shepherd or guide, not to be a shepherd) and carrying them.

In this short but remarkable verse, David captures perhaps all the major aspects of the shepherd’s role in four verbs: To protect the sheep from death, to supply their needs, to guide them and finally to carry them when they are weak or injured and need the shepherd’s strength in addition to their own.   

This picture meshes well with Christ’s role as shepherd, which we see in the prophecy quoted by Matthew: “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah … out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel” (Matthew 2:6).  Jesus himself elaborated on the same four aspects of that role mentioned by David in Psalm 28.  As the prophesied shepherd,  Christ did all these things for his people:

Protected them from eternal death: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11).

Provided their needs: “I am the gate for the sheep… whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture” (John 10:7-9).

Guided them: “When Jesus … saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things” (Mark 6:34).

Carried them: “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he… go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home” (Luke 15:4-6).

The people of ancient Israel in David’s day, and those of Judea in Christ’s day, knew well that these things were all involved in being a shepherd. That’s why Christ used that analogy often, and why his hearers may have understood more fully  than we sometimes do what it means that the Lord is our shepherd. They knew, as we should come to know also, that the flock need never doubt that the Shepherd will always  protect, provide for, guide, and carry the sheep. It’s what shepherds do.

The four Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – lie at the very heart of Christianity, recording its most essential teachings and providing us with most of what we know about the person of Jesus Christ, his fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies, his message, and his true identity. Without them the rest of the New Testament would not make any sense, and we would have no idea of the true significance of a great deal of what is written in the Old Testament. 
 
Yet many Christians do not know why there are four Gospels, exactly how they differ, or what their unique lessons are. This book answers those questions by looking at the “stage,” the “actors,” and the “story” for the Gospels and by providing background and perspective that can greatly increase your understanding of their message. 

The four Gospels are certainly among the most important books of the Bible. Isn’t it time you got to know them better? Our free new book Inside The Four Gospels is available in formats for computer, e-book reader and smart phone.  Download a copy here.

​Luke 24 tells the story, set shortly after the death of Jesus,  of the two disciples walking on the road to the village of Emmaus several miles from Jerusalem.  As they walked they were joined by a third individual (vv. 15-16).

The stranger asked them what they were talking about and they replied:  “About Jesus of Nazareth  …. He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.  The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him;  but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel ...” (vv. 19-21).

The stranger joined the conversation, and the three individuals talked until they came to Emmaus.  Once there the two disciples urged the stranger to stay the evening with them and join their meal.  So, Luke tells us the stranger accepted and: “When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them.  Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight” (vv. 31-32).

Reading the story from our perspective, with hindsight, we realize immediately that the stranger was, of course, Jesus, but something that we often neglect to think much about in this story is the fact that the two disciples were unaware that the One of whom they spoke was in fact the person with whom they spoke.  The two disciples had actually been talking about the person who was with them.  If that had happened to us, that we discovered someone we talked about had been the person involved – would we have wondered afterwards what we had said, wondered about any negative or critical things that might have been part of our conversation?
​
If we believe the simple Christian truth that Christ lives his life in each called and committed individual, does the principle not apply that whenever we talk to a fellow believer – or about a fellow believer – we are talking with Christ whether we realize it or not? It is the principle behind the related situation Jesus described in saying “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them” (Matthew 18:20). It is something to remember.  In that small way, we are all walking the road to Emmaus.

Of all the prophecies found in the Bible, perhaps the most amazing are those found in the twenty-second psalm.  The clearly prophetic details of the death of the individual spoken of in Psalm 22 match the New Testament accounts of the crucifixion of Christ found in the four Gospels to such a degree that they remain a central part of Christian faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Skeptics have certainly attempted to negate the prophetic aspects of this psalm, which was composed approximately 1,000 years before the life of Christ, but the reality of its foretelling cannot be ascribed to sheer coincidence. 

Certainly parts of Psalm 22 may have had a preliminary application to events in the life of David himself, but many of its details – such as the dividing of the individual's clothes and the casting lots for them, and the piercing of his hands and feet – obviously did not. 

In the same way, it is clear that the crucifixion of Jesus was witnessed by a great many individuals, and it is unrealistic in the extreme to suggest that the early Christians simply said that all the details mentioned in Psalm 22 occurred at the death of Jesus when so many could have contradicted them if that were not the case.

Here are just some of the statements found in Psalm 22 alongside their parallels in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' crucifixion.  A number of other correspondences can be seen by reading the psalm in its entirety, but consider the following selected examples:
 
Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried…“My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?”
 
Psalm 22:7 All who see me mock me;
Matthew 27:41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him
 
Psalm 22:7 they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
Matthew 27:39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads
 
Psalm 22:8 “He trusts in the Lord,” they say, “let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him …”
Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him …
 
Psalm 22:14 I am poured out like water,
John 19:34 ... pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
 
Psalm 22:15 My mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
John 19:28 Later… so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty"...
 
Psalm 22:16 … they pierce my hands and my feet.
John 19:23a … the soldiers crucified Jesus
 
Psalm 22:18  They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment…
John 19:23-24a When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining … “Let’s not tear it,” they said, “Let’s decide by lot who gets it.”
 
Psalm 22 does not end with the death of the one it describes, however.  The psalm continues by speaking of a time beyond the death of that clearly messianic individual:

All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
for dominion belongs to the Lord
and he rules over the nations.
All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him –
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim his righteousness,
declaring to a people yet unborn:
He has done it! (Psalm 22:27-31).
 
Notice especially the closing words of the psalm: “He has done it!”  These words, referring to the future culmination of the purposes of God beyond the suffering and death of the promised Messiah, were also closely echoed in the final words of Jesus on the cross:  “It is finished!” (John 19:30) – words of victory marking not the end, but the beginning. 

Every Christian knows that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, but many do not know why.    There are actually two reasons why Jesus was born in that tiny Judean village, and both can be found in Scripture. 

First, it was foretold that the Messiah was to come from the house of David – to be a descendant of the young shepherd who became king of ancient Israel 1,000 years before the time of Christ. This was promised to David himself:
 
“When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom … and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son … Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:12-16).

This prophecy could not have been completely fulfilled by David’s physical descendants, but only by a Messianic king who could rule “forever” (vss. 13, 16).  That is why in the New Testament it was foretold of Jesus:  “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:32), and why, of course, Jesus is called the “Son of David” throughout the Gospels.

So the Davidic sonship of the Messiah was one reason for his eventual birth in Bethlehem – the place where David was born (and crowned) and his ancestral home (1 Samuel 17:12).   As a descendant of David, Joseph, the husband of Jesus’ mother Mary,  was required to travel to Bethlehem for a Roman census: 

“In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)  And everyone went to their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David” (Luke 2:1-4).

But there is another reason for the Bethlehem nativity. The Old Testament Book of Micah contains a fascinating prophecy of what was to occur in the fulfillment of God’s promise of the Messiah:

“And you, O tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, to you shall it come, the former dominion shall come, kingship for the daughter of Jerusalem … But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. ... And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. And he shall be their peace” (Micah 4:8, 5:2-5).

This prophecy tells us that the Messianic ruler who would shepherd his people was, like David, to come from Bethlehem and that he would eventually reign “to the ends of the earth.”  But notice another detail.  The prophecy begins “And you, O tower of the flock ...” for which the Hebrew is migdal eder, literally “Tower of Eder.” This tower is first mentioned in the Book of Genesis.  It stood on the outskirts of Bethlehem  where  the patriarch Jacob’s wife Rachel (Genesis 35:18-19) gave birth to her son “Ben-Oni” (meaning “son of sorrow”), whose name was changed to Benjamin (“son of the right hand”).  In New Testament times, the tower was a watchtower used to guard the flocks of sheep that were pastured in that area.

The Jewish Mishnah (Shekalim vii. 4) indicates that sheep in the fields around Migdal Eder were controlled by the Temple in Jerusalem and were used to provide the animals sacrificed in the temple rituals.   A number of biblical scholars have pointed out that if the prophecy of Micah 4:8 was fulfilled literally, then Jesus may well have been born in some building in this general part of the outskirts of Bethlehem.  The word translated “manger” where the infant Jesus was placed (Luke 3:7) could also be translated as “stall” or any holding area for animals.

More importantly, have you ever wondered why the Gospel of Luke tells us that at the Nativity, angels appeared to shepherds? The heavenly host could have appeared, of course, to a group of soldiers, priests, travelers, or any other individuals, but we are told that they appeared to shepherds who were grazing their flocks in the area where Jesus was born (Luke 2:8-15).  If Jesus was born in the area of Migdol Eder, the area where the sacrificial lambs were born and raised, the shepherds would naturally have been the people present in that area.

But regardless of the details of its fulfillment, the intent of the prophecy of Micah is clear.  The promised Messiah who was the Lamb who would be sacrificed for his people (John 1:29) would also be their future Shepherd (Matthew 2:6).  We see this principle throughout the Gospels, which speak of Jesus in both his initial human and later divine roles – as both the Servant and the future promised King, the Captive and the future Warrior, the Judged and the future Judge (Matthew 25:32, etc.).  In every case, at his first coming Jesus fulfilled the lesser role, and at his second coming he will fulfill the greater role.
 
And there is a lesson in this for us.  As we read the Gospel accounts and reflect on the life of Jesus, we should look carefully at how he carried out the lesser roles he fulfilled as a human being.  These roles are recorded so that our present lives may be modelled on his – just as he promises to eventually share his greater roles with us  if we are faithful in the lesser ones we have now (Luke 16:10).

​Many Christians know that the death of Christ took place at the “ninth” hour of the day – about 3:00 pm – at exactly the time of the afternoon sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple. Christ’s death was, of course, what the physical sacrificial system had pointed to, but relatively few Christians have noticed the extent to which the sacrifice of Jesus tied to those Temple offerings.

According to the Law of Moses, sacrifices were made in the Jewish Temple three times each day – at the third, sixth, and ninth hour of the day. The daylight part of the day was reckoned to start at 6:00 a.m., so these are the hours we would call  9:00 a.m., 12 noon, and 3:00 p.m.  When we look closely at the Gospel accounts, we see certain events at the death of Jesus corresponded exactly with these three times of offering.

1) The Gospel of Mark tells us that “ … it was the third hour when they crucified him” (Mark 15:25 ESV). This is when the actual crucifixion took place when Jesus was nailed to the stake or cross  on which he offered up his body – at the exact time of the morning sacrifice – although it was a number of agonizing hours before Christ died.

2) Mark also tells us “And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour” (Mark 15:33 ESV). This darkness – that began exactly at the time of the mid-day sacrifice and lasted till about 3:00 pm – symbolized the weight of all sin that was placed upon Christ, as he temporarily was separated from God, sacrificing his relationship with the Father. This separation was expressed “about the ninth hour” in his anguished words “My God, my God, Why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46).
​
3) Finally, Luke tells us, at the ninth hour or 3:00 pm, at the time of the so-called “evening prayers” and the last sacrifice of the day:  “Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!’ And having said this he breathed his last” (Luke 23:46) – he gave up his very life.

So the sacrifice of Jesus literally spanned all three of the sacrificial offering times of the day of his death – the morning, noon and evening offerings.  At the third hour he was crucified and offered up his body. At the sixth hour  he was cut off - he temporarily sacrificed his relationship with God.  At the ninth hour he died – he gave up life itself.
Interestingly, in his epistle to Titus the apostle Paul tells us, regarding Christ’s sacrifice, that “He gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to cleanse for Himself a people for His own possession, eager to do good works” (Titus 2:14).   Although Paul was not speaking directly of the three aspects of the sacrifice of Christ in saying these three things, his words are relevant in reminding us of how the three aspects apply to us.

When Paul writes that Christ “… gave himself to redeem us...” we should remember that, biblically, redemption is accomplished by  substituting one person or thing for another. In offering up his body, Christ acted as a substitute and redeemed us – the first point Paul makes.  In the same way, when Paul says it was to “cleanse for Himself a people for His own possession” we should remember that Christ temporarily sacrificed his relationship with his Father because of the burden of sin placed upon him, in order that we could have a relationship with God – to be a part of the people of God. Finally, when Paul says the people of God would be “… eager to do good works” we see a result of the third sacrifice – of Christ’s life – and we see how this applies to us in Paul’s words in his letter to the Romans:

“Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness” (Romans 6:13). 

In saying we should sacrifice ourselves as “an instrument of righteousness” Paul means, of course, to do good works – exactly as he writes in Titus 2:14 (and see Titus 3:8, and Ephesians 2:10).  It is a command that is clearly echoed in the Book of Hebrews: “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (Hebrews 13:16).

So while Paul’s mention, in his letter to Titus, of the three aspects of the sacrifice of Christ are not tied directly to the three sacrifices of the day of the crucifixion, his words give us cause for reflection and remind us of our own responsibilities in accepting the three parts of Christ’s offering. We too need to offer our bodies as a sacrifice to God, we too need to do whatever we can to help others find fellowship with him, and we too need to offer the sacrifice of our lives – the time we are given – to the cause of good works.  To the extent that we are following him, the three aspects of Christ’s sacrifice will be reflected in our lives also.

Scripture in Focus: John 2:3-4 

In the story of the wedding at Cana when Jesus performed the miracle of turning water into wine, readers sometimes think that he addressed his mother somewhat harshly or even disrespectfully.  Look at the exchange:

“When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, ‘They have no more wine.’  ‘Woman, why do you involve me?’ Jesus replied. ‘My hour has not yet come’” (John 2:3-4).  Jesus’ words sound perhaps even harsher in the KJV:  “Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?” But there is no harshness or disrespect here at all.  Actually, “woman” was a standard form of address in the ancient world –  just as Jesus often addresses males as “Man” (Luke 5:20, etc.) – and the expression carries no lack of respect any more than saying “lady” or “ma’am” would for us today.

Remember that we don’t know the actual words Jesus used in this circumstance.  He probably spoke to His mother in Aramaic which was the commonly used language in Palestine at that time, but in the Greek in which the  New Testament was written, the word “woman” guné  (from which we get our word "gynecologist") is in the ‘vocative’ case which was reserved for addressing others, even in the most formal speech.  Jesus used the same form of address when speaking to other women (Matt. 15:28, etc.).  At his crucifixion,  when he lovingly delivered his mother into the care of his disciple John as his last act of kindness before his death,  this was the form of the word he used in saying to her “Woman, behold your son!” (John 19:26).

Another detail of the wedding story which might sound harsh to our ears is the fact that Jesus said: “…why do you involve me?” (John 2:4), or as the KJV has it:  “…what have I to do with thee?”  But in the original Greek, the expression  is literally “What [is that] to me and to you?” – in other words he includes his mother with himself in saying, in effect, “Is this our responsibility?” or perhaps even “Does this situation need to involve us?”

But the story itself shows us that there was no tension between Jesus and his mother. Immediately after he answered her, note that “His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you,’” showing that she had not been rebuffed and that Jesus was about to help as she had requested –  as, of course, he did.

Although the turning of water into wine is usually said to be Jesus’ first miracle, we do not know that to be the case. The New Testament does not say it was his first, it is just his first recorded miraculous deed.  The fact that Mary turned to Jesus and asked him to help in the situation suggests that he may have already quietly done deeds of healing and help before this point. In saying his time was not yet come (John 2:3-4), Jesus may have meant not the performance of good deeds, but that the time for public display of such deeds – as in a wedding before many guests – was not necessarily yet.

Have you  ever tried to make a deal with God?  I don’t mean in a blatant way, such as “If you give me what I want, I will obey you,” as most of us understand this would  be wrong. But there are more subtle ways in which we can sometimes unknowingly stumble because of what might be called the “If” mentality. 

“If” is a small word with a great potential for misuse.  In fact, according to the four Gospels, many of the spiritual attacks against Jesus were based on this diminutive word.  Satan’s temptations of Jesus at the beginning of His ministry show us one of the ways in which we can be lured by an “If” mentality. Notice the wording: “If you are the Son of God command that these stones be made bread … if you are the son of God throw yourself down … if you will fall down and worship me" (Matthew 4:3-8). 

When we study these temptations in detail we see Satan repeatedly used the word “if” with the implication that if some action would be for a good purpose, then it is justified.  This is the underlying attitude that we too may have in suggesting that God do something for what we feel is a good and necessary goal.  We should always remember  that even if it is for a good purpose, the ends do not justify the means unless they conform  to God’s will.

Later in the ministry of  Jesus we see the word  “if” used in response to him in numerous other settings. We see it, for example, in the demands of the Jewish leaders: “If you are the Christ, tell us plainly" (John 10: 24), and we should be careful not to fall into this particular “If” trap, also.  Jesus had performed many miracles and signs throughout Judea, yet the Jewish leaders wanted him to confirm the signs for them – to see them with their own eyes. We need to be careful to be attuned to what God is doing in our lives and the things he is wanting us to be aware of. We should not tell God how to get a point across to us any more than we should suggest that we will only hear if the message is conveyed in a manner we think is “proof” to us.

The Gospels record the “If”mentality manifesting itself all the way down to the end of Jesus’s life.  Some of those present at his crucifixion, including some of the rulers and chief priests, said:  "If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him" (Matthew 27:42 NKJV). Here, we see the attitude of “if” in its most raw and rebellious form – “If God does what I think is necessary, I’ll respond as I should.”  This is not far from the attempts to make a deal with God that we mentioned as we began this discussion. There may seem to be “nothing in it for us” in some of these circumstances – but we still try to make God conform to our will, our conditions for obedience.

In every one of these cases and many more in the ministry of Jesus, the word “if” was used in a manner which sought to impose another will, another viewpoint, on that of God.  We see it in the attitude of the self-righteous Pharisee  who  said “if he were a prophet, he would know who and what manner of woman … touched him” (Luke 7:39) and in dozens of other places.  We must always remember that God’s way is not one of a number of options for which we can negotiate. There is truly only one kind of “If” mentality that is right and proper in our relationship with God:  the attitude that Jesus himself exhibited throughout his earthly life – the attitude of “If it is your will…”  (Matthew 26:42).

“Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion!  Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9).

The Gospel of Luke recounts how Jesus fulfilled the words spoken by the prophet Zechariah as he entered Jerusalem in a “triumphal entry” during the climactic week ending his ministry (Luke 19:28-44).   Luke tells us how Jesus instructed two of his disciples to go to a nearby home where they would find a young donkey and to bring it to him. He told the disciples that if anyone challenged them, they were to simply say: “The Lord needs it” (Luke 19:31).  The disciples did this – explaining to the donkey’s owners what Jesus had told them. 

This initial part of the story is interesting in itself.  Jesus was, in effect, invoking the ancient principle of angaria (from a Babylonian word meaning “mounted messenger”) by which kings, rulers and other individuals with official responsibilities could requisition property for official use.  Angaria originated in the earliest postal systems in the ancient Persian, Greek and later Roman cultures where an animal could be “requisitioned” from its owner to carry the mail on the next stage of its multiple-staged journey, somewhat equivalent to the “Pony Express” of the American frontier.  In the Judea of Jesus’ day, under Roman rule, animals could be commandeered in this way for the emperor’s service, and the right was also expanded to include the needs of the king, and even magistrates and rabbis. 

This incident was, then, the “royal” prelude to the actual triumphal entry in which the crowds provided what we would call today a “red carpet” entry for Jesus by covering the road with their capes and the branches of trees to welcome him as he rode on the donkey into the city (Luke 19:35-37).   The scene was actually not unlike a humbler version of the great Roman “Triumphs” in which the grateful citizens celebrated the procession of heroes who had served the people.  In fact, the similarity with a Roman Triumph is more than  superficial, because the Triumph was a civil and religious ceremony which was held to publicly “celebrate and sanctify” the success of a commander who had led his forces to victory in the service of the people.  

It is clear that Jesus rejected the aggrandizing nature of the pagan Triumphs which fed the cult of personalities in Roman and other cultures, and he did this by riding humbly on a young donkey – the antithesis of the great horses of conquering kings and heroes – while fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9 in every detail. Yet Jesus did accept the people’s praise (Luke 19:40), and the details of the story from beginning to end show that a triumphal entry – a symbolic victory celebration – was intended.

The words of the crowds who welcomed Jesus in this triumphal entry are important. Luke tells us that they quoted from the great Messianic Psalm 118 (Luke 19:38) – which is why the Pharisees attempted to silence them (Luke 19:39). This is the psalm that contains the statement so significantly quoted by Jesus: “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone” (Psalm 118:22), but it also contains the clear references to the triumphal entry of the Messiah: “I look in triumph on my enemies” (Psalm 118:7), “I will not die but live, and will proclaim what the Lord has done” (Psalm 118:17), “Open for me the gates of the righteous; I will enter and give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm 118:19), “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. From the house of the Lord we bless you. The Lord is God, and he has made his light shine on us. With boughs in hand, join in the festal procession up to the horns of the altar” (Psalm 118:26).  Although Luke only cites a few of the words from Psalm 118, the psalm is in fact a full prophetic description of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

But if this was a triumph, what was the victory? Jesus had not yet defeated sin and death on the cross, he had not yet completed the work he came to accomplish in this regard, yet there was one way in which a victory was surely celebrated.  The primary purpose of the angaria, by which Jesus obtained the donkey on which he rode, was to deliver a message. And at this point, at the end of his ministry, Jesus had successfully delivered the news of the Kingdom of God to the point that it was now established and would continue to spread throughout the world.  He had also lived the perfect life needed in order that he could give himself as a sacrifice for all people.

In that sense, Jesus had fully triumphed in his work as he came to Jerusalem as “... your king who comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9, emphases added). The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem prior to his death was indeed a triumph, and Jesus had delivered the only message that in the end really matters.

Do you particularly enjoy the parables of Jesus – or do you wish you understood them better? Either way our new book is for you! 

This new book is a practical but carefully researched commentary on all the parables. It gives many insights into the stories and their meanings through historical facts and other information that can enrich and transform your understanding of them. But this book is not just a commentary – it focuses on the living lessons of the parables themselves.

The City on a Hill is available on our sister-site in different formats (including PDF so you can read it on any electronic device). 

The book  is written from a nondenominational perspective, is completely free and free of advertising. You do not need to give an email address or any other information to download the book (just click on the download link on the LivingWithFaith.org "Downloads" page and enjoy).  And if you enjoy the book and find it profitable, please feel free to make a copy of the file and pass it, or the URL, along to your friends and others you know who may find the book helpful.

The City on A Hill: Lessons from the Parables of Jesus  is the first of a series of free e-Books we hope to produce this year – enjoy this one and look out for new titles as we go through 2015!

Have you ever noticed, when reading the Gospels, how often we are told that Jesus noticed something, saw something?   We are frequently told that he observed those around him: “Seeing the woman…,” “seeing the man …,” “seeing the people...,” “seeing their faith …,”–even noticing small details of people’s expressions: “seeing he had become sad…” (Luke 18:24).

It is clear that Jesus was observant, and although  his eyes took in no more than those of others, it is clear that rather than just looking at people Jesus saw them in a way that others did not – it is as if he thought about everyone he saw.   Do we have that kind of focus, or do we go through each day so busy and absorbed in our own lives that we are conscious of others, but not clearly seeing them in focus?  The truth is, we can’t love without looking – seeing – comprehending. Perhaps part of the answer is that if we see ourselves as the servants of others, we will see them differently – as Christ did.

The apostle Paul put it this way: “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who … made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant…” (Philippians 2:5-7).  Think of an attentive waiter in a fine restaurant, or a rich person’s personal servant. A servant certainly watches those he is responsible for – staying aware and looking out for any need that may occur. And a person’s servant  doesn’t just stop at noticing the need – the servant obviously acts swiftly to take care of it.

That’s what the Gospels show was the natural corollary of Jesus seeing people the way he did – he didn’t stop at seeing them, he immediately responded to what he saw:  “seeing the woman he said …,” “seeing their faith he [healed]…,”  “seeing the crowd he [asked] ‘Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?’” (John 6:5).  Jesus saw and then acted with compassion according to what he saw.  So seeing people in a focused way was only the first half of what he accomplished with his observant attitude. Always, the seeing led to acting in some manner in order to help those who needed help.

We too can accomplish so much more when we train our minds to really see the people around us, to focus on them and to ask ourselves what do they need and is there a way we can serve them. It’s not just about giving physical things; it’s just as much about seeing people’s emotional and spiritual needs. But it takes a kind of awakening of the eyes to see like that – we won’t do it unless we think about doing it.  Perhaps that’s part of what the prophet Isaiah meant when he wrote: “Then the eyes of those who see will no longer be closed…” (Isaiah 32:3).  He wasn’t talking about the blind, but those who see coming to really see. That may primarily mean coming to see spiritual truth, of course, but it can also mean coming to see others as we should see them – through the eyes of a servant. 

It’s clear that we have entered the age of the infographic. So it makes sense that the publishers of the New International version of the Bible have now brought out the NIV Quickview Bible which (usually) effectively summarizes many aspects of the Biblical narrative into easily accessible and interesting infographics.  

The infographic we look at here, “Teachings of Jesus in the Gospels,” provides a good example of the value of this kind of presentation for rapidly conveying important data.  The first thing we notice in this graph is the huge preponderance of Christ’s teachings regarding “Spiritual Life” – far greater in number than even those on the Kingdom of God. Yet herein lies a problem in that we don’t know what criteria the producer of graphics of this nature utilized in dividing the verses on these topics – many of which overlap. For example, many of the verses where Jesus is speaking about “Spiritual Life” are clearly in the context of what has been called “Kingdom Living” – living according to the principles of the Kingdom of God in this life now (see our article The Kingdom of God:  Living Tomorrow Today), and when this is taken fully into account, the balance between the “Kingdom of God” and “Spiritual Life” categories might be quite different. Further, many of the verses regarding "Last days and judgment" may actually be relevant to the Kingdom of God.

On the other hand, the graphic is successful in showing us several things. Even if we ignore possible or probable overlaps, we can still see the centrality of some of these great themes of Jesus’ teaching; and some – such as marriage and family – may come as a surprise.

As with any other infographic, we must always ask ourselves what other ways the pie could have been sliced. For example, if we made a category for “Prophetic statements,” it would have to include many of those in the “Kingdom of God” category, as well as all those from the “Jesus' death and resurrection” and “Last days and judgment” categories. As such, at as many as 480 verses, it would clearly become the second largest category. But we can do some of this re-cutting of the pie by simply adding relevant categories to form new ones.  If we are willing to take the time to do that, graphs of this type become even more significant.    

Most infographics are also limited in the ability they give us to distinguish between real and apparent significance. I would presume that the Parable of the Lost Coin is included in the section on “Money and Treasure,” but if we read that parable we find it is not about money per se, it just uses money as a metaphor for something else.  In cases like this we need to be careful that we do not think that Jesus put more stress on the importance of money than he really did – something an infographic can’t really show us.

Ultimately, then, by their very nature, infographics are always going to be limited in the degree that they can be specific about details, but the one we have chosen here represents particularly difficult data to present.  The graph still shows us interesting and important things, however, and if we think about it, we can see just a little bit more clearly what Jesus talked about.

Most of us know what it feels like to finally accomplish something we have worked toward for a long time:  a goal, a dream, a project to which we have dedicated time and energy.  Even with small scale things it can be  a triumphant feeling. The larger the accomplishment, the greater the triumph, thankfulness and deep happiness that come with accomplished goals.

This ties to the spring season of the year in which we celebrate the supreme sacrifice of the Son of God on behalf of humanity.  That had surely been a project a long time in the planning, and it had been the thirty-five or more patient years of the physical life of Jesus (see our last blog post) in the actual making:  growing, building, preparing, working toward the eventual goal of the sacrifice itself. 

Meditating on the sacrificial death of Christ is a somber and heart-wrenching thing – as it doubtless should be – but I cannot help but believe that even as he perished in excruciating pain, there was for the Son of God a feeling of triumph and thankfulness at the very end.  He had done it – successfully accomplished the very reason for his human life – something that would touch all other human lives throughout all time.  We know that, leading up to that moment, because of the human sin he had taken upon himself, he was cut off from the very One who had brought him thus far, as is seen in his almost final words “Why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34 – and see Psalm 22:1).  But he had to have known that he and the Father had succeeded. 

It is in that way I believe the very last words of Jesus – three small words, in English translation, spoken directly before he died – were the most triumphant words spoken to that point in history: “It is finished!” (John 19:30).   To that point in time no single event had accomplished so much good or incorporated such a victory.  Those had to have been the three most triumphant words ever spoken – until just a few days later, when they were replaced by three yet more triumphant words: “He has risen” (Matthew 28:6).

This is one of those questions where many Christians believe they know the answer, but may not. Most people who know the Bible will answer that Christ died around the age of 33 or 33 and a half. But careful reading of the Gospel accounts shows this to be unlikely.  The facts are very nicely summarized in an article by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Justin Taylor published in Christianity Today this week – as this brief extract shows:

“The common assertion seems reasonable that if Jesus "began his ministry" when he "was about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23) and engaged in a three-year ministry ... then he was 33 years old at the time of his death. However, virtually no scholar believes Jesus was actually 33 when he died. Jesus was born before Herod the Great issued the decree to execute "all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under" (Matt. 2:16, ESV) and before Herod died in the spring of 4 B.C. If Jesus was born in the fall of 5 or 6 B.C., and if we remember that we don't count the "0" between B.C. and A.D., then Jesus would have been 37 or 38 years old when he died in the spring of A.D. 33 (as we believe is most likely). Even if Jesus died in the year A.D. 30 (the only serious alternative date), he would have been 34 or 35, not 33 years old.”

As the Christianity Today article points out, no major doctrine is affected by this common misconception, but it is something that is better to understand in speaking of Jesus’ life  and in telling the story to others.  You can read the CT article here.

All the Gospels tell the story of Jesus casting the money changers and animal sellers from the temple.  It’s a powerful story.  As you remember, when He found people keeping animals in the temple and making profit in various ways He reacted dramatically.  He overturned the tables of those who changed the common Greek and Roman money for Jewish coins (which were acceptable  for Temple offerings) and used a whip to drive out the animals and birds being sold there (for sacrifices), saying: “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” (John 2:16).

The picture painted in the Gospels is clearly one of Jesus displaying righteous anger at the way in which the temple was being polluted and commercially used, and at least one modern portrayal  of the story depicts Jesus as seeing the situation and flying into a sudden and furious anger.  It may be easy to imagine it that way, but the  Gospels actually show that nothing could be further from the truth. Mark’s account is particularly interesting in that it gives us extra information which shows that Jesus did not just act with natural  impulsive anger, but with a controlled anger based on prior thought.  

Alone of the Gospels, Mark adds this fascinating detail to the temple cleansing narrative.  After his humble but triumphant entry into Jerusalem, as recorded by the other Gospel writers, Mark tells us that “Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve” (Mark 11:11).  Then Mark continues, “The next day … On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there” (Mark 11:12-15).  It is clear from Mark’s addition that Jesus must have already seen the sellers and money changers in the Temple courts, but He chose to return to Bethany for the night – doubtless thinking and praying about what He had seen – before returning the following day to cleanse the temple. 

Jesus’ driving out of the animals and the money changers and salesmen was clearly the opposite of hasty, impulsive anger, and John’s Gospel adds yet a further detail that also shows this.   “In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.  So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts…” (John 2:14-15).  The Greek indicates that the “whip” used by Jesus was made from the rushes used as the bedding for the animals and also indicates that he “plaited” the whip – combining multiple rushes into a serviceable whip – something that would have taken some time.  Once again we see that unlike the common picture of Jesus seeing the money changers and instantly driving them out in great anger, when He did return to the temple He actually took time to plait or weave the whip he used. 

So Christ’s behavior in this circumstance was the opposite of rushing to anger and provides a clear lesson for us.  Even in the most justifiable instances of provocation, we need to think and pray about how we should respond (James 1:19-20).  Rather than rushing to anger,  we too need to take the time to figuratively plait the rushes.

Seeing Shepherds, oil on canvas, by Daniel Bonnell  (c) 2010.  Reproduced with permission.





I don't usually include discussions of paintings on this web site, but in this case I am happy to make an exception.  A few days ago I saw this astounding painting by Daniel Bonnell, an artist whose work I only recently came to know and appreciate.

The picture is the subject of this week's short article "A Shepherd for a While" on the Strategic Understanding page.  The article represents a musing on the picture and its subject - the importance of which is not limited to a particular time of the year. 

Don't miss the  picture at larger size on the article page. It amazed  me and I think it will amaze you, too.