Chapter 3 – The Second Rejection of the King (Part 6 of 8)

Last week we looked at the betrothal and marriage in the days of Jesus, and how the news of Mary’s pregnancy would have created real tension between the two teenagers and their families, based on the way such unions were arranged. And in the Law of Moses, it was customary to stone a woman who was found in Mary’s predicament along with the male partner (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22).

As you can see, Joseph had a major decision to make: Have her stoned or divorce her, based on the verses referenced above and the allowance given by Moses in Deuteronomy 24. Both decisions were not good for Mary or her baby. It’s a good thing God sent the angel to clear things up (Matthew 1:20-23).

Man’s Way of Explaining God’s Ways

To add to the controversy and confusion, some scholars believe Matthew wrote chapter 1 of his gospel account specifically to counter a slander against his Lord which was prevalent in Jesus’s day. What was that slander exactly?

That Jesus wasn’t deity.

Are you surprised? The people around the incident surely would have talked. They would have gossiped and attempted to determine how Mary became pregnant. In Greek and Roman culture, the depraved and gross results of mingling and cohabitation between gods and goddesses with humans happened all the time. However, in Jewish culture, such occurrences were foreign. Therefore, for the Israelites living in Joseph and Mary’s village, the explanations in the minds of the onlookers would have been much more human-centered.

The most popular story propagated was that Mary either cohabitated with a Roman soldier during the early days of her betrothal to Joseph or right before the betrothal began. Therefore, the slanderous conclusion was that Jesus was an illegitimate son born out-of-wedlock. He was therefore the product of an illicit affair between Mary—a Jewish woman, and an unnamed Roman soldier—a Gentile. As a result, Jesus would have been a half-breed, a Samaritan, which in that day was a term of derision and mockery, and was not used specifically just to refer to people who were born in the region of Samaria.

In John 8, we have a confrontation between Jesus and some Jews who had chosen to believe His teachings to some degree but were having a hard time understanding them. They argue that they are children of Abraham (vv. 33, 39). Jesus tries to get them to see that if they were children of Abraham, they would do as Abraham did. In other words, they would do the will of their Father in heaven. However, they were trying to kill Jesus, which Jesus claimed was the work of their “own father” (v. 41), the devil.

Then, they respond by making an interesting comment in verse 41: “We are not born of fornication,” they protested. “We have one Father, God himself.”

Did you hear what they said? In a backhanded fashion, they beat around the bush and accused Jesus’s mother of having a sexual relationship outside of marriage (porneias in the Greek, from which we get the word “porno,” is always used to refer to sex between two people not married). This relationship “procreated” (gegennemetha in the Greek) a child as a result, in a very human manner, just like all other human births. They were claiming that there was nothing supernatural about Jesus’s birth. On the contrary, they were claiming not to have been born as illegitimate children like “others they knew,” namely Jesus. They were claiming to have been born of God as children of the promise, with Abraham as their father. What a stark contrast, and what a lie!

You see, they had heard the rumors too. 

Jesus responds by telling them in essence that their actions speak otherwise, and they are doing the work of their father, the devil, because he’s been a liar and a murderer from the beginning.

Jesus then asks these questions: “Which one of you can prove I am guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why do you not believe me? I’ll tell you the truth. The person who belongs to God hears what God says. This is why you cannot understand what I am telling you. You do not belong to God” (vv. 46-47). 

Jesus was telling the truth. If they believed in Him the way they were supposed to believe, then they would know everything He was teaching was true. But they could not believe it.¹ 

Do you know why?

The answer is found in their response. In verse 48, they answer Jesus: “Are we not correct in saying that you are a Samaritan? And demon-possessed also?” 

Wow. So much for beating around the bush. 

The “obvious explanation” of how Mary got pregnant was still alive and well over thirty years later. And not only was Jesus an illegitimate half-breed, according to them, He was also demon-possessed because He claimed to be God in the flesh. Jesus said they were of their father, the devil. So, they used an old rumor to accuse Jesus of the same thing because in their minds, Deity was never born of human flesh. That was a “pagan” thing. Thus, humanity once again tried to understand the realm of the Kingdom of Heaven, where God Almighty resides and reigns, and failed miserably.

This is how twisted the truth of God’s teachings and instructions in the Old Testament had become in the days of Jesus’s earthly ministry. It is here where the words of Isaiah come to light: “Woe unto them who call evil good and good evil; who call darkness light and light darkness; who call bitter sweet and sweet bitter. Woe unto them who are wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight!” (5:20-21).

This scene in John 8 is a continuation of Rejection #2, by the way. For when Jesus said in verse 58—“I tell you the truth, before Abraham was, I am!”—everyone understood what He meant because at once, the text tells us, they picked up stones and were going to carry out the will of their father, the devil, because Jesus had supposedly spoken blasphemy by claiming to be God. 

In other words, these “believers” had rejected God by rejecting Jesus, which was Jesus’s point through this entire episode. They were talking and acting just like their forefathers in 1 Samuel 8, only now, their thinking had become even more corrupt. 

Just to show how far the lie about Jesus being a half-breed Samaritan had gone, they actually knew Jesus wasn’t from Samaria. When Phillip told Nathaniel about Jesus and tells him to come see, Nathaniel responds, “Can anything good come from Nazareth” (John 1:46). Even after the scene in John 8, the crowds are hailing Jesus in Matthew 21:11 as a “prophet from Nazareth of Galilee.” They knew Jesus was from Nazareth. Calling Him a Samaritan was a slam. Therefore, it is true that Matthew could have been writing it to counter this slanderous accusation, and probably was, but the purpose was far greater than simply winning a debate with doubters.² 

When it comes to the actual birth of Jesus, Matthew is very careful with his wording in chapter 1. His phrase “before they came together” (v. 18) implies that Mary was not pregnant because of a premarital relationship with Joseph. No consummation yet. 

But what about the scoffers who concluded she had an illicit relationship with a Roman soldier, you ask? 

Matthew anticipates this too. His phrase in verse 18, “she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit,” implies that this birth was different. It was unique, and in the history of Jewish births, it was one of a kind. It was born of the work of the Holy Spirit. God’s Spirit. 

The Holy Spirit has always been in business of creating. In Luke 1, Mary is confronted by the angel,

Gabriel. He tells her of what is about to happen soon with her becoming pregnant. Even Mary, like we would be, was skeptical. She asks in verse 34, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” Good question. 

Gabriel then uses some interesting imagery to describe this incarnational process: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.” In Genesis 1:1-2, we see the same imagery as the Spirit of God hovers over the formless, dark, empty waters of the earth. 

Out of nothing—ex nihilo—the Spirit of God creates what we know as planet Earth with all of its life forms as well as the universe in Genesis 1. Now, in Matthew 1, we have the same Holy Spirit of God at work again, creating out of nothing, despite no human relationship, a baby, the Son of God. The emphasis here is not that Jesus was born of a virgin so much as He was the work of the Holy Spirit.

In this one action, God was reestablishing His Kingship. This action would eventually lead to God’s reestablishment of His theocracy, but in a different manner. Instead of a group of specific people of a specific nationality, with boundaries and a geographical location they could call “home,” this reestablished theocracy would have no boundaries, no geographical location, and would be open to all peoples of all nationalities. We would call that The Church. Within this reestablished theocracy, in a more tangible manner, God made known the Kingdom of Heaven by having His Son, Jesus, exemplify what life in this kingdom looked like on a daily basis, thus renewing all the instructions and teachings (torah). This “Law and the Prophets” was not to be thrown away or rewritten. It was to be fulfilled in the person of His one and only Son (Matthew 5:17-20; John 3:16).

Thought for the Week:

“If something is repeated enough, it will become truth.”

Have you ever heard that phrase before, or something like it? We see it all the time in today’s culture, especially via media outlets. They call them talking points. When someone wants to get a narrative out there, they give media outlets "talking points” to use, and then one by one, you’ll see those points used over and over again for days on end. When a montage is pieced together, it becomes quite comical and disturbing at the same time.

The plan is simple. Have those “trusted news sources” say it enough, the vast majority of viewers and listeners will believe it to be true, whether it is or isn’t. To show how it works, you can watch the first two-and-a-half minutes of this clip and see it for yourself. And to be fair, you can watch this clip, too, as these two clips are proof that both sides of the aisle in Washington are equally guilty of doing the same thing. It’s not a “conservative” thing or a “liberal” thing. It’s a satanic thing. 

Satan has used this age-old method of fighting in the “arena of ideas” for centuries. And the people of Bethlehem, Nazareth, and the surroundings areas of Israel, to eventually include Jerusalem, fell prey to it as well when they believed the lie that Jesus was the product of an illicit affair. “Everybody is saying it, so it must be true.” 

People use these tactics when they want to hide something. They usually claim it’s their rights or their way of life they are defending. And sometimes, it does fall under the category of something “simple” or “benign.” Examples of this could be arguing against dieting when you really want to eat boxes of Oreos every day, or whether or not you should binge watch a certain TV show when you know you should be mowing the yard. 

However, in most cases, the act of spreading talking points is ultimately about hiding our sin. In the case of Jesus and the so-called believers in John 8, that is what this was all about. If they could discredit the One who was claiming their lifestyle choices were harmful, they would feel justified in continuing to live in their sin. In their minds, the “charlatan” would be exposed, and they would be off the hook. 

So, as Christians, we have to be careful what we defend. The only thing we should defend is truth, if we truly wish to be free. The truth of Scripture, that is. For that is the only truth Christians should defend. All other “truths” must be sifted through God’s Word. If a “truth” is proven otherwise, then we must expose that for what it is so others cannot be led astray, using God’s Word as our “preponderance of evidence.” Even Jesus, ministering in the midst of an oppressive Roman occupation in the land of Israel, didn't gather all the zealots and rabble-rousers and start a revolution. Instead, He was more concerned about the witness of Israel and their waywardness from God. Oh, if only the Church was so like-minded.   

This is what Jesus meant when He said in John 8 (and I’m paraphrasing here), “If you hear and obey God’s Words, then you are of God. If God is your Father, you will love Me. And if you continue in that Word, which is My Word, too, you will know the truth, and that truth will set you free. If you do not believe any of this, and you believe I am lying, then you are of your father, the devil, because he has been lying since the beginning about God and Me.”     

Jesus was more concerned about their relationship with God than their relationship to the Romans. We need to have the same mindset. 

  

NEXT WEEK:

We begin to see how the Rejection of Jesus becomes personal to those in positions of power as history comes together, like clay on the potter's wheel, in the hands of God Almighty.

 

Endnotes

1. This episode in John 8 is a classic example of how “believing” means so much more in the New Testament than how we perceive it today. In today’s culture, “to believe” means you believe it to be true, like the Earth being round as opposed to flat, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun as opposed to the other way around. However, do these “truths” affect your life or cause you to live your life any differently? Not really. In New Testament theology, “to believe” causes a significant change in your lifestyle. It’s not just words or an intellectual exercise. The “belief” causes one to change how he or she views life, interacts with it, and lives it on a daily basis.

For a believer in Jesus, it means to repent and follow Him, adhering to God’s instructions and teachings. It means a change of heart has taken place. Where God, Jesus, and the Bible were once viewed as irrelevant or even enemies, the person has “repented”—done an about-face, a one-eighty—and is now heading toward the things of God as opposed to away from the things of God. Hence the issue Jesus was having with these Jews in John 8:31, who obviously said they believed in Jesus but were having major issues with His teachings. They claimed to believe, but the evidence proved to the contrary. 

This is why Jesus referred to them (including the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law) as hypocrites and liars. He said in Matthew 15:7-8: “You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you: ‘This people draw near to me with their mouths, and they honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. In vain they worship me; their teachings are but commandments taught by men.’” These “believers” in John 8 are referred to as children of the devil because they wanted to carry out the desires of their father, Satan (i.e., murder Jesus). They said they believed one message but lived an entirely different one. 

We, the church, should take heed of these words, because as the current days speed recklessly toward the Last Days, those within our ranks unfortunately are looking more and more like these hypocrites and liars in John 8 than the kind of children who follow after Jesus because they believe correctly.

 

2. However, understand this: God’s Word was never written simply to argue against slanderous stories or theories or prove theological points in some kind of game of “one-upsmanship.” It was written to show us who God is (the Creator God who rules over His Creation justly and rightly) and what He requires of His people (His instructions and teachings). When we start saying that God’s sole purpose was to counter lies or merely prove points, as if arguing in a debate, then it lessens the sovereignty and authoritativeness of His Word and actually has the opposite effect of its intended purpose. 

We are witnessing this today. God’s Word in many circles is simply viewed as another piece of literature. Oh, it may be revered because it’s “the Bible,” but in their minds, it is no more authoritative than any other religious writing. This is how many so-called Bible scholars can tear it apart and come to the conclusion that most of the “red letters” really were not spoken by Jesus, but instead, they were myths and legends written down poetically by the biblical authors to argue against some accusation or hold up a particular truth as a lofty goal. However, it was never the singular, authoritative Word of God. 

Robert J. Miller, in a video associated with the Jesus Seminar—a liberal think tank from the 1980s—goes so far as to say that what occurs in Matthew 2 is written to prove the theological point, that “Jesus is recapitulating the entire history of Israel” (in other words, Jesus is a “type” for the nation Israel’s exodus from Egypt, their exile into slavery with Babylon, and their return to the promised land). There is truth in what he says. However, he goes on to say that the story of Jesus in Matthew 2 “won’t hold up in a realistic fashion.” Really? 

If you watch the video below, you can even hear Miller’s condescension in how he describes the Wise Men, or Magian priesthood, as they would have been known in that day. They weren’t “exotic strangers” from the East, as if nobody had ever seen nor heard of them before. They were very well known, and came from a people who had wreaked havoc in that region of the world, known as the Medo-Persians. The Medo-Persians (also known as the Medes and the Persians, the Persian Empire, and the Parthian Empire, in case your reading about them later) held multiple battles against the Romans and are the reason why the Roman Empire did not expand much past Israel’s boundaries. Even Marcus Antonius (aka, Marc Antony) was known to have fought a battle against Persian king Phraates IV in that region of the world. 

The Magian priesthood was present during all four major powers, the Babylonians, the Medo-Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans, and were known, among other things, to be “kingmakers,” as they would be summoned to anoint and consecrate kings as needed. Even Daniel is made, and referred to as, the “chief of the Magi” (Daniel 2:48; 4:9) by King Nebuchadnezzar during the Babylonian Empire. He continues to hold that position during the reign of King Cyrus as well. 

The Wise Men, or Magi, were well known, even to the Israelites, and both groups held Daniel in high regard in the days of Jesus. These kingmakers from the east were not some band of “exotic strangers” who came and went with little importance. 

You can find the excerpt of Robert Miller’s talk on “The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God” here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNuwDg8B9bo.

 

 Pictures courtesy of  Unsplash and the following photographers/artists:

Book of Matthew by Tim Wildsmith

Angel by Andika Christian

Truth by Michael Carruth

Chapter 3 – The Second Rejection of the King (Part 5 of 8)

 

The Beginnings of Jesus

In Matthew 1:18, Matthew uses the same Greek word γενέσεως as is used in verse 1, however this time, it is translated “birth.”

“This is how the γενέσεως (birth) of Jesus Christ came about…”

In verses 1-17 of chapter 1, Matthew gave us the “beginnings” of Jesus, the Son of Man, thus denoting Jesus’s human side and His right to reign as King of the Jews, in the line of David.

Here, in verse 18 and following, he is giving us the “beginnings” of Jesus, the Son of God, thus denoting Jesus’s divine side, and His right to reign as God.

This is critical, folks.

Matthew could have used other words, but under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he was making a point. Jesus was more than just a human king. Jesus could redeem, something only God can do, which becomes a major focal point in his gospel account and critical to our understanding of the incarnation. Even the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, when confronted with Jesus’s claim to have the power to forgive sin, understood this point and took issue with Jesus ultimately saying He was God. They wanted to stone Him on the spot, and when they could not, they plotted to discredit Him and eventually murder Him  (Matthew 8:1-17, 28-34; 9:1-8, 18-34; 11:4-6; 12:1-8; 13:1-17, 34-35; 36-43; 14:22-36; 15:21-28, 29-39; 16:14-17; 17:1-27; 21:12-17, 28-32, 42-44; 22:15-22, 41-45; 24:30-31; 26:62-64; 27:11; 28:16-20).

In one particular instance in Matthew 9, Jesus healed a man who had been paralyzed. Because of the faith of his friends, who had brought the man to Jesus with the expectations of having the paralytic healed, Jesus told the paralytic to “take courage” and that his “sins are forgiven.” Immediately, some scribes who were there recognized what Jesus had said. For those of us today, we gloss over this section because we know “the rest of the story.” However, in real time, these scribes were watching a “person of interest” make an outlandish claim: He was claiming to have the same rights and power that only Almighty God possessed. Their response was that Jesus was committing blasphemy (v. 3).

Jesus, hearing their claims and knowing their hearts, puts a question to them in verse 4: “Which is easier? To say, ‘Your sins are forgiven’? Or to say, “Get up and walk’?” The obviously answer would be to say, “Your sins are forgiven.” No proof needed to say that. You say it, and whether it is true or not is only known by God. As a matter of fact, in the eyes of the scribes and those standing around watching, they would have looked at Jesus as some kind of blaspheming charlatan (and the scribes did!) unless He had some way to back up His claim. So, what does Jesus say? “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins…” Then He turned to the paralytic and said, “Get up, pick up your mat, and walk home” (vv.5-7).

On its face, it sounds cruel to tell a man—who had possibly been paralyzed from birth—to get up and walk. If he had been able to do that, don’t you think he would have done so already? However, that thought probably never crossed the minds of the crowd watching, because enough of them knew the man, or at least of him. They knew he was not faking it. They knew his malady was real.

Instead, this story was a flash point, one of many, in the ministry of Jesus. The scribes believed Jesus made an outlandish claim that was worthy of stoning. Therefore, the test wasn’t whether Jesus could say the man’s sins were forgiven. It was all about if He could demonstrate the power that went along with the claim, for they believed that only God could heal too. It’s one thing to say you’re God in the flesh with mere words. But if you demonstrate it, well, that’s another matter entirely.

Of course, as we know, such displays of Jesus’s authority to rule spiritually fell on deaf ears and blind eyes when it came to the scribes, the chief priests, the teachers of the law, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees. They still did not want to believe. However, they heard Jesus’s claims and saw Him back up those claims time and time again. And with each authoritative word and each miraculous demonstration, Jesus drove another nail into the coffin of their self-righteousness and religious phoniness.

Another Aspect to Consider About Jesus’s Birth

Also, in Matthew 1:18, notice how careful Matthew is about the relationship with his parents. He refers to Mary as “His mother Mary,” but does not refer to Joseph as “His father Joseph,” because again, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he wishes to make sure it is understood that Jesus had no earthly father.

Mary “was pledged to be married” to Joseph. They called this the “Betrothal.” Marriages were arranged differently in Jesus’s day than they are today, especially in the West.

Today, young people decide who they are going to marry, which was not how things were done in Jewish culture during the time of Jesus. In the play, Fiddler on the Roof, which later became a movie, Tevye was being forced, from one daughter’s betrothal to the next, to change his cultural way of thinking and “get in step” with the times. Tevye kept holding on to the “tradition” of his forefathers which mirrored something similar to what the people in Jesus’s time would have embraced.

In Jesus’s culture, it was marriage first, then love followed. Despite popular opinion, it tended to be a stable pattern for marriages as Genesis 24:67 indicates. In contrast, Esau married foreign wives like our society goes about marriage today, and it caused nothing but headaches and problems (Genesis 26:34; 27:46; Malachi 1:3; Obadiah 1:18).¹

Before the betrothal period began, in Jewish culture during the days of Jesus, a close and trusted friend of the bridegroom would negotiate on behalf of the prospective bridegroom’s father with a representative of the bride’s father. Arrangements had to be made for compensation, as the bride’s departure from the family would take a valuable worker, and possible wage earner, from the bride’s family. This negotiation was called the Mohar, and it was paid to the bride’s family. A dowry was also paid to the bride’s father. (Interestingly, in western culture, it’s the bride’s family that pays for the wedding, which does seem backwards when you think about it.)

The father of the bride could use the interest from the dowry during the betrothal period, but he could not spend the dowry. The dowry was to be kept in trust for the bride in case she was ever widowed or divorced so that she would have a means of taking care of herself and not become a burden on anyone nor be homeless. Therefore, it acted as a “savings account” or “pension,” if you will, for the bride-to-be.

If such sums of money could not be paid for the Mohar and the dowry by the groom’s family, other means of payment could be negotiated. For example, poverty was a real issue for many grooms and their families, so working it off was one option, like in the case of Jacob working seven years for Rachel (Genesis 29:18). Another example could be called “deals.” David wanted to marry Saul’s daughter, Michal. So, Saul employed David’s services of killing one hundred Philistines (1 Samuel 18:25).

Marriages were arranged also with members of your own kin, meaning Jewish only, but not close kin (see Leviticus 18). An example of this is found in Genesis 24, where Abraham sent a servant to find a bride for Isaac from his own people. ²

Once all the betrothal negotiations were completed, the two participants, the bride-to-be and the groom-to-be, entered into the actual “Betrothal Period,” which normally lasted twelve months. Betrothals could last longer, especially when the bride-to-be was as young as twelve years old, which was not common but could be the case. However, in all cases, the betrothals could not last forever, and when the two participants were old enough, the wedding had to take place. As was the custom, twelve months was a typical agreed-upon length of time.

And one last important point: Betrothals were much more binding than engagements are in today’s society. They were as binding as an actual marriage and could only be broken through a divorce (cf. Matthew 1:19). Therefore, these arrangements were not entered into lightly like engagements are today.

The purpose of the betrothal period was singular: to prove the fidelity of both the bride and the groom. Fidelity, was something that covered many areas too. For example, in matters of character, for if one member of the betrothal arrangement was a thief or a swindler in matters of business, this would typically come out. Or if one member of the arrangement proved to have lied about something, like never having been married before, this, too, could be made known. And of course, fidelity covered matters of sexual purity as well. If a member was having an affair, or worse, if the bride-to-be got pregnant, or another woman did so, claiming the groom-to-be was the father of her child, a year was plenty of time to “show” the proof to the families.

Therefore, showing fidelity was the same as showing purity of heart. As the groom, you were vowing to your betrothed that you were pure, righteous, and worthy of having someone devote her life to you. As the bride, you were vowing the same. And I hope you can see the spiritual picture here. As we devote our lives to our spouses, we are also to devote our lives to Christ as His bride. Pure. Righteous, Holy hearts. Qadosh. Sacred. Different. Devoted to Him for life (Ephesians 5:21-33).  

It was during this time of the betrothal period, after the agreement had been made, after the dowry had been paid, but before the consummation of the marriage had taken place, when Mary was found to be pregnant (Matthew 1:18).

Hopefully, you can understand now the context in which Joseph and Mary found themselves. Imagine the controversy. Imagine the confusion. And consider the “dilemma” this news produced for both families.

 

Thought for the Week:

If a person takes enough time and looks at this Biblical account of Jesus, it amazes us—or at least it should—how many obstacles God had to overcome just to get to Matthew 1:18-25, let alone bring an infant into the world…BE THAT INFANT…put Himself in the hands of two righteous teenagers…and accomplish salvation for any human who chooses to believe in Jesus and follow Him.

Yet, obstacles are part of the fallen world, aren’t they? All of the obstacles were results of sin and its effect on people and nations, to include Israel. We often pray, as Christians, for God to remove all the obstacles from our lives so our days can be filled with joy and blessing. Yet, when Mary held the Messiah in her arms that evening in a stable filled with smelly animals, there were no obstacles present. And all the obstacles she and Joseph had overcome to get there were water under the bridge.

Salvation had come. What else mattered?

Do we see obstacles the way God sees them? We ask for Him to remove them, yet as is often the case, He gets very little glory when everything is peaches and cream, as they say. God is glorified when obstacles happened at the most inopportune time. He receives the glorification He deserves when obstacles are overcome with shouts of praise.

Don’t pray away your chance to praise God. Pray that when those obstacles occur, He will help you be as faithful and righteous as those two teenage Israelites in the stable.

 

                   

NEXT WEEK:

We will continue our study by looking at how critics have used this very section of scripture to attack Jesus’s claim to being God in the flesh.

 

Endnotes

1. It must be noted that any marriage arrangement based on cultural norms has its flaws because of human depravity and sin. Whether a spouse was chosen for you or whether you chose one for yourself, it still boils down to two things: 1) the marriage commitment and the “covenant” the man and woman make to one another must be sacred and not entered into lightly. Without such a commitment, no marriage can last and be all that it is intended to be, regardless of how the two participants were partnered; and 2) that marriage union had to be between a male and female, according to God’s Word (Genesis 2:24; Mathew 19:5; Ephesians 5:31).

 

2. We must take note here that in Leviticus 18, God reminds the Israelites to be qadosh, “sacred,” “different,” and “consecrated” when it came to everything, and this included His directives on marriage. It was about purity of heart and total devotion to God: “You must not follow the practices of the land of Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not follow the practices of the land of Canaan, into which I am bringing you. You must not walk in their customs. You are to practice My judgements and keep My statutes by walking in them. I am the LORD your God. Keep My statutes and My judgments, for the man who does these things will live by them. I am the LORD” (vv. 3-5 Berean Bible).

 

Pictures courtesy of  Pixabay and the following photographers/artists:

Payalyzed Beggar by Kasun Chamara

Praying by Pexel

Mary, Joseph, baby Jesus by Nick Stafford

Chapter 3 – The Second Rejection of the King (Part 4 of 8)

 

Jesus’s Right to Rule - Spiritually

In Matthew 1:18-25, Matthew establishes the fact that this baby “who is called Messiah” (v. 16)—who has been born with the right to rule on the throne of David from a physical, earthly, human, and political perspective—also has the “right to rule” from a spiritual perspective.

This section establishes the virgin birth of Jesus, which is one of the foundational doctrines of Christianity. I would venture to say it may be the foundational doctrine of the Christian Church, for without it, Jesus was just a good teacher and a product of the union between Joseph and Mary.

Just another man.

And we already have seen what mankind is like in our study thus far. Man’s history is not pretty.

Jesus’s death would have been just another death in a long line of casualties in this spiritual war within which we live, day in, day out.

However, the virgin birth changed everything. It set in motion a series of events that changed history, and it still continues to change people today. This doctrine, coupled with the life and ministry of Jesus and culminating with His death, burial, and resurrection, are the triumvirate foundation of Christianity. Each part is so needed by mankind and inextricably dependent on the other to have full impact of what God intended.

A baby born of a virgin has no impact, if the baby grows up and becomes a sinner who rebels against God. Thus, the importance of Jesus’s perfect life and ministry.

A perfect life and ministry has no impact, if Jesus is just another man and not “God in the flesh” (Isaiah 9:1-7). Thus, the importance of the virgin birth.

And neither of the above have an impact, if Jesus doesn’t become the perfect sacrifice for sin on the cross and then defy death by rising again on the third day, as He stated He would do (John 2:19).

Therefore, the virgin birth of Jesus sets in motion a critical moment in God’s redemptive plan (Galatians 4:4-5). It sets Jesus apart from every other Israeli king, every other Levitical priest, every other Old Testament prophet of God, as well as every other king, priest, or prophet that ever existed. Kings and queens always demand that their subjects die for the purpose of the expansion of their kingdoms but rarely do they get into the fight themselves, and never on the front lines. Nor would any king or queen be willing to die for people outside the kingdom in hopes they would become part of his kingdom, with no guarantee anyone will accept the gracious offer. No human priest would take the place of the bulls, sheep, and doves he normally would sacrifice. No prophet would willingly present his life as a sacrifice either. Thus, the virgin birth makes Jesus the perfect example of qadosh (i.e., holiness), never asking us to do that which He was not willing to do Himself.

The virgin birth also sets Jesus apart from all other deities, for no god or goddess ever dwelt amongst mankind for the purpose of dying for humanity. The other deities always demand the sacrifice be in reverse only, sometimes even demanding children be the sacrifices, which is atrocious.¹

The first part of Matthew 1 establishes Jesus as one hundred percent Man (vv. 1-17). This second section of Matthew 1 (vv. 18-25) establishes Jesus as one hundred percent God. Hence, the references throughout Matthew of Jesus being the Son of Man (Matthew 9: 6; 11:19; 16:27-28; 24:30; 26:2, 24) and also being the Son of God (Matthew 2:15; 3:17; 17:5; 27:43). In the person of Jesus, we have the reinstatement of God as the King, of His Kingdom of Heaven, in His own way, by His own means.

Without this second section of Matthew 1:18-25, Jesus is just another king in the long line of David. King number forty-three. He’s just another man with a human father, subject to sin and its effect like every other human being. This is why all other religions reject Jesus’s virgin birth. If Jesus was virgin born—in other words, born as the Son of God—then their gods and goddesses, whoever they may be—are false and inept.

Throughout the twenty centuries since the birth of Christ, there has never been a doctrine attacked more than the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth. Most people are very quick to ascribe honor to Jesus. They will acknowledge that He was a good teacher, a good moralist, a reputable man who lived an exemplary life. Some even go so far as to say He was a prophet. However, they cannot accept Him as deity.

Christianity is the only religion that assigns deity to Jesus alone. There are other religions that attach to Jesus as sense of “godhood” or god-like qualities, but He would be among many in which they would attribute such characteristics. In their religious understandings and teachings, His deity would not be any different or unique.

Now, before we bash other religions or their secular counterparts too mercilessly, it must be understood that the Church herself, within the last one hundred years particularly, has also had a hard time accepting the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ.

In a poll taken in 1998, 7,441 Protestant clergy in the U.S. showed a wide variation in belief.² The following ministers did not believe in the virgin birth:

·       American Lutherans: 19%

·       American Baptists: 34%

·       Episcopalians: 44%

·       Presbyterians: 49%

·       Methodists: 60%

In 1999, twenty-five percent of Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant priests in the UK did not believe in the virgin birth either. In 2002, another poll of 140 Anglican priests found twenty-seven percent did not believe in the virgin birth. In 2004, a poll amongst ministers in the Church of Scotland found that thirty-seven percent did not believe in the virgin birth. Many stated that their interpretation of the virgin birth event in Matthew 1:18-25 was metaphorical, not literal.³

The point is clear. When anywhere between 19% and 60% of the leaders of some major denominations within the Christian church do not believe in one of the most foundational doctrines of Christianity, then it’s hard to point fingers at a world setting itself ablaze and say they are the bad guys. In the eyes of God, if a pastor, minister, priest, vicar (or whatever the title) claims to be a messenger of God and teaches blasphemous doctrine and leads people astray and away from God and His teachings and instructions, then all He has for them is woe and destruction. Matthew 23 deals with this very issue. Matthew 18:6 is another. These Christian ministers are falling into the same traps into which the Pharisees and teachers of the law in Jesus’s day had fallen.

They simply do not believe God’s Word. And as a result, they no longer wish for God to be their King. Instead, they want to follow someone else’s “Word.” And we all know whose “Word” that is (1 Peter 5:1-9).

Sometimes, these ministers and clergy members have a hard time understanding the truths surrounding the virgin birth, so they rationalize away the things that are hard to understand into a concept around which they can wrap their finite minds. Sometimes, they have a hard time accepting it because they feel its truths are too restrictive or not inclusive enough, or the truth seems too farfetched for our modern, sophisticated societies of today. Sometimes, they have a hard time believing it because what it teaches doesn’t align with their personal beliefs and understanding of the world. Again, it boils down to which “King” they wish to obey and serve. The Israelites wanted to be “like all the other nations around them” and have “an earthly king” (1 Samuel 8:4-5). It would seem the Church, in varying degrees, wants the same thing, and in some circles, wants to reject God altogether, just like the elders in Samuel’s day.

At the 1993 Reimagining God conference, sponsored by the World Council of Churches in honor of their “Decade of Solidarity with Women,” 1,700 delegates came from all over the world to “reimagine God” in Minneapolis, Minnesota. As one commentator summed up the event, “When one begins to re-imagine God, then nothing is sacred—everything in on the table for reconstruction. Truth, reality, social institutions, modes of communication all fall prey to the corrosive analysis of post-modern subjectivism” (emphasis added).⁴

Five years later, a similar group met again in Minneapolis to continue to re-imagine God, and the assault on Jesus’s identity and virgin birth continued. Carter Heyward, who is the Howard Chandler Robbins Professor of Theology at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and was ordained as a priest in the Episcopal Church in 1978,⁵ asked, “What does it take for us to break rank with the slave masters’ religion?” Her answer? Re-imagine Jesus. She claimed it is a mistake to emphasize “the singularity of God’s presence in Jesus…It was not Jesus’ identity with God, as if Jesus somehow thought of himself as divine…Jesus in reality was not God…Jesus was human like us, and also, like us, he was infused with God, with sacred spirit, and in that sense was divine, and he had a clue.”⁶

Do you see how it works? Are you hearing the same, tired, attacks and the same satanic verbiage? “Jesus wasn’t deity.” “Jesus was human like you and me.” “Jesus also was infused with divinity, a spark of the divine, if you will, which is available to all of God’s children.” These are the kinds of teachings being taught inside the Church! These “Christian” feminists and other “biblical scholars” have their own websites and push this theology into our bible schools, our schools of divinity, and our seminaries. So, it should not be surprising when we see church leaders joining hands with groups who flaunt their anti-God and anti-Christ rhetoric, because in their minds, God and Jesus have already been “re-imagined” into a more palatable, human definition and explanation of what truth really is…to them, or course.

Why is there such push back against God’s Word and its teachings? Why do people—even people who call themselves “Christians”—gather together at conferences and convince themselves and others of such things? Because they know that if Jesus was virgin born, then He is God in the flesh. And if He is God in the flesh, then what He said is true. And if what He said is true, then His words are true. And if His words are true, then passages like John 14:6 pose a huge problem for people trying to re-imagine themselves into a divine figure. If what Jesus said was true: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And no man comes to the Father but by me, then you cannot touch the divine without Jesus.

That’s extremely exclusive toward sinful people who chose not to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and obey Him. That’s very intolerant of sin. The passages like John 14:6 drive people like Carter Heyward insane because they wish to have their cake and eat it too. In other words, live sinful lives and still get to experience a heavenly existence. However, it doesn’t work that way. The clay doesn’t get to tell the potter what shape it should take (cf. Isaiah 45:9-13; 64:6-8; Jeremiah 18:6-10). Another way to put it is, the creation doesn’t get to tell the Creator how things are going to work. If you are a parent, then you understand this concept. Your children may wish to “run away from home” so they don’t have to abide by your “laws” any longer, but they cannot tell you how your relationship will be dictated. You’re the parent. They are not. That will never change. Just like our relationship with God. He’s God. We are not. That, too, will never change, no matter how much we “reimagine” it.

As you can see, if the church is having a hard time with the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth, it is little wonder those outside the church are as well. However, understand also that God is not in need of people to believe in Him. The concept of delegates voting on church doctrine doesn’t change God or His instructions and teachings (torah). He is about reigning in His Theocracy. Israel was not to be a democracy nor an aristocracy in the Old Testament. Christianity isn’t a democracy nor an aristocracy in the New Testament. Our disbelief as humans does not affect God’s character or His Word. As the Apostle Paul says in Romans 3:3-4, “What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar.” God rules. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, whether we believe in it or not. Therefore, we can never lose our faith to majority rule, although the push toward that kind of thinking grows stronger every day. “Majority-rule theology” always leads to sinful compromise and perversions of Scripture.⁷ If Jesus is not God in the flesh, then He cannot be the savior. And if He is not the savior, we are doomed, for God proved time and time again in Scripture His sovereignty over all the other gods of the nations. There is only one true God. If He’s a fraud, then we have no hope.

 

Thought for the Week:

How often do you hear in the news a report about a Christian religious group abandoning their Christian heritage and embracing the verbiage of groups, like the one referenced previously that met in Minneapolis? This kind of rhetoric has been plaguing God’s people for centuries. The Israelites had fallen prey to the worship of “The Queen of Heaven” (Jer. 7:18; 44:17-25). This queen came and went throughout history with many names (Semiramus, Aphrodite, Venus, Isis, Diana, etc.).

The point is that a “feminist” infiltration into the doctrines of God has always been an issue. We see it now in our political landscape, as religion and politics are joining hands and marching against everything they wish to change within the “slave master’s religion.” Does that sound familiar? Have you heard that phrase, or something like it, thrown around lately in the political debates of today? It’s a not-so-veiled reference to Christianity. They wish to eradicate the Christianity of the virgin-born Jesus from the world. They, instead, wish to re-imagine God in their own image, and while they are at it, re-imagine Jesus, too, into a kinder, gentler Jesus who really didn’t mean what He said in John 14:6.

I hope you are beginning to see the battle between the Kingdom of Heaven and the kingdom of men. The former is run by God. The latter is run by the man of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:1-12).

As we move forward, this divide will only become more pronounced. It will become harder and harder to remain true to the Kingdom of Heaven, but we must, if we wish to see God in all His glory at the Second Coming of Christ.

 

NEXT WEEK:

We continue our study into Jesus’s spiritual right to rule.

 

Endnotes

 

1. Some would argue, as I do, that people of our times, particularly here in America, worship the god of Freedom. For many, committing abortion is their form of child sacrifice to this god, as they flaunt their freedom and want that “freedom” to be available to everyone, even encouraging it through various means, like lobbying for government funding to provide such “services,” encouraging promiscuous activities with abortion as the “parachute,” etc.

 

2. Robinson, B.A. “The virgin birth of Jesus: Beliefs of Christian clergy & public. Alternate explanations of Jesus birth.” Religioustolerance.org. Last updated: 23 Dec. 2007. Web. 25 July 2020. <https://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b7.htm>

 

3. Ibid.

 

4. Lensch, Christopher. “‘Re-imagining’ Review: Radical Feminism in Sheep’s Clothing.” WRS Journal. 10/1. (February 2003), pp. 9-11. Web. 25 July 2020. <https://www.wrs.edu/assets/docs/Journals/2003a/Lensch%20-%20Re-imagining%20Update.pdf>

 

5. According to the Virginia Tech University’s Center forDigital Discourse and Culture, a list of projects Carter Heyward was working on at the time of the writing of this blog chapter were:

•        Long-term Research/Writing project on Feminist Liberation Theology and Ethics (with Dr. Beverly W. Harrison of Union Theological Seminary, New York, NY).
•        Queer Theology and Ethics.
•        Christology (special attention to: suffering, passion, and atonement).
•        Racism, anti-racism, and the construction of "white people."
•        Mutuality and connections between healing and liberation (theological, psychological, and political study in collaboration with Dr. Janet L. Surrey of The Stone Center, Wellesley College.)
•        Sex, Gender, and Power: emerging issues.
•        Christian Right—Its history, theology, and political resurgence.

As you can see by this list, when we re-imagine God, current affairs—like the ones America has been facing now—become the reality mankind must face and embrace. Those who preach “tolerance” will become very intolerant, especially if you are a follower of Jesus in the traditional sense. Then, other movements will join forces, and interestingly enough, they will espouse the same “beliefs,” even if they are not “religious,” by definition.

As was noted before, Satan is getting very close to creating the kind of havoc needed to bring each human to the brink of all-out war, filled with hatred toward one another while believing at the same time they have “exonerated” themselves from the “strictures” of God’s instructions and teachings and from the “white Jesus theology” of the traditional Christian Church. In this clash of subjective ideologies, everybody is right in his or her own mind (and thus, nobody is right). Agreeing to disagree will no longer be an option. As everyone will see eventually, mankind cannot survive without morals (i.e., God’s instructions and teachings). This will be the time when Satan introduces his anti-Christ and supposedly delivers what he has been promising all along: peace, fulfillment, and contentment apart from God. This “heavenly, utopian nirvana-like existence” will last for a few years (three and a half, to be exact, according to God’s Word), but then the gloves come off, and the world will see (too late, we might add) who they really are serving (See Revelation 12, particularly verse 9).

Oh, and by the way, the anti-Christ figure and what follows after the three and a half years of peace will make Hitler and his barbaric acts look like an amateur.

6. Lensch, Ibid. Another attack on Christianity, specifically the virgin birth of Jesus, as well as the validity of the New Testament is found in the works of the Jesus Seminar. Started in 1985, it has done more to discredit the authenticity of the Scriptures than possibly any other group because they claim to believe in the Bible, but they wish to understand it through didactic reasoning. When they were finished examining the four gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they concluded that 82% of Jesus’s words were inauthentic. Only fifteen sayings of Jesus should be in “red letters,” all of which are short, pungent remarks of little spiritual value when taken from their contexts. To read more about it, you can find it here: https://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/. When you couple this kind of “scholarly” work with people like Carter Heyward, it is no wonder Christianity is in shambles today. It’s no wonder the world is setting itself ablaze, overdosing itself to death, and curled up in a ball in the corner of some room, feeling depressed and seeing no hope around them. The Church is taking the only hope there is (Jesus) and making Him, in their own minds, just like us. Without a savior from sin, where can anyone find hope?

7. This is not to mention the tearing apart of His Church in the process. All participants must dedicated to God, His Torah, and His Messiah. If they are not, and church splits occur to allow worldly beliefs to infiltrate, Satan wins another battle in a war he cannot win. However, he knows this, so he’s working hard to take as many captives with him to eternal punishment. Satan hates God, and he hates everything to do with God, including His creation (John 8:44; 10:10; Romans 16:20; 2 Corinthians 11:3; James 4:7; 1 John 3:8). For a very current example of this battle taking place, see Reyner, Solange. “Methodist Conservatives to Split from United Methodists over LBGTQ Rights.” Newmax.com. 04 March 2022. 15 May 2022. <https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/lgbt-methodists-church-religion/2022/03/04/id/1059744/>

Pictures courtesy of  Pixabay and the following photographers/artists:

Heaven by jplenio

King Jesus by malst

Blinded by StockSnap

Saddened by StockSnap

Aphrodite/Venus etc by Gordon Johnson