Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
God With Us
The life of Jesus Christ
from a harmony of the four Gospel accounts
Table of Contents   Unit One   Home Page

Maps   The Gospels

Sing to the Lord
Written by
John Talada ThD
© 2002

All Scripture references are from
the New American Standard
unless otherwise specified.

Search the Bible:


  HELP

Table of Contents:

 UNIT ONE -

The life of Jesus Christ from the annunciation to the story of the man born blind.


UNIT TWO

The life of Jesus Christ from the story of the man born blind to the ascension.


book

Introduction to Unit One

     The Christian faith is based on a historical reality - the life of Jesus Christ. But His life must be understood within the context of a greater purpose, that is, the redemptive plan of God. What can be known about His life is found almost exclusively in the four books that are called the Gospels. Archaeological discoveries, concerning the society from which He came, have been very helpful in understanding the language and people of first-century Palestine. These things serve as the backdrop for the enormous scene of His life but the authoritative source for Christians, however, must remain the inspired words of Holy Scripture. In these sacred writings the facts of His life and the redemptive plan of God come together as the basis for Christian faith. The purpose of this study is to assist the believer in understanding the life of Jesus Christ within a historical setting that he or she might be strengthened in that faith. Whenever archaeological sources are used it will be to clarify some historical point. The study is based on two pre-suppositions: first, the Gospel accounts are true and accurate in the accepted Greek texts [the UBS 3rd edition will be used here]; and second, the events in the life of Christ may be harmonized using the four Gospels.
     In keeping with the goal of this study, no attempt will be made to make sense of the various historical criticisms of the past century. There are hundreds of books on the Gospels that focus on this debate. The debates between source criticism, historical criticism, literary criticism, redactionism, structuralism, etc are valid intellectual pursuits but they are seldom understood by any other than the academically minded. They are littered with questions and insinuations that intentionally undermine both the validity of the Gospel and the spiritual reality of Christ's coming. Again, the purpose of this study is to understand the life of Christ from a Christian standpoint so believers may be strengthened in their faith. The doubts engendered by these various criticisms rarely serve this purpose.
     It should be acknowledged that both a harmony of the four Gospels and a chronology of the life of Jesus Christ have been disputed for many centuries. There are good reasons for this lack of consensus. The internal proofs are indefinite on some central issues regarding chronology. The harmony and chronology that is presented here were developed from the author's prayerful study of scripture and pertinent historical studies. It should be noted that the Christian faith does not rest on the findings of the most highly acclaimed scholars but on Jesus Christ. This self-evident truth guides the author in his own quest for the Christ of the Gospels. May the reader be guided by the wise direction of the Holy Spirit in discovering the life of Jesus Christ within the words of Holy Scripture and the insights of this text.

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Life of Christ

Bible Study Tools

Section A: A Basic Chronology for the Life of Christ

     Jesus Christ lived during a specific period of time in human history. He was no legendary figure made up from the ideals of a people. He was born at a specific time and in a certain place and lived amid social and historical realities. Upon this fact rests the witness of the Twelve and, in turn, the foundation of the Assembly of God's people. As a historical figure it should be possible to place His birth, ministry and death within a certain time frame. Does the scripture give specific dates for His birth, death, etc.? No, the Bible does not say that Jesus was born in the late summer of 6 BC or any other time. It is possible to spend a great deal of time investigating the varying theories about His birth alone. Every Christmas someone feels compelled to write an article on why Jesus was or was not born on December 25. But the fact remains that Jesus was born at a specific time and place in history whatever that date happens to be.
     If the Bible does not tell us specifically when these things took place then how can the especially curious ever hope to know? It is the author's contention that it is not necessary for the believer to know the exact time of the Lord's birth for him or her to live a vibrant Christian life. However, for some it becomes very important to know the specifics of these things. It is for these individuals that the following chronology is presented. How may these things be determined? It is true that the Gospel accounts do not give specific dates for any of these events, but it does gives enough information to be able to set the birth of Jesus within a fairly specific time frame.
     There are several specific references that may be used as touchstones in building a chronology of the life of Christ. It should be acknowledged that any chronology is likely to be contested because of different interpretations of the Biblical texts. It should also be noted that numerous traditions have arisen over the centuries concerning the birth of Jesus and the life of Christ. Traditions, especially when they are reinforced every year in popular culture as well as religious observance, have a way of becoming fact even when they have no real authoritative basis. It is important, therefore, in any study of scripture to look not only at what the Bible says but also at what it does not say. We should begin by looking at a few references in the Gospels that may help in establishing certain dates to formulate a chronology.
     The logical place to begin is at the birth of Jesus. That should be easy. Everyone knows that Jesus was born on Christmas. This "fact" is brought to the attention of American society every year beginning by at least Thanksgiving. And since the modern calendar commonly used in American society is based on the life of Jesus Christ, then He must have been born in AD 1. This would seem to give an easy way to set the time for Jesus' birth. But was He born on 25 December AD 1? The answer is "No!" December 25 is a traditional date for the birth of Christ. It is not based on any scriptural reference. Could He have been born on the 25 December? Well, just suffice it to say that we have no good reason for believing that He was. The second aspect of this date, however, is somewhat simpler. We know that Jesus was not born in AD 1.
     What information does the Bible give to date the birth of Jesus? Since neither John nor Mark includes the birth narrative then any such reference must come from the Gospel accounts of Matthew or Luke. We find that both Matthew and Luke state that John the Baptist and Jesus were born during the reign of Herod. Luke gives the names of Herod, Caesar Augustus and Quirinius. These political figures in history assist in ascertaining a date for Christ's birth. Here are at least three official figures from Roman history that may be used along with the Biblical text to produce a timeframe for His birth. Herod, according to Matthew, tried to kill the infant, Jesus. But, according to historical sources, Herod died in late March of 4 BC. So Jesus was not born in AD 1, but shortly before the death of Herod the Great, possibly in early 5 BC or even late 6 BC. There is no evidence, however, to support a more specific date (i.e. what month or day). The specific month or season given in the following chronology is only a suggestion to help visualize the narrative.
     The year of His birth (i.e. either late 6 BC or early spring 5 BC) can serve as a touchstone for building a chronology. Using Luke's account , we may also understand John the Baptist's birth to be six months before that of Jesus. These dates help establish a time frame for the life of Jesus Christ. Luke 3 also begins with a list of historical figures . This is an accepted manner of dating used since ancient times. Rather than saying that an event happened in such-and-such year, the date would be given relative to someone's reign - in this case, "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar". Dating from the time of Tiberius' co-regency with Augustus, this would bring the date to somewhere in AD 26. Pontius Pilate became procurator in AD 25; Herod and his brother, Philip, reigned from 4 BC until about AD 34; and Caiaphas became high priest about AD 18 (Annas had been high priest until AD 15). These all verify a possible date for John's prophetic ministry as beginning in AD 26. The reign of Tiberius and the time of Pontius Pilate's official duties in Jerusalem are the chief dates to be considered in ascertaining the time of John's ministry.
     The next solid reference for dating comes in Luke 3:23. Luke writes that "Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age" when He began His ministry. Jesus would have been "about thirty years of age" in AD 26. This should not be considered as an exact date. It merely gives a general timeframe . He may have been 29 or even nearly 31 years old when He began to minister. Remember that it is possible that He had been teaching even before His baptism. If the birth is understood as in early 5 BC then the timeframe for the beginning of His ministry would be about AD 25 or 26. There is also no way of knowing how long John had preached in the wilderness before Jesus came for baptism. It was long enough to draw the attention of large crowds and the religious and political leaders. So these two dates give us a framework from which to understand the ministry of Jesus Christ in a historical context. He was probably born sometime in early 5 BC and began His ministry in the year AD 26.
     Establishing a date for the death and resurrection of Jesus is almost exclusively a matter of interpretation. It is obvious that the death occurred during Passover. But the question is "In what year?" That will depend on how one interprets His movements. If one sees the period from the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost to the destruction of Jerusalem as consistent with a 40-year time of trial for the Jews, then the year AD 30 is tempting. This would make His ministry about three and a half years in length. But, admittedly, it is only conjecture. This time frame, however, works well for interpreting the movements of Jesus during His ministry. On the following page, there is given a possible chronology of the main events in the life of Jesus Christ. This will be used throughout the course as we seek to understand the life and work of Jesus Christ. With the exception of festival times it is almost impossible to state with any certainty what month an event occurred. The months given in this chronology fit this possible scenario for the life of Jesus Christ. But keep in mind that there is no way to be certain of the exact date of these events.
Review Questions


Section B: Background for the Gospel Accounts

The Gospels consist of four books written by four different authors at various times. There are many legitimate questions that may be asked in beginning a look at the Gospels. Who wrote them? When were they written? etc. These and other questions will be briefly considered in this section. The purpose of the questions, however, is to better understand these accounts as part of the apostolic witness. Most students of the Bible recognize a distinction between John and the other three Gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke are often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels. The word, "synoptic" comes from a Greek word meaning "seen together". These three Gospel accounts, because of their similarities, are often "seen together" in Biblical studies. A word of caution must be set forth, however, regarding the relationship of John's Gospel account and the "synoptics". One should never lose sight of the purpose of all four of these writings.
     The so-called "synoptic problem" is of no real concern to this study. Remember the purpose of this study is to understand the life of Jesus Christ for the edification of the believer. It is easy to get dragged into the doubt-filled arena of critical investigation but it is of little use for bolstering one's faith. The real danger in isolating the so-called synoptic Gospels is that the Gospel of John either takes a back seat to the other three accounts or it is viewed as setting forth an essentially different depiction of the life of Christ. Many studies on the life of Christ only deal with the synoptic Gospels. This gives only a partial view of the life of Christ. Obviously it is dangerous for believers to rank the books of the Bible according to "degree of inspiration". John's Gospel can certainly not be considered as of secondary importance in recording the life of Jesus Christ or perhaps less inspired than Matthew. Unfortunately, this often happens in Biblical scholarship. This study will consider the Gospel accounts as equally inspired and useful for understanding the historic events in the life of Jesus Christ.
     The first question to be addressed is "Who were the men that wrote the Gospels?" There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew; or Luke the Gospel of Luke, etc. But who are these authors? Let us begin with Matthew. The early Assembly uniformly attributed the authorship of this Gospel account to Matthew who is known as the "son of Alphaeus" in Mark 2:14. He was occupying the post of tax collector in Capernaum for the Roman government when Jesus called him to be His disciple. Although he worked for the Romans, he was a Jew by birth. Matthew was a Greek name used by him. He is also known as Levi - his Jewish name. His position as tax collector for the Romans made him very unpopular among his Jewish brethren. It is not unusual, then, to see him recording a life of Jesus the Messiah, the promised King of Israel. The Gospel account of Matthew is, for this reason, called "the royal" Gospel . His account is particularly Jewish in its perspective. As it has been often said about Matthew's account, it is a narrative written by a Jew to Jews about a Jew.
     One further note should be given about Matthew's authorship. The early historian, Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (AD 323), quotes Papias (c. AD 140), an early Church leader, as saying that Matthew originally wrote about Jesus in Aramaic . This is certainly possible but there is no Aramaic Gospel account extant that is attributed to Matthew. But none of these things should distract the student's attention from the beauty of this Gospel. It was written with a Jewish audience in mind even though the Gospel account is written in the common (i.e. koine) Greek of the day. Matthew was one of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. Therefore it is easily understood as apostolic (i.e. pertaining to an apostle). The apostolic authority of the writings was crucial for their acceptance as part of the Christian canon of Scriptures. It is easy to see Matthew and John's Gospel accounts as apostolic because they were of the Twelve but what about the books of Mark or Luke?
     In considering Mark's account a connection may be made with one of the Twelve. Peter, one of the Twelve, speaks of "my son, Mark". It is believed that this is the same Mark who wrote the Gospel of that same name. Mark was not actually the biological son of Peter but it is possible that Peter may have introduced Mark to the faith. This would account for Peter calling Mark, "my son". Mark was not an apostle but Peter certainly was. It was this close association between Peter and Mark that gave this Gospel its apostolic authority. This Mark is the same one mentioned in the book of Acts, Colossians, Philemon and 2 Timothy . Mark (i.e. Marcus) is his Latin name while his Jewish name is John.
     Mark's Gospel, which is ascribed the apostolic authority of Peter, depicts Jesus as a servant who serves in the authority of His Father. Jesus preaches, teaches and heals "as one having authority". Jesus ministers to the needs of others even to the point of His death on the cross. After His death and resurrection, Jesus commissions His disciples to continue as servants, preaching, teaching and ministering in His authority. Like Mark, Luke was not an apostle of Jesus Christ. But their writings had to be apostolic if they were to be accepted as scripture (i.e. canonical).
     Luke's work was accepted as part of the New Testament canon (i.e. writings accepted as inspired and authoritative) because of Luke's association with the apostle Paul. Though Paul was not one of the Twelve he most certainly was accepted as an apostle of the Lord giving him apostolic authority as rfar as the canon of Scripture is concerned. The Gospel account of Luke evidently was written as the first volume of two books addressed to a man called, Theophilus. The book of Acts is the second volume. In the book of Acts, numerous passages attest to Luke's close association with the apostle Paul . Paul also mentions Luke as a companion in Col 4:12-14 and 2 Timothy 4:11. According to Luke's own words, the account was written for this purpose, "that you [Theophilus] might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." Luke was not an eyewitness of the events that he would record but relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses and on written sources. In his narrative of the life of Christ he carefully documents the perfect humanity of the Son of Man.
     Luke may have been a Hellenistic Jew (i.e. a Greek-speaking Jew from outside of Palestine) or possibly a Gentile. If he were a Gentile he would be the only Gentile contributor to the New Testament writings. He is referred to as "Luke, the beloved physician" in Col 4:14. His experience and training as a doctor may account for the great attention to detail that is found in this Gospel. But it is also to be remembered that Luke's intended audience, unlike Matthew's, was Gentile. An educated Gentile reader would expect greater attention to historical accuracy and chronological detail - such as that found in Luke's account - than would a Jewish audience.
     The fourth Gospel approaches the life of Christ from a totally different perspective than Luke. Luke's emphasis was on the perfect humanity of Jesus Christ as the Son of Man. But John focuses on depicting Jesus as the "the Son of the living God". His writing is clearly theological. The deity of Christ is stated without hesitation in the fourth Gospel. John presents the Son of God to the world in a profound simplicity. But who is this John?
     John was a Galilean fisherman called to follow Jesus. His calling took place while under the discipleship of John the Baptist. He was one of the sons of Zebedee. John and his brother, James, were of the inner circle of disciples along with Peter. Later he was known as one of the "pillars" of the Church . John was truly an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus Christ. His primary task as one of the Twelve was to bear personal witness of the life, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Tradition has John serving at Ephesus just before the destruction of Jerusalem. He is later exiled to the island of Patmos for his witness. After his release from exile under the reign of Nerva he reportedly returned to finish his life out at Ephesus. He is the author of not only the fourth Gospel but also the three epistles that bear his name and the book called Revelation.
     We have seen how important it is to put the order of events in the life of Christ in some sort of chronology for the sake of historical context. But it is also important to recognize when the Gospels were written. It is a certainty that they were not written - at least not in the form that we now have - immediately after the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost. It is also certain that they were not all written at the same time. So which came first? Most Biblical scholars place Mark as the first of these four accounts of the Gospel. Was there a specific written source that Mark used for his Gospel narrative? It has been the subject of much speculation for over a century but there is no clear indication that there ever existed such a source. In fact, trying to follow a paper trail to the first written Gospel narrative can be a highly speculative and dangerous academic exercise.
    It is not possible to put a date on these writings with any degree of certainty but a general timeframe may be ascertained. The probable range for the date of Mark's Gospel is between AD 55 and 62. Matthew could be placed within this same time frame although most believe that it was after Mark's. One of the reasons that Matthew is placed at the beginning of the Gospels is because of Matthew's position as an apostle. John was also an apostle but it is obvious that his account must be dated later than the synoptics. Luke's Gospel is the first volume of the works written to Theophilus. Therefore, it was written before the book of Acts. The book of Acts ends before Paul is executed so we can assume that the Gospel narrative was certainly written before the death of Paul. It was probably written in the early 60's but after Mark and Matthew. A scrap of papyrus was discovered in Egypt that contained a fragment of John's Gospel. Scholars dated the fragment at about AD 135. Since the epistles of John and the book of Revelation were written after the Gospel then it is likely that the book of John was written between the late 60's and AD 90. According to tradition, John wrote the Gospel account while at Ephesus before his exile to Patmos.
     In summarizing this brief section on who wrote the Gospels and when, we can see that the Spirit directed the hands of particular men to write concerning Jesus Christ. They wrote during a time when there still lived eyewitnesses to all these events. The events that are recorded are not legends or hearsay but eyewitness accounts. Like any eyewitness account the witness may see an event from a different vantage point. That does not make the witness any less credible. Each narrative has a particular perspective and when taken as a whole it gives a fuller, richer picture of the life of Jesus Christ. [At the end of "Section C" a chart is included to summarize the main points of this section.]
Review Questions


Section C: Background on First-Century Palestine

     The New Testament era does not just pick up where the Old Testament Scriptures leave off. There is a period of more than four hundred years of history between them. Both Judaism and the world changed dramatically during this time. It should be understood that most of these changes are inter-related. The intertestamental history of Israel (i.e. the time between Malachi and Matthew) is a time marked by oppression. The history of Israel is a story changeless change. In other words, though Judaism and the people of Israel lived through many political changes in their long history they somehow managed to hold on to their religion with comparatively few changes. For example, from the Babylonian exile of the sixth-century BC until AD 1948, Israel would not know real political independence in their homeland. It is nothing short of miraculous that the Jewish people were able to hold on to their uniqueness throughout the centuries. There were, however, a number of changes during the centuries between the Babylonian exile and the New Testament times. These changes had a profound impact on the culture depicted in the Gospel accounts. Three important changes that are related to the Gospels are highlighted here.
     During the Babylonian exile, Israel no longer had access to the Temple and their beloved Jerusalem. For the Jewish people, the Holy City and its Temple were the center of religious activity. Jerusalem and its Temple had become identified with who the Jewish people were as the people of God. But they learned to adapt in exile. The history of Judaism is the story of a people that were able to adapt to about any circumstance while maintaining a definite link with their heritage. One of these adaptations was the synagogue. The synagogue, which comes from a Greek word meaning, "bring together", provided a place for Jews to come together for worship, prayer and study of the sacred scripture that was not necessarily connected to Jerusalem. This is an obvious adaptation to their exile.
     The sacred scripture as well had taken on special significance for Israel during this time. There was a need for trained persons to preserve and interpret the scripture during these uncertain times. Without the connection with the priesthood brought about by their ministration at the Temple the religion of the Jewish people was in jeopardy. The Torah (i.e. the written word of God) would play a more central role in Judaism without the stability of the Temple and its priesthood. Someone would have to be given charge to preserve and rightly interpret the written word of God. These trained persons became known as the scribes. By New Testament times the professional scribes, as a class of people within Jewish culture, were well established.
     Lastly, the pressure of political oppression constantly threatened to undermine the foundation of Israel's social structure. Judaism is not only a religion but it is also the identity of a people. Extended exile and upheaval threatened to undermine the social structure of Israel. A door of opportunity opened for them to establish a form of social and political order that was distinctly Jewish. During the intertestamental period the Jews were permitted a measure of autonomy by their oppressors. They were permitted to have a council for this purpose. This council became known as the Sanhedrin. In order to get a feel for the importance of this council it is necessary to review some of the political and social upheavals experienced by Israel during these five centuries.
     There were four major periods during this time: the Persian [539 - 331 BC], the Hellenistic [331 - 167 BC], the Hasidic [167 - 63 BC], and the Roman [63 BC - AD 70]. These are general divisions given to provide a framework for understanding this intertestamental period. They all had profound impact on the religious and social life of the Jewish people. The Persian period, as it is called here, consisted of the Babylonian exile and the political domination by Persia of the Jewish people after their return to Palestine. It was during this period when the synagogue and the professional scribe grew in importance. The Jews had met the challenge of God's judgment in their exile with a strong determination to maintain their religious heritage.
     The Hellenistic period is best understood by its cultural impact. Alexander the Great dreamed of seeing the entire world under the influence of Hellenistic (i.e. Greek) culture. Both Greek language and culture were promoted in Palestine and throughout his empire. His design was continued under the Ptolemies and Seleucids. As a result of this push many Jews were influenced by the philosophies of Greek culture. The philosophy of the Greek culture had a subtle yet devastating effect on Judaism. These worldly notions challenged their theological understanding of their relationship with God. One of the subjects that came under fire was resurrection. Some, such as the Sadducees, held to Greek notions that lead them to conclude that there is no resurrection. Others, like the Pharisees, held to the hope of resurrection. This debate continued into the New Testament era.
    In Palestine there developed a resistance movement toward such Gentile influence. This resistance resulted in a powerful drive toward exclusivism especially among religious leaders. The resistance movement came to a head in what became known as the Hasidic period. Hasidism refers to a move by pious religious leaders - "hasidim" means "pious ones" - to free Israel from the influence of Hellenistic culture (i.e. the Gentiles). For nearly one hundred years, under the leadership of the Hasmonean family (i.e. the Maccabees), Israel experienced a sense of political freedom. It was a time of intense nationalism. During this time Palestinian Jews developed specific notions about the Messiah and the Kingdom of God. By the time of Christ, Israel had become a hotbed of discontent. Some recalled the freedom of this Hasidic period and sought to free themselves from their oppressors. Others held firmly to their hopes for a Messiah who would deliver them from their oppressors and into Israel's Golden Age. Still others would compromise to gain the favor of whoever was in power.
     The Roman period includes the New Testament times. Babylonians, Persians and Greeks had oppressed them but perhaps the greatest threat came from Rome. The Romans offered them a semblance of peace and order but at a price that some were unwilling to give. Palestine and the surrounding area was home to four different languages: vernacular Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic . By this time, Greek had become the common language of the empire. The Hebrew Scriptures had been translated into Greek in a volume known as the Septuagint . This made it possible for Jews of the empire to still have access to the Holy Scriptures. Synagogues were also conveniently located throughout the empire. In other words, dispersed Jews could live in relative comfort and peace as long as they did not offend their powerful oppressor. Latin, of course, was the official language of the Roman government. However, Hebrew was still the language of the Jewish religion and Aramaic was the common language of most of Palestine.
     Rome ruled with an ever-present iron hand. They gave the people that they ruled a sense of freedom but there was no questioning their authority. Resistance groups called zealots could be found anywhere in Palestine and the Romans dealt firmly with them. Overall the mood of the people was one of adaptation coupled with great expectation. They did not want to incur the wrath of powerful Rome but at the same time they waited for the Messiah, their deliverer, the promised one of Israel. [see "Timeline"]
Review Questions

Before beginning Chapter 2

Chapter 2: The Coming Messiah

Bible Study Tools


Introduction

    The coming of Jesus Christ marks the turning point of human history. It is the axis of God's redemptive plan for His creation. God Himself came to earth to redeem it from mankind's sin. His coming was for all mankind. It should never be seen as merely another episode in Israel's history. It was that which directed the very course of Jewish history. It should also not be seen as simply the beginning of Christianity. It was God's supreme act of personal intervention. It should come as no surprise then that God would make such an awesome event known in various ways. For centuries God had promised that He would send His anointed one, the Deliverer, to Israel.
     When the time was right for the Messiah's coming God would certainly make His plans known to His people. The prophet Amos writes, "Surely the LORD God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." God was true to His Word and sent a prophet to prepare the way for the coming Christ. But even the coming of this prophet did not go unannounced. There were a number of events that preceded the coming of the Christ and His heralding prophet, John the Baptist. This chapter contains material pertaining to the pre-existence of the Christ, the announcements that preceded the coming of Jesus and John, and birth of each. The birth narratives are found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The information regarding the pre-existence of Christ is found in the Gospel of John and various epistles. Though the literary sources for the material may come from different sources it is important to understand the Gospel narratives as one wonderful story - the life of Jesus Christ.

Section A: The Pre-Existence of Christ

     The prologue of John's Gospel is one of the most beautiful - and challenging - passages of scripture regarding the life of Jesus Christ. John 1:1-5 never mentions the name of Jesus or even the word Christ. But it is obvious that the term, "the Word", or "Logos" is referring to Him. John 1:14 helps to clarify the identity of the Logos. The Word, or Logos, "became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory… full of grace and truth." There is no doubt that this "Word" is Jesus Christ. Terms like, "the Word" or "Wisdom" are very abstract and obscure when applied to a human being. Nevertheless it is important that we recognize this divine aspect of the life of Christ. As the above terms and their usage both imply, the Christ existed before His birth in Bethlehem. John 1:1-5 clearly states the deity and pre-existence of the Word (i.e. Logos). Both Light and Life are attributed to Him in this passage. He is the Creator of all things.
     Jesus was conscious of this pre-existence. He responded once to His grumbling disciples, "What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before" . In the great prayer of John 17, Jesus seems very conscious of His pre-existent state when He says, "glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was." Jesus Christ was not just a great prophet or a great man sent to deliver God's people out of bondage. He is the Incarnate Word or Logos of God. He is Wisdom incarnate (i.e. in the flesh). "Abraham rejoiced to see [His] day, and he saw it, and was glad." The apostle Paul and the author of Hebrews proclaimed the divine pre-existence of Christ in His position as Creator and Son of God. He created all things, "And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together," and He is the pre-existent Son.
    It is possible to go on and on concerning the pre-existence of the Messiah but there is an overriding question regarding this heady debate that must be asked. "What does the fact of His pre-existence have to do with the Christian faith?" First, it is clear as a result of this incarnation that the Messiah is unique. There have been several heretical challenges proposed regarding the unique nature of the Messiah but they must be dismissed. The things that have been quoted from scripture in this section cannot be applied to anyone but Jesus. There is only one Messiah and His name is Jesus. It cannot be said that Moses created all things or even that Moses existed "before the foundations of the world". The Mormon heresy of human pre-existence is groundless. These characteristics certainly cannot be attributed to Mohammed or Buddha. They are not messiahs. Only Jesus is the Chosen and Anointed one of God.
     Second, by seeing the Christ in the larger scope of eternity it is possible to recognize the great plan of God. The life of Jesus Christ must be considered in the broad field of God's redemptive plan for creation. Jesus was able to look back over a thousand years to Abraham and say of him, "he saw my day and was glad ." It was this larger picture that Jesus attempted to convey to the learned Nicodemus in John 3. Jesus referred to Himself as the one who "descended from heaven, even the Son of Man." For Jesus the past and the future were just as clear to Him as the present moment. The doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus Christ presents to mankind not only the eternal nature of the Son of God but also the eternal purpose that God has for His people.
     Third, the pre-existent, divine nature of the Messiah only intensifies the horror of rejecting Him. As we consider the divine nature of the Messiah, turn to John's words in John 1:10,11: "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him." How horrible to think that God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son, the most precious possession of heaven, and yet the world rejected Him. God is truly justified in rejecting a world that has rejected His blessed Son.
Review Questions


Section B: Announcing His Coming

    The annunciation and birth narrative of Jesus Christ are found only in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But these accounts are not identical. In fact, they each present different aspects of these narratives. The annunciation takes on two different forms: angelic and prophetic. In other words, the coming of the Messiah was announced through both angelic messengers and prophecy. Angels spoke to Mary, Joseph and the shepherds while Zachariah - the father of John the Baptist - and the wise men announced His coming through prophecy.
     The two Gospels that are used to reveal the events of His advent should be considered first. As discussed in chapter 1, each of the Gospel accounts has its own perspective on the life of Christ. Matthew’s, for instance, is a very Jewish approach that emphasizes the royal nature of the Messiah whereas Luke’s account is more Gentile in its approach and focuses on His humanity. This distinction may be seen in the message of those who knew of His coming. In Matthew, Joseph and the wise men are the messengers. Joseph heard from an angel in a dream. The wise men understood from ancient prophecy and the wonder of a star. The angel told Joseph of the divine origin of the coming Savior. The name Jesus signified the purpose of His coming; He would save His people from their sins. The prophecy, which was taken from Micah 5:2, was the basis for the wise men’s firm conviction that the Messiah/King was born in Bethlehem. The star only affirmed it to them. To summarize, the message, as recorded in Matthew, was that the coming Savior and King was of divine origin.
    In Luke, however, the message was of the humble beginnings of the one who would be the Savior, Redeemer, Messiah, Lord, Son of God and King. The primary mode of annunciation in Luke's account is angelic. The angel spoke not only to Zachariah but also to Mary and the shepherds . Luke, however, also includes the prophetic element. Both Zachariah and Elizabeth, for instance, spoke a word of prophecy by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit . It is clear in the message to both Mary and Zachariah that the promised Messiah/King was coming to Israel to save Israel. However, only in the message to the shepherds can we see hints of Christ’s universal mission.
    Lastly, it should be understood that it is the angelic message to Joseph and Mary that speaks of the virgin birth. The virgin birth is a foundational doctrine of the Lord's advent. Though it is mentioned specifically only in the birth and annunciation narratives of Matthew and Luke it is the basis of Christ's uniqueness and sinless character. It is evidence of His dual nature. In Luke, the divine origin and the humble human beginnings of Jesus work together in contrasting brilliance to form a vibrant picture of the coming Messiah. This picture is consistent with the apostle Paul’s conception of Jesus Christ. In Philippians 2:6,7 Paul writes, “Although He existed in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” Matthew’s depiction of the birth of the Messiah was in keeping with Jewish expectations of the coming Messiah. Luke’s narrative, on the other hand, emphasizes the perfect humanity of the Son of Man. These distinctions may be seen to continue in the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke.
Review Questions


Section C: The Births of John and Jesus

     The births of both John the Baptist and Jesus should be considered together. John, of course, as the herald of the coming King takes a secondary role in the Gospel narrative. The Gospel of Matthew does not mention the birth or lineage of John the Baptist. John does not appear in Matthew until he is seen preaching the Kingdom of God. This is in keeping with Jewish expectations of the coming Messiah/King. The Gospel account, however, begins with affixing the lineage of Jesus the Messiah through a genealogy from Abraham to the birth of Jesus. This genealogy “indicates primarily legal descent” . It was necessary for the Messiah to be of the lineage of David. John the Baptist, on the other hand, came of the tribe of Levi. Levi would serve in an intercessory role through the son of Zachariah in announcing the coming Messiah to God's people.
    It is interesting to note that the lineage of Jesus given here contains the names of five women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, the wife of Uriah - not actually listed by name - and Mary. Tamar played a harlot with Judah . Rahab was the Gentile harlot who was spared at Jericho for the aid that she gave to Israel . Ruth was the faithful Moabitess who left her home to live with God’s people and serve their God . “The wife of Uriah” was an adulteress . Mary, of course, is the faithful virgin who gave birth to the Messiah. The inclusion of these women makes this more than just a genealogy – which would normally include just men. The Savior and King would extend His influence over all social classes and ethnic groups.
    The naming of a child was always an important responsibility for the parents of a child in Jewish society. In the story of the naming of John the Baptist the attending priests were hesitant about Elizabeth's insistence on the name John . It reflected something about that child. John or Yehohanan means "the gift of Yahweh". Truly John would be a gift not only to Zachariah and Elizabeth but also to Israel. He restored the prophetic voice after centuries of silence and most importantly, he came to herald the coming King and Messiah. The importance of names in Jewish history should come as no surprise. The name, Jacob, for instance, reflected his character. It means, “the supplanter” (i.e. one who replaces by force or deception). The Genesis narrative reveals the importance of his name . The angel instructed Zachariah to call his son, John. Joseph was instructed to call this wondrous child, Jesus. The name Jesus or Yehoshua means, “the salvation of Yahweh”. “For it is He who will save His people from their sins.”
    Matthew’s Gospel includes the narrative of the wise men informing Herod of the coming King and Herod’s reaction to the news. Some of this narrative will be included in the next chapter. The story of the wise men is important in understanding the birth of Jesus. The visit of the wise men indicates that the coming of the Messiah was laid on the hearts of persons outside of Palestine. They were probably not Jewish. It is uncertain how many there were of them. The tradition of three magi comes from the number of gifts being three. Their identity, however, is steeped in mystery. Their actual visit to Jesus will be discussed more fully in the following chapter. Herod’s reaction to the news of an infant King is certainly not a mystery. Herod was insanely jealous of his position as “king of Israel” . His vicious and cruel response to the news was in keeping with what is known of him.
    Before leaving Matthew’s account, we should consider the prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 that is included immediately after Joseph’s angelic dream. “Behold the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel.” The virgin birth of Jesus is vital to the birth narrative. For the term, Son of God, to have its fullest sense the virgin birth was necessary. A birth through natural means could never produce the Son of God or one who could be called, Immanuel, which means “God with us”. God is with us in Jesus Christ because the virgin conceived of Him through the agency of Holy Spirit. It may be argued that Jesus became the Messiah (i.e. the Anointed One) at His baptism but His divine nature - it should be seen - is without beginning or ending. Although this is the only place in the New Testament where the term, Immanuel, is used, the concept of the Incarnation (i.e. God being with us in the flesh) is fundamental to the Christian faith.
    The Gospel of Luke contains the birth narrative that is most familiar to believers. The birth of John the Baptist is contained in one simple sentence. “Now the time had come for Elizabeth to give birth, and she brought forth a son.” There was nothing unusual about John’s birth other than the annunciation by the angel and the barren nature of Elizabeth's womb. The birth of John, however, is followed by the story of his being given a name. It was customary for the child to be officially named at the time of circumcision (i.e. the eighth day) by the father. Traditionally the priest spoke a benediction and then the child was circumcised. This was followed by "the usual grace over the cup of wine, when the child received his name in a prayer." Since Zachariah was unable to talk, they were going to name him Zachariah after his father. Elizabeth insisted that they call him, John. The elders turned again to Zachariah to get some sign from him as to what the child should be called. And Zachariah wrote on a tablet that he should be called, John. Immediately he regained his speech and began praising the Lord. Though the ritual was performed as it had been many times before it certainly was not an average circumcision ceremony. The people took notice that this must be an extraordinary child for these things to take place. When Zachariah burst forth in prophetic utterance their feelings were confirmed.
    This was certainly no ordinary child. “And you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High.” Israel had not known a prophet for over four hundred years. For God’s people, a prophet in their midst meant that God had a message prepared for them. It meant that God had not forsaken them but was turning His attention back to them. But John’s role as a prophet was only part of the story. Expressions like, “redemption for His people”, “a horn of salvation for us in the house of David”, “salvation from our enemies” and “to remember His holy covenant” stirred divine hope within the hearts of the people of God. John would “go on before the Lord to prepare His ways.” All these things fanned the flames of their messianic hope.
    John was born about six months before the birth of Jesus. According to Luke 1:56, Mary must have stayed until Elizabeth gave birth or left shortly before. It is likely that Mary would have stayed for the birth before she returned to Nazareth. Her return, however, brought news to Joseph that would produce within him - to say the least - a crisis of faith. The recorded account of Joseph's struggle cannot express fully the doubts and questions that would overwhelm him. The incident with Joseph that is recorded in Matthew 1:19-25, therefore, would have taken place immediately after her return from Elizabeth’s home. Once Joseph was able to resolve in his heart this shocking pronouncement his course was set. He would play an important role in the fulfillment of the coming Messiah. They probably had a simple wedding ceremony at Nazareth.
    The birth of Jesus at Bethlehem has become so much a part of the traditional Christmas ritual that it sounds overly familiar to most but it bears re-telling. The trip to Bethlehem came about through a providential decree from Caesar Augustus. It was providential in the sense that it made it possible for Jesus to be born under the necessary circumstances. What were those circumstances? There were three necessary conditions for the birth of the Messiah. The first was that prophets had foretold His birth in Bethlehem. The second was that, as coming King He had to be of the “house and family of David”. Bethlehem is referred to as the “city of David”. And lastly, the circumstances created by an overcrowded Bethlehem lead to the Christ being born in a humble stable. To summarize, Jesus’ birth fulfilled prophecy, was of royal lineage and was in humble circumstances. The contrast between His royal position and His humble demeanor sets the scene for a life filled with paradoxical concepts. He is the King of Israel yet He had no place to call home. He was the Lamb of God while at the same time being the High Priest who would make the sacrificial offering. He was without sin and yet he was condemned as a sinner to die on a cross. The greatest event in Israel's history is announced to the lowly and foreigners.
    The simple facts of Jesus’ birth are followed by the awesome revelation to the shepherds. This story, which has been retold for centuries at Christmas time, tells how the angel of the Lord announced the birth of the Savior to humble shepherds and they heard the choir of heaven extolling the glory of God. Two questions come to mind in considering the shepherds who first saw the Savior. First, Why did the announcement come to shepherds? The answer to this can never be more than mere speculation. But when we contrast it to the wise men – the other group that sought the child – it is clear that the humility and simplicity of the shepherds was in keeping with the Savior’s mission. Christ came to “seek and to save that which was lost” . The shepherd’s job was consistent with that purpose. He even referred to Himself later as “the Good Shepherd” The second question is, "What happened to the shepherds who had seen such wonderful things?" Again, our answer can only be speculation. But it is certain that they did not keep their story a secret. Luke 2:20 tells that the shepherds returned presumably to their work and families “glorifying and praising God for all that they had seen and heard.”
    In closing this portion of the Gospel narrative it should be noted that the scriptures do not tell what manner of house that Mary and Joseph lived in or when they found this house. It is unlikely that they spent more than a day or two in the stable. On the eighth day Jesus was circumcised and given a name by Joseph. Sometime after this Joseph, Mary and the infant would have found a home in Bethlehem. Apparently they were very poor during their first month or so in Bethlehem. The time of the magi's visitation must have been soon after Mary's purification at the Temple in Jerusalem. These things, however, will be considered in the next lesson.
Review Questions

Return to Home Page



Top of Page