PALSIED MAN LOWERED THROUGH A ROOF

The Palsied Man Let Down Through the Roof by James Jacques Tissot, c.1886-94

Matthew 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-20

Back in Capernaum

And after some days he entered into a ship, and passed over and came into his own city again. He entered Capernaum and it came to pass on a certain day it was noised that he was in the house.

Jesus made his initial tour about Galilee and gained a good bit of fame as a result, enough so it has become difficult to move about freely. He couldn’t even find solitude in the wilderness; the people followed him there. After several days of this, he returned to his base city, Capernaum. He crossed the sea in a ship, possibly escaping notice briefly. Eventually word on the street grew that he “was in the house”.  This is probably the house where Jesus was living, which many scholars believe was the home of Peter and Andrew. It had to be a house the people associated with Jesus being in town, since it was rumored he “was in the house”.

This is an artist’s rendering of what Peter’s mother-in-law’s house in Capernaum might have looked like. It was probably sketched from the archeological foundation claimed to be her house. Whether Peter and his mother-in-law lived in the same house it is difficult to say, but if not, their home would have probably been similar.

Although the sketch gives the appearance of a large compound, the actual dwelling would most likely be only one of these structures, not the whole complex. Homes tended to be simple affairs with only one or two rooms. The roof was flat and often people sat or slept on the roof to keep cool. Homes were clustered, like this sketch, around common courtyards. The courtyards would contain cisterns where water was carried in daily and stored. The neighbors would all use a common courtyard for such tasks as laundry and cooking.

And straightway many were gathered together, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them and they come unto him. Insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.

We have seen such scenes today, large crowds surrounding a place because some celebrity is there. Back in 1968 during the Presidential campaign, Robert F. Kennedy came to Philadelphia. He was to speak at the Democratic Headquarters on the corner of Fifteenth Street and Chestnut Avenue at noon. Before he arrived, people had crowded into that intersection and all along the adjoining streets. The police could barely keep the streets clear for traffic and people were being pressed into the sides of buildings. It was so crowded that when Kennedy arrived, he couldn’t even get out of the car, but had to stand up in the seat to address the people. There must have been a similar scene at the house. Every part of the grounds around it occupied. Perhaps some early arrivals actually gained entry, but now one couldn’t get close. Jesus probably stood in the doorway to address the mob.

As he was teaching, there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by and, behold, men brought to him a man, one sick of the palsy, lying on a bed which was borne of four, and they sought means to bring him in and to lay him before him.

And when they could not come nigh to him for the press and could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop. They uncovered the roof where he was and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus.

At the end of the last passage and the beginning of this it was stated that people came “from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.” This was the result of the cured Leper telling people about Jesus and how he cured him. The leper had also went to the temple and told the Priest there. Word spread. The Priest probably sent messages to the religious leaders in Jerusalem.

Remember, Jesus had begun his mission in a dramatic way, driving Moneychangers out of the Temple in Jerusalem during the Passover week. This got the religious and secular leaders attention. Jesus did not hang around in Jerusalem, but basically fled into the wilderness, then through Samaria and settled in Galilee. The leaders in Jerusalem probably dismissed this rebel rouser as just another lone fanatic. He disappeared north, out of sight and out of mind, until rumors and stories about the preacher and his healing began floating south to the capital. Now along those flocking to hear Jesus were the Scribes (doctors of the law) and Pharisees, examining Jesus and his purpose as they had John the Baptist. They may have been dispatched to follow Jesus and report on his activities by their superiors in Jerusalem. Notice these men were “sitting by”, implying they were not active participants, but were observers.

In these early days of his ministry, Jesus was obviously being seen as a healer more than a teacher, many, if not most, of this multitude were looking for a cure.  One such person was a man suffering from palsy.

We can’t know the exact nature of the man’s illness. Palsy is a somewhat general term meaning the lost use of some body part. It is usually accompanied by a loss of felling as well. The causes can be various. It could be something from birth, such as cerebral palsy or it could be the result of some trauma or other illness. It can afflict the whole person or be confined to one area.

From the description given, this man was affected at least in his legs and/or feet since he couldn’t walk. He has to be carried by four friends and they came too late to be near Jesus. With a burden of a man and his pallet, they found it difficult to even make a path through the crowd.

Now, some might question if they could not get through the crowd, how could they get to the roof. If we look at the earlier sketch we can certainly picture the scene. The particular house in question is blocked all along the front by this multitude. Jesus is most likely in the doorway. There may be some people inside the house listening from behind him.

But the houses are somewhat adjoined around the courtyards. The men took their friend to the side or rear of this block, hoisted him up and carried him over the flat roofs to the house of Jesus. Here they tore up the tiles and lowered the man through the hole they made.

And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to him, the sick of the palsy, “Son, be of good cheer; man your sins be forgiven you.”

Let’s look closely at this statement. This is the first time we know of that Jesus has said such a thing. He spoke to Nicodemus about salvation, about being “born again”, and he spoke to the Samarian Woman at the well about the need for “living water”, but he has not until now said to anyone, as far as is recorded, “Your sins are forgiven”. Why here, why now and what does he mean?

We must be careful we don’t take this statement out of the context of the situation. There is a danger of pulling individual parts out of Scripture and misapplying them. The danger here is one that many have fallen into, even in Jesus’ day, of associating a serious sickness with a serious sin. Because someone falls sick, we should not assume they committed some sin. Job was the most righteous man around and he fell sick. Some may get a disease as a result of their sins, such as sexually transmitted diseases, but innocent people can get these diseases passed to them by an unfaithful spouse. Some people may sin greatly and remain very healthy in body, while other people may sin little and suffer terrible sicknesses throughout their life. We must show compassion and care for the ill, not condemn them or accuse them of anything.

Jesus is not saying here that the Palsy was the result of sin. (That is not to say it couldn’t have been, only that this is not the point of what Jesus says or does here.) We know we are all sinners, whether we show it in any outward way or not. Certainly, then, this man was a sinner, whether palsied or not.

So why did Jesus say this? It certainly must have surprised the man. It wasn’t what the guy expected to hear; not what his friends had went to such effort to hear. Jesus said this here and now because the Pharisees and Scribes were there and he was about to prove a point and begin an adversarial dialogue that would follow his ministry from this point to the Cross. Whenever Jesus did something, it was to the purpose of furthering God’s plan.

And, behold, but there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, said within themselves, “This man blasphemes. Why does this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?”

Who were these certain scribes? The scribes were the trusted and venerated experts on Scripture. They wore three hats. One, they were the transcribers, the people who copied and preserved the Holy texts. They were very familiar with the writings. Two, they were the Teachers of the Scripture to the populace. It was their duty to interpret the text’s meaning and teach the people what Moses and the Prophets had set down for them to follow. They were responsible for giving the people the moral principles of their religion. Three, they were also the Lawyers who were looked to for settling all disputes, questions or controversies concerning Scripture.

In other words, they were men who knew Scripture inside and out. These were the men in the profession that advised Herod when and where the Messiah was to be born back when the Magi appeared. If anyone in the crowd listening to Jesus should have understood his preaching, it was these certain scribes. But they didn’t.

And immediately, when Jesus knowing their thoughts, perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, “Wherefore think you evil? Why reason you these things in your hearts, for whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, your sins be forgiven you; or to say, Arise, and take up your bed, and walk?

 “But that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins,” …

Jesus knew what these men thought. It must have been stunning to these men when he addressed them this way as if he could read their minds.

Jesus says something it is hard to believe these men missed. That is when he said, “but that you may know that the Son of man…” These experts in Scripture must have understood that term immediately. Although the term “son of man” was used to mean human being, it had a precise meaning these men would have been familiar with. It came from Daniel 7.

Daniel was given a vision of history. In this vision he saw the rise and fall of the great empires. He was also shown the rise of the Antichrist and the fate of this final dictator. Daniel saw Christ given dominion over all by God.

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14

They must have caught the assertion by Jesus that he was this person predicted by Daniel.

…(then he said to the sick of the palsy) “I say to you, arise, and take up your bed, and go your way into your house.”

And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; and departed to his house. But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, which had given such power to men saying, “We never saw it on this fashion.”

But did the scribes witnessing this also glorify God?

PREFACE AND PURPOSE

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Throughout my I have harmonized passages from the four Gospels to support a point or theme. I often find putting these passages together as a narrative gives a fuller picture of what happened at the time. It also clears up some of the supposed conflicts between the four writers. As one of my New Year Resolutions for 2009, I decided to do my own narrative harmony and commentary of the New Testament.

You might ask, why? Harmonies of the Gospel exist, isn't this just reinventing the wheel?

I have two reasons. The first is dissatisfaction with harmonies I have. They take the four Gospels and put them in four columns on the page aligning the various texts in chronological order. This makes for choppy reading that is sometimes distracting. I found one harmony several years ago that integrated the Gospels into narrative form. It was called The Life of Christ in Stereo. My only problem is the text used isn't from the more popular translations, but a translation made by that particular author.

I had intended originally to use the New International Version of the Bible for my Scriptural texts; however, there are limitations to use of the NIV as it is under copyright, Therefore, I have chosen to use the King James Version, which is in the Public Domain. I have not altered the KJV from the original, except for minor changes from Old English convention to Modern English. For example, changing “thee” and “thou” to “you” or “thy” and “thine” to “your”. In very rare instances an archaic word may also have been altered to the modern equivalent, such as “privily” to “privately”.

My second reason is the more important to me. I feel if I put together my own harmonized narrative of the Gospels it will help me understand God's Word better. As I put the passages together, I look into the context of the times and the relationship of the narrative to other books of the Bible. This way I expect to learn a lot more than I currently know.

I pray for wisdom and insight, and that I don’t wander astray in my comments; however, I am not a Gospel writer and make no claim of infallibility. My commentary is my expressed opinion and I am certainly capable of error. Consider what I say, but follow it up with your own research and study before accepting it as fact. Many of the peripheral details of Jesus’ life, such as the date of his birth and death, what happened to Joseph, or exactly where was he baptized, are subject to conjecture and have been argued for centuries. I have incorporated my own viewpoint into my narrative, but such are strictly my opinion and do not claim to be definitive, correct or settle any long-running debate on such matters. These issues are not substantive to the fact of Christ Jesus’ existence, purpose, virgin birth, miracles, death, burial or resurrection; or to the purpose and will of God in His life or to the need and way to salvation for humankind. These side issues in no way alter, disprove or change the facts of Jesus’ ministry or the events of his life as presented by the Gospel writers. The issues discussed about exact dates and some other details in Jesus’ life are no different than those of any other ancient history, except scholars have often consented to an undeterminable fact about other characters of history and ignored conflicting evidences (See “Problems with Dates and Place”).

I expect it will take me some time to complete this study begun early in 2009 .As I write this preface it is nearly one quarter of a year into 2010. My narrative is 136 pages long containing 32,660 words and has only reached the very beginning of Christ’s first ministry. There is no rush. The purpose is to understand the life of Christ better, to be more able to tell other people about the Good News and to draw myself ever nearer to the Lord.

Putting this out as a Website (www.nitewrit.info) places my progress and resolve under other eyes. I do this making you, Gentle Reader, my conscience and my encourager.

A PROBLEM WITH DATES

Portrait of Shakespeare by Martin Droeshout, 1623

When was William Shakespeare born and when did he die? What did he look like? These should be pretty knowable things. After all, Shakespeare breathed his last less that 400 years ago and almost 1,600 years after Jesus Christ was crucified. This is not ancient history. Shakespeare lived after 1500 AD; the year generally considered the beginning of modern civilization.

There is his familiar likeness above and schoolbooks tell us he was born on April 23, 1564 and died on his fifty-second birthday, April 23, 1616.

Except we really don’t know for certain what he looked like and those birth-death dates, which are probably close and possibly correct, are merely conjecture, not established fact. The portrait above appeared on a Folio of Shakespeare’s work rendered by a man who, in all likelihood, had never seen Shakespeare, seven years after the playwright’s death.  Every likeness since has been based on that portrait. There is no written description of Shakespeare’s looks or contemporary portrait in existence. (There have been a couple of paintings unearthed in recent years with claims of being made during Shakespeare like, but these are not authenticated.)

As to the dates, his birth has been conjectured as April 23, 1564 because there is a baptism registry at Holy Trinity Parish Church in Stratford dated April 26, 1564. Since it was a common practice to baptize three days after birth, it is assumed his birthday was on the 23^rd. However, common practice is not certainty. Infants were sometimes baptized on the day of birth and sometimes not baptized until months later.

Somewhat the same reasoning is used in establishing his death. His burial is registered in the same Stratford Church as April 25, 1616. How long before his funeral did he die? Well, April 23 makes for a convenient date because it is St. George’s Day and St. George is the Patron Saint of England.  What better date for England’s greatest writer to have been both born and died? Of course, there has been a long debate if Shakespeare actually wrote those plays that earned him that accolade.

The death of Julius Caesar occurred on the Ides of March (the 15^th), 44 BC or at least that is the preponderance of acceptance. There may be one problem if the writings of Pliny the Elder are accurate. Pliny was born the closest to the death of Julius than the other ancient historians, especially Plutarch, who we depend upon. Plutarch was born in 46 AD and Pliny was born in 23 AD.

According to Pliny there was a solar eclipse in the year of Julius’ death sometime after he was dead. There were no visible solar eclipses in the Roman Empire during 44 BC or the immediate years around it. There was such an eclipse in August 49 BC.

Pliny also quotes Augustus Caesar as saying he saw, soon after Julius’ death, a comet in the northern skies over a period of seven days. Such a comet was recorded in 49 BC, but not in 44 BC. So was Julius Caesar actually assassinated in 49 BC instead of 44 BC?

I don’t know? Can we rely on the writing of one ancient historian? (Unlike other issues discussed throughout this document where multiple sources support the statements made, I have only found one source so far claiming that Julius Caesar died in 49 BC, Biblical Chronology. There information about solar eclipses and comets is supported elsewhere, but that these occurred during the year of Caesar’s death seems to rely mainly on the writings of Pliny the Elder. I would want further documentation on this one.)

We do know Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by 23 men and his last words were, “Et tu Brute?” Right?

Well, maybe; maybe not. We really aren’t sure of Julius’ last words. Suetonius wrote they were “You too, child?” Plutarch wrote Julius uttered no last words. It was Shakespeare who put the words “Et tu Brute” into Caesar’s mouth, you know the guy who may or may not have been born and died on April 23 and may or may not have written “Julius Caesar”.

How many men assassinated Julius Caesar? One credible source says 23 men, another says 37 did and yet another says 60 men were involved. More honest accounts admit the number isn’t known.

Let’s step back even further in our list of great men to Alexander the Great. We hear much about this man with little question as to the veracity of the accounts of his life. It is interesting that critics attack the accuracy of biographies of Christ’s life because they were written dozens of years after his departure, but except willingly the biographies of Alexander written 500 years after his death. (To this day, exactly how Alexander died is uncertain.) His date of birth is categorically given as either July 20 or 21 of 356 BC. This is based on Alexander being born on the Hecatombacon Sixth of the Athenian Festival Calendar. However, the Athenians were very sloppy calendar keepers or we should say calendars, for they had a second calendar for the political year. Hecatombacon was the first month of the Festival calendar and in theory began on the first new moon after the summer solstice. We say theoretically because the astrological, civil and religious calendars did not agree on when the months began, how many there were in a given year or how many days long they were. Despite the statement that Alexander was born on July 20 or 21 of 356 BC, the truth is it is impossible to really know.

This raises the subject of our calendar and the birth of Jesus, whom it is supposedly based upon. After all, BC stands for “Before Christ” and AD is short for “Anno Domini”, which means “In the Year of Our Lord”. (You will notice I stand by these designation rather than the more recent attempts to secularize the division by using BCE “Before the Common Era” and CE “Common Era”.)

It is problematic establishing conclusive dates, especially dates in ancient history. Obviously we can have difficulties because there was not always a standardized calendar, as we have seen with the Greeks. Various countries and people had their own means of counting time. The Jews and Romans, for instance, based their calendars on moon cycles, while we use a calendar today based on the earth’s orbit of the sun.

The standardized worldwide calendar of our time is called the Gregorian calendar.  There was a partially standardized calendar prior to the Gregorian called the Julian calendar. Although both are based on the revolution of the Earth around the Sun, they did have a slight difference in the count of days and had to be adjusted. Both require a leap year every four years. However, leap years were erroneously added every three years early in the use of the Julian and this over time resulted in a loss of ten days.

Although the Gregorian corrected some of the errors of the Julian calendar, it presented some problems of its own. Years in the Gregorian were dated from the birth of Christ. Years after his birth were counted forward and those before his birth were counted backward. The span of someone who lived in AD would be shown as 1900-1970 AD, while a person born in BC would be shown as 1970-1900 BC. There is no year zero, which further adds confusion. Some people think 2010 is the first year of a new decade, but in reality it is the last year of the current decade; 1999 was not the last year of the previous century, 2000 was. Our current century began on January 1, 2001.

Furthermore, 1 AD is not correct as the first year of Christ’s life, which is a matter of considerable dispute.

The Julian and Gregorian Calendars are not that old relatively. The Roman’s had a rather messy Calendar up to Julius Caesar. One big problem with it was politicians and others would change it to curry favor, thereby making exact dating difficult. This Calendar had become such an unreliable tool by the time of Julius Caesar that he had a new Calendar created. This was the Julian calendar. It was created in 46 BC and went into use in 45 BC. This was replaced by our modern calendar in 1582 under the auspices of Pope Gregory XIII, for whom it is named.

One of those fringe issues that divert people’s attention to the Gospel truths about Jesus is the debate over his birth date.  Information given by Luke and Matthew about certain personages is often used to try and pinpoint the year.

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was {governor} of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register. Luke 2:1-3

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." Matthew 2:1-2

There isn’t much doubt that Caesar Augustus, Quirinius and Herod the Great were contemporaries around the period where BC ended and AD began. However, one question raised is the status of Quirinius during the time prior to 1 AD. It is accepted that Quirinius was Governor of Syria by 6 AD, but not earlier. Remember though, we are dealing with ancient times fraught with questionable histories and dating procedures, not to mention missing or unknown records. Still, there are several possible answers to the Quirinius Question.

The word translated in Scripture as “governor” was  “hegemon”, which means “ruling officer or procurator”. Quirinius did not become actual governor {legatus – different word} until later, but there is no reason to dispute Luke calling him a ruling officer at this time. Quirinius was serving in an official governing position in the last decade of BC (and there were many censuses taken during this period of time, any number of which could have been this one).

Other legitimate possibilities have their defenders. One is that Quirinius served as governor more than once and there is archeological evidence to the effect he did so serve during the later years of BC. A second proposition is there was another man named Quirinius. (Names are another area of confusion in ancient times and two people are often mistaken as one and the same. Sometimes one individual is also thought to be two different individuals because they went by more than one name.) Another argument is that Luke’s Greek was translated wrongly and should have been translated as “before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” Yet, another argument is that Jesus was actually born between 5 and 8 AD.  This argument hinges on the theory that Herod the Great died in 8 AD, not 4 BC and there are proponents who make a case for 8 AD. (Personally, I am not among those who place Christ’s birth that late.)

Now, why does Herod’s death date come into the discussion?  Because Herod was alive when Jesus was born according to Matthew. It was commonly accepted that Herod died in 4 BC and thus estimated that Jesus was born in 5 or 6 BC. (It is sometimes assumed Jesus must have been a child about two years old when the Magi visited and told Herod when the Star first appeared. Why? It was assumed so because Herod ordered all boys in Bethlehem up to the age of two to be killed. This is only conjecture. Herod may very well been playing it safe, overkill as it were, and Jesus may have still been an infant when the Magi came.)

But nothing is set in stone when we deal with dates two thousand years ago. So when did Herod die? Well, pick a year: 6 BC, 4 BC, 1 BC or 8 AD. In many reference books it will say he died in 4 BC. However, more recent evidence suggests he died in 1 BC.

Part of the difficulty is much bout Herod relied upon the works of Flavius Josephus (37 – 100 AD). Josephus wrote a twenty-volume history called “The Antiquities of the Jews” and an eight-volume history called “The War of the Jews”.  Josephus wrote two accounts concerning the life of Herod the Great, but these contain inconsistencies and discrepancies on events and the age of Herod at the time these occurred.

There are very good arguments based on known information that Herod died later that 4 BC and I am leaning toward the persuasions that he died in 1 BC. (You can find more information supporting this in the Catholic Encyclopedia, in Novum Testamentum by Andrew E. Steinmann or at www.bethlehemstar.net among others. (I recommend bethlehemstar as a very thought provoking theory that Christ was born in June of 2 BC, the Magi arrived in Bethlehem in December 2 BC (on the 25^th no less) and that Herod died in 1 BC.)

I believe all the swirling debates over dates are inconclusive, circumstantial and speculative, and do not affect the truth or accuracy of Scripture. I trust the Scriptural account more than any questionable opinions written by men, including my own. I take the stand the account of Jesus’ life is true and accurate according to the Word of God. We should concentrate on the story of salvation, rather than be diverted into irresolvable bickering over dates. There exists enough evidence to support any apologetic of supposed conflicts within the Bible to render criticism mote and inconsequential.

One final consideration, in looking backward from a distance, we mustn’t forget contemporary acceptance. Certainly we have record of those enemies of Christ who brought accusations against him, the Apostles and the early Church. These included calling Jesus and his Disciples drunkards, claiming Jesus was the illigitament son of a Roman soldier and spreading a rumor his disciples stole the body from the tomb. These are smear campaigns much as we see today between political oppenents. There are theological debates and arguments within the church over procedural and devotional matters. But there isn’t dispute over historic facts.

Luke addressed both his Gospel and Acts to Theophilus, for instance (refer to “Luke’s Introduction” in Part I).  If Luke’s information about the personages mentioned or issues such as the census were incorrect, Theophilus most likely would have caught the error and informed Luke of it. Why would Theophilus be receptive to a second volume, Acts, if he saw major errors of recent history in the first volume?

We mustn’t lose sight that when Luke and the others wrote their accounts and letters there were those alive familiar with the facts. If a biographer of John F. Kennedy wrote that Mark Chapman assassinated him in Denver in 1959, there would be many, many people quick to complain to the publisher about these errors because they had been alive at the time and remembered it was Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in 1963. Subsequent edition of the biography would correct this or the book would soon be assigned to the junk heap and oblivion. Why would we think grievous errors in Luke or any other Gospel writer on the daily news of their times would escape contemporary notice?

INTRODUCTION

Adam and Eve by Raphael (Raffaello Santi of Urbino), 1509-1511.

When God created Adam and Eve the world was good. They fell into disobedience and sin was brought into the world. This tainted everything and brought death to all. But before the creation God had a plan in place to restore mankind. Even as he put a curse on the world, he made this promise of a future redeemer:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15

Although created by God, Adam and Eve inclined toward their own desires and by listening to Satan man became the Devil’s adopted offspring. But there would be a future offspring of woman, one not of any man, who would eventually crush the head of evil. His name would be Jesus.

However, in those early times, men grieved God so much by their depravity he considered wiping all off the face of the Earth. Still, he remembered his promise of The Redeemer and God never breaks a promise. God found one righteous man and his family to save a sample of each living creature. Noah was not the promised Redeemer of course. Noah did not redeem mankind. He merely preserved it and allowed it to start anew. The sinful nature that began with Adam was preserved along with mankind and the promise of a coming Redeemer was still needed.

Among the survivors, of the Flood God had used to destroy his creation were Noah’s three sons. All the people living upon the planet today descended from those three.

The inhabitants of what we call the Middle East basically descended from Shem. Thus they are known as Semites.  Shem’s grandson was Eber. Jewish tradition holds that Eber refused to help in the building of the Tower of Babel and he was allowed to retain his own language, the original language of mankind. Eber’s descendents were Eberites. However, the name Eber was sometimes shown as Heber (I had an Uncle Heber named for him) and in time his descendents and their language was called Hebrew. A further descendent of Eber was Abrams, who was renamed by God as Abraham. He was to become the great patriarch of the Hebrews and they were God’s Chosen people from whom the Redeemer would one day come and they were to show God’s way to the world. (The name Jew referred to those of the Tribe of Judah, but the name eventually came to mean all those of the Hebrew faith.)

Despite the fresh start, as the population grew, people again turned to wickedness, even the Chosen People. God sent prophets to warn them and call them to repentance, but they ignored and sometimes even killed these messengers. Finally, God dispersed the Hebrews and sent many into captivity in Babylon. The country of Israel and Judah was taken from them and Jerusalem and the temple destroyed. The Law itself was lost to the people for decades.

In 539 B.C., King Nabonidus surrendered Babylon to the Persian King Cyrus without a fight.  Within the year, the first Jews were allowed to return to their former homeland. By 516 B.C. a new temple had been built.

Ezra, accompanied by about 5,000 former exiles, arrived out of Babylon in 458 B.C. Nehemiah was overseeing the building of a reconstructed wall around Jerusalem, and after its completion in 445 B.C., Ezra stood and read the Law of Moses to the assembled people. (The Book of the Law had been rediscovered during construction.) Since the Law had been lost, the people were overjoyed at hearing it again. They forsook idols and returned to accepting the One and Only Mighty God.

Despite these incredible events, a mere 15 years later the Jews had strayed again. They were sacrificing blemished animals, showing their disrespect to God, and they were marrying foreigners. Why was it bad to marry foreigners? Because God had promised a redeemer and he had promised this redeemer would be a direct and unblemished descendent of Abraham and of David. If the Jews continued to marry with foreigners that ancestry would be lost and God’s plan could not be fulfilled.

So in 430 B.C., God raised up a prophet named Malachi who warned the Jews of coming judgment if they didn’t repent. His prophecies came with assurances of God’s love for them and a promise of salvation. And so it was with these words in Malachi quoting God that the Old Testament comes to an end:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. Malachi 4:5-6

We have 400 silent years between the Old and New Testaments; between the prophesies of Malachi and the Birth of Our Lord, Christ Jesus. Much changed in the world in those years.

Alexander the Great defeated Persia in 331 B.C. King Darius was killed by his own men. Alexander went on to rule the known world until 323 B.C., when he died under mysterious circumstances.

His empire was divided among four of his top generals and split into four sectors ruled thusly: Seleucus (Asia), Ptolemy (Egypt), Lysimachus (Thrace) and Cassander, son of Antipater over Macedonia/Greece. (Many think of Cleopatra VII [69 B.C. - 30 B.C.] as Egyptian, but she was Macedonian/Greek being the last Ptolemy ruler of Egypt, which upon her death became part of the Roman Empire. Her father was Pharaoh Ptolemy XII Auletes his sister, Cleopatra V Tryphaena, was most likely her mother. (Cleopatra VII was married to two of her own brothers, before having her famous liaisons with Julius Caesar and Marc Antony.)

The Jews, after Alexander, came under Seleucid rule. However, when the Seleucid King Antiochus defiled the Jewish Temple in 167 B.C. (a foreshadowing of the future Antichrist), Judah Maccabeus led a Jewish Army, which defeated the Seleucids. This began what is called the Hasmonean Rule of Palestine. However, in 63 B.C., the great Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem and Israel once again lost its independence and came under Roman Rule.

In 42 B.C., Mark Antony appointed Herod tetrarch of Galilee. The Jews resented him because he wasn’t a Jew. He was an Idumean with an Arabian mother. (Idumea was the Greek name for Edom, which bordered Judea on the south. This was a land populated by the descendents of Esau, Edom being another name of his. Esau was the brother of Jacob. The Edomites were perpetual thorns in the side of the Israelites. Given the history between Israel and Edom, it is no wonder the Jews were not happy to have Herod named their king.)  During the Parthian War, Herod had to flee because the Jews sided with the Parthians. But after the war and order was restored, Rome reinstated Herod as the sole ruler of Judea. Thus in 37 B.C., Herod the Great was King of the Jews. He was ruling when Jesus was born.

During the Hasmonean Rule arose three important factions among the Jews: Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes.

The Pharisees were spiritual leaders to the extreme. They not only embraced the Law, but also began to add to it their own interpretation and traditions. They did, however, believe in an afterlife, the judgment of the wicked and a coming Messiah.

The Sadducees were an elite priestly group, yet liberally embraced Greek ways into their lives. They insisted on a literal interpretation of the Law rejecting the ideas of the Pharisees, including resurrection. Their lives revolved around ritual and the Temple. They disappeared from history with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

The Essenes didn’t like either of the other two groups. They became monks, moved to the desert and strictly obeyed dietary laws and being celibate. They are associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

During this time a body came into existence known as the Sanhedrin (sitting together). It was a ruling institution for the Jews, a sort of Supreme Court and legislature rolled into one. It consisted of 71 Jewish elders and was presided over by a President and a Chancellor. Members of the Sanhedrin did not gain a seat by election. The supplanted a sitting member on the council be establishing superior knowledge of the Law. (Nicodemus and Saul [Paul) held seats in the council at times.) Both Pharisees and Sadducees were members of this group.

Another group often mention is Scripture were the Scribes. These were akin to attorneys.

So when we come to the beginning of the New Testament and the birth of Jesus, the world is quite different than it was when Malachi talked of a coming prophet like Elijah. The Persian Empire has been replaced by the Roman Empire. The King of Judea is not of the line of David, but a non-Jew named Herod. The Jewish religion and tradition is not being directed by God’s chosen prophets, but is in the hands of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. It is also a time when many Jews are earnestly expecting the promised Messiah to come as a king that will defeat Rome and rule as David once did. This is the world at the time the Christ came.

PART I

BIRTH OF CHRIST

Birth of Christ by Antoine Pesne, 1745

LUKE’S INTRODUCTION

St. Luke by Simone Martini, Circa 1330

Luke 1:1-4

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things, which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them to us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the certainty of those things, wherein you have been instructed.

 Luke also addressed the Book of Acts to Theophilus, the identity of whom is unknown. Several suggestions exist. One possibility is the name is a pseudonym since it literally means “lover of god”. Because Luke addresses him as “most excellent Theophilus” there is speculation that he was a Roman official. The statement of purpose, “that you might know the certainty of those things, wherein you have been instructed” makes me wonder if Theophilus was a fairly recent convert to the faith. It may be Theophilus was a pseudonym because being Christian might be a treat to his position.

There is also a theory this was Theophilus ben Ananus, who held the position of High priest from 37 to 41 AD This man was the son of Annas and the brother-in-law of Caiaphas. His son also served as the next to last High Priest before the destruction of the Temple by Rome in 70 AD. Archeologists uncovered an ossuary (burial place) bearing an inscription, “Johanna, granddaughter of Theophilus, the High Priest” [D. Barag and D. Flusser, “The Ossuary of Yehohanah Granddaughter of the High Priest Theophilus”, Israel Exploration Journal, #36 (1986), pp. 39-44]

(It is interesting it was Luke who mentions a Joanna (a variant spelling for Johanna) as one of the women following Jesus who went to the tomb on Resurrection Sunday. Is it possible these are one and the same person?)