Christmas Relic Returned

Fourteen hundred years after it was sent to Rome, a relic from the manger of baby Jesus was returned to Bethlehem last week. Sheathed in an ornate case, cheerful crowds greeted the thumb-sized wooden relic with much fanfare before it entered the Franciscan Church of St Catherine, next to the Church of the Nativity.

The custodian of the Franciscan order in the Holy Land, said Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had asked Pope Francis to borrow the entire manger, but the pope decided to send a tiny portion of it to stay permanently in Bethlehem.

One journalist believes that the return of the relic by the Vatican was a spirit-lifting moment for the Palestinians. Actually, young Palestinian scouts played bagpipes and the crowd snapped pictures as a clergyman held the silver reliquary (container for relics) and marched toward the church.

Personally, I would not be so naive to believe that the interest of President Abbas and the Palestinians in the alleged wooden relic from the manger of Bethlehem is a display of any personal interest in Jesus Christ. This is nothing but a business opportunity. Christmas is big business in Palestine.

Tens of thousands of pilgrims from around the world are expected to visit Bethlehem this Christmas. What is hoped, is that the large number of pilgrims that visited Rome to see the relic on display in the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, would now visit Bethlehem.

Last year, more than 10,000 tourists visited Bethlehem around the Christmas season. Hotels were fully booked, and business thrived, the best many had seen in years. With the return of the relic from Rome, it is believed that business will be much brighter this Christmas.

The City of Bethlehem was once dominated by Christians. Today however, there are fewer than 10% of Christians in the Muslim dominated city of approximately 225,000 residents. Violence and economic hardships have contributed to this major demographic shift.

With that backdrop, one can now understand the sentiments of Amira Hanania, a member of Palestine’s Higher Committee of Churches Affairs:

"To celebrate Christmas with the presence of part of the manger in which Jesus Christ was born will be a magnificent and huge event." 

If an alleged relic of the manger could make such a difference to one nation, try to imagine what a difference the person of Jesus Christ could make. Actually, the relic is deemed important, only because of the importance of Jesus Christ. Without Jesus, the relic would have no value.

The process of finding relics or artifacts in the Middle East has piqued much interest in the last century. Much of this curiosity is because of Jesus Christ. Archaeologists continue to study where he was born, where he grew-up and every place where he allegedly preached.

In 1986, after a drought depleted water levels in the Sea of Galilee, two brothers walking along the shore found a submerged first-century fishing vessel. The wooden boat made headlines around the world as an example of the type Jesus and his disciples would have used to cross the lake. The Jesus Boat is on display at a Kibbutz on the shore of the Sea of Galilee and is viewed by tens of thousands of pilgrims each year. Like with the manger relic, people want to identify with Jesus.

Agreed, Jesus encouraged people to identify with Him, but did he encourage the use of relics to accomplish this? Jesus instructed his disciples to baptize believers. In addition, he encouraged the practice of communion. Both ordinances relate directly to Jesus.

However, some historians contend, because of the rapid spread of Christianity among semi-literate people groups, relics and icons were used to aid communication. Relics were the basic and often complex artistic forms and gestures used as a kind of key to convey religious concepts and the visual, auditory, and kinetic representations of religious ideas and events.

As in so many cases though, we run the risk of studying and adoring the relics and ignoring the Person who the relics represent. There are branches of Christianity that defend the adoration of relics. Such Christians believe relics aid worship. Other Christians believe relics undermine the exercise of faith. These Christians believe relics are among the images forbidden in the Ten Commandments.

Miraculous Babies?

Christianity is not unique in claiming that its founder was born miraculously. Actually, similar claims were made long before Jesus was born.
For instance, a Buddhist legend claims that Buddha’s mother, Maya, dreamt that a white elephant entered her side and that the Buddha was born miraculously from her side.
Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.
Honestly though, in light of this backdrop, is it possible that the story of the birth of Jesus could be mythical or even legendary? Here are four responses to this question:

1) BIRTH OF JESUS WAS NOT MYTHOLOGICAL

Myths are cultural and religious tales of a specific community. These tales or stories reflect the beliefs of the community.
For instance Greek myths included fantastic creatures such as Centaurs – half-human, half-horse creatures. Greek mythology and later Roman mythology also entertained ideas of Cyclopes, giant one-eyed creatures. Then there were the sphinxes carrying the head of a woman, the haunches of a lion, and the wings of a bird.
In the first place, the birth of Jesus does not include fictional characters. Specific persons were named, specific locations were identified, and specific roles were performed. Those are literary features, not associated with mythological or apocalyptic literature. 
As mentioned earlier, mythology reflects the beliefs of a community. Interestingly, Jews communities in the Bible never practiced observing birthdays. Hence, a mythological belief of the birth of Jesus would not have been possible. Before an angelic appearance, the father of Jesus was appalled by the idea that Mary could be impregnated by a deity. Such beliefs were not a part of their culture.

2) BIRTH OF JESUS WAS NOT LEGENDARY
A legend is a story from within a community that evolved over a long period of time. Legends require decades and sometimes centuries to be accepted as stories or tales of a community. Like with myths, these beliefs are not rooted in facts. The primary criterion is that they reflect the beliefs of the community.
For instance, there are communities that believe that spirits live in trees. Trees display life, in that they grow, send seasonal messages, provide fruits for sustenance. In other words, trees are alive and benevolent. Therefore, spirits live in trees. Such views evolve from within communities and are considered believable with time – that is consistent with the birthing of a legend.

So unlike the birth of Jesus. The story began to emerge from eyewitnesses. In his letter to Theophilus, Luke was careful to mention that he interviewed eyewitnesses and “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:1-4). Luke was contending that his report was verifiable. That presentation of evidence is never characteristic of mythology or legend.

3. BIRTH OF JESUS WAS AN HISTORICAL EVENT
History is descriptive of a past event that could be verified. It is based on information of events that actually happened. Hence, history is interested in artifacts, records and circumstantial evidence that can be verified.
In reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, both Matthew and Luke relied on ancestral support or genealogies. This historical catalog confirms family identity and connects events to reality.
Furthermore, in reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, Luke talked about the political leadership at the time and decrees that were ordered. These details placed the birth within an historical setting and not within the vagueness of mythology or legend.Also, unlike any other claim of miraculous birth, the birth of Jesus was predicted.

4. BIRTH OF JESUS WAS A PREDICTED EVENT
Other claims of miraculous births always followed the birth. The birth of Jesus was predicted and recorded before his birth. King Herod depended on these records when he wanted to know where Jesus would be born.
Matthew quoted the prophet Isaiah as referring to Jesus, more than 700 years before His birth. He had no doubt that the birth of Jesus signaled the arrival of the promised Messiah.
Unlike any other claim, the miraculous birth of Jesus was consistent with the miraculous life of Jesus. Unlike any other claimant, the greatness of Jesus preceded His birth. His birth was unique. It was not an accident; His arrival was planned. The same can be said of His pending return.

A Birthday Worth Celebrating

Unlike Christmas, the birthday of the church gets little visibility in most churches. That is so unfortunate, considering that the church was birthed on a celebrative day. An occasion that brought together thousands of Jews for the Feast of Weeks.

The Feast of Weeks is the second of the three “solemn feasts” that all Jewish males were required to travel to Jerusalem to attend. To the Jews, this time of celebration is known as Shavuot, which is the Hebrew word meaning “weeks.” Shavuot marked the beginning of the new agricultural season.

Shavuot was a joyous time of giving thanks and presenting offerings for the new grain of summer wheat harvest. At times Shavuot was called the Feast of Harvest and the Feast of First Fruit. Whereas these titles reflect the agricultural nature of the celebration, the Feast of Weeks addressed the timing of the festive celebration.

The celebration started seven full weeks, or exactly fifty days, after Passover. In the Old Testament, we read where God commanded the Jews to count seven full weeks (49 days), beginning on the second day of Passover (Leviticus 23:15-16). For this reason, some refer to this festival as the Feast of the Fiftieth Day - from the Greek word pentecostes, meaning fiftieth. This is the same day referred to as the Day of Pentecost in the New Testament.

According to the New Testament, it was on the Day of Pentecost that the church was launched (Acts 2). Thousands of Jews were in Jerusalem to celebrate the start of another agricultural season. They approached that festival with thoughts of a new harvest, new beginnings and new hope. No one expected that that year’s festival would be unique. That festival, fifty days following the death of Jesus, coincided with the promise of Jesus – “do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised...”.

Acts 2:1 begins with the words, “when the day of Pentecost came...”. That simple statement is loaded with history and expectation. That was to be an occasion of thanksgiving and acknowledging God’s provision. An occasion when non-Jews could celebrate with Jews.

That was the context in which the church was launched. On that day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit empowered simple fishermen from Galilee to speak in languages they did not know. On that day more than 3,000 persons were converted to a new faith, affirming that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah. On that day the prophecy of Joel was partially fulfilled – “I will pour out my Spirit on all people...”

This weekend marks the anniversary of that festival. While Jews are celebrating Shavuot, some Christians are celebrating Pentecost. Sunday, May 20 is referred to as Pentecost Sunday. Some churches in Europe talk about Whit Sunday, from an old English idea of wearing white on that day. Both Jews and Christians celebrate the day, fifty days after Passover.

According to the Jewish Talmud, it was on that day, the Law was given to Moses. So, as Jews celebrate Shavuot this weekend, they will read portions from the Book of Ruth. They will be reminded of the Law that provides for the non-Jew, as in the case of Ruth. Some will gather at late-night study sessions to commemorate the giving of the Torah.

Christians on the other hand, will remember the birthday of the Church. Christians will remember the coming of the promised Holy Spirit. More liturgical churches observe this day annually on the seventh Sunday after Easter. Pentecostal churches within evangelical traditions also celebrate Pentecost Sunday.

Although my local church does not traditionally observe Pentecost Sunday, I intend to use the time to reflect on the rich harvest of converts at the launching of the church. I hope to reflect on the promise of the prophet Joel concerning God’s desire “to pour out His Spirit” on all ethnic communities. Pentecost Sunday is a great time to revisit our attitude to immigration – wouldn’t this be a wonderful opportunity to reach out to persons who are ethnically different from us?

More than anything else, this would be a great opportunity to experience the control of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Try to imagine a world with Spirit-controlled persons, infiltrating our communities with “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Galatians 5:22-23).

Tampering with Dead Bodies

To tamper with a dead body is a crime. In Florida for example, the law states, “A person who willfully and knowingly disturbs the contents of a tomb or grave commits a felony of the second degree.” A conviction for such a crime can result in a prison term of up to fifteen years.

From ancient times, tombstones and coffins contained inscriptions warning offenders not to interfere with the contents. Tampering with the dead was a dishonor to the memories of the dead. In addition, the habit encouraged the practice of necromancy – communicating with the dead.
In the New Testament, after the death of Jesus, the Jewish authorities found a new reason to enforce this ban of tampering with dead bodies. The Jewish authorities realized that the tomb where the body of Jesus had been placed was empty – His body could not be found.
                          
Therefore, according to the New Testament record, the Jewish authorities devised a plan to bribe the soldiers who were on duty to guard the tomb. The soldiers were to testify that “His disciples came during the night and stole Him away while we were asleep” (Matthew 28:13).

The Roman soldiers accepted the bribe, thus implicating the disciples of Jesus. However, nowhere in history do we read where the disciples were charged for stealing the dead body of Jesus. Obviously, such a charge would require the prosecution to produce as irrefutable evidence, the stolen body. There was evidence of an empty tomb, but not a stolen corpse.
In his volume, New Testament History, the late Professor F.F. Bruce tells the story of Roman Emperor Claudius and his edict to forbid tampering with dead bodies. Here is the edict that was issued within fifteen years after the resurrection of Jesus:

“It is my pleasure that sepulchers and tombs, which have been erected as solemn memorials of ancestors or children or relatives, shall remain undisturbed in perpetuity... Let no one disturb them on any account. Otherwise it is my will that capital sentence be passed upon such person for the crime of tomb-spoilation.”

That edict of the Roman Emperor Claudius has been housed in the Cabinet des Médailles in France since 1878. The inscription is said to have been “sent from Nazareth” to Paris. The writing-style on the inscription belongs to the earlier half of the first century.

The date and the source of the inscription leave unanswered a few important historical questions. For example, why would the Emperor of a region covering one million square miles be so interested in establishing an edict for a region covering six square miles? And that question leads logically to another - was there a presumed incident of tampering with the dead in that area, to warrant such an edict?

Could the presumed incident be related to the empty tomb where Jesus was placed? For Jewish authorities, the fact of the empty tomb was more embarrassing than the likelihood of theft of the body of Jesus.

Was the charge of theft by the disciples possible? Clearly, such a charge is fanciful. The disciples were so scared of the authorities, why would they so foolishly implicate themselves? Such a stealing charge would constitute a serious crime. As a matter of fact, why didn’t the authorities arrest them if they felt the disciples committed a crime?

In addition, the crucifixion had taken place in Jerusalem, some eighty miles away from their Nazareth home. Would they have disposed of the corpse in Jerusalem or travel with it for a few days in the Near Eastern hot temperatures? Preposterous!

What would seem to be the best option is the one recorded in the most reliable document of ancient literature – that Jesus, who was crucified, came back to life on the third day following His death.

The New Testament writers further contend that for 40 days the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds of persons in a variety of settings – in small groups, in personal encounters and even on one occasion by more than 500 persons at the same time.

Logically, if those records were incorrect, why weren’t they challenged? Or, why did the authorities not locate the corpse and arrest the disciples for tampering with a dead body? Nothing like that was necessary because the evidence of the resurrected Jesus was overwhelming and irrefutable.

Ironically, if it were a crime, the disciples would have been guilty of handling Someone who was dead and is alive forevermore. Was it not Jesus who said, “I am the Living One, I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever?” (Revelation 1:18)

Peace on Earth?

The news headlines preceding Christmas 2016 were frightening – massacre in Germany, major threat averted in Australia, bombing in Syria, Libyan plane hijacked, and the list goes on. None of those events suggest that we are experiencing peace on earth.

Interestingly, the same could be said of the world in which Jesus was born. The philosophical and religious backgrounds of paganism in the first century left a sense of emptiness among many. For instance, belief in the reality of the ancient gods and goddesses of classical mythology resulted in widespread agnosticism.

Many sceptics deduced that the gods were originally men who had distinguished themselves either as warriors or benefactors of mankind, and who after their death were accorded divine honors.

What was aptly termed “the failure of nerve” characterized the moral and religious vacuum that many felt but could not overcome, despite the panaceas offered by a welter of competing teachers, philosophers, priests, astrologers and quacks.

Epictetus, a first century Roman historian and philosopher said of this era: “while the emperor may give peace from war on land and sea, he is unable to give peace from passion, grief and envy. He cannot give peace of heart, for which humanity yearns more than even for outward peace.” As emperor, Caesar Augustus ruled the nations, but could not conquer the human heart.

That was the religious and philosophical world into which Jesus came. That was the world which heard the angels say, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom His favor rests” (Luke 2:14). So unlike today’s understanding of peace, the angels were not referring to the absence of war. They were declaring God's desire for harmonious relationships between men and nations.

Like with the Hebrew word shalom, peace means completeness, wholeness, health, welfare, safety soundness, tranquility, prosperity, perfectness, fullness, rest, harmony, the absence of agitation or discord. Shalom comes from the root verb shalom meaning to be complete, perfect and full.

That understanding of peace is so different from those who believe that assuming a posture of strength dissuades potential attacks, consequently leading to peace – the absence of war. But peace is much more than the absence of war.

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul linked peace to a person, and not merely to an ideology. He contended, “for He (Jesus) is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility... (Ephesians 2:14).

Hundreds of years earlier, the prophet Isaiah predicted of the coming Messiah, that He would be sar shalom – Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus, who Christians believe is that Messiah, said to His disciples, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you...” (John 14:27). For this reason, Christians see Christmas as the arrival of the Prince of Peace.

Despite the isolated cases in history of using Christianity to incite and initiate wars, the Christian message is universally known as a message of peace.

Christianity influenced the abolition of slavery and infanticide. In addition, it is because of the Christian ethic that the outrage against euthanasia, sex trafficking and abortion persists.

Because Christians are expected to demonstrate the life of Christ as a lifestyle, we should constantly pursue peace. The biblical teaching is unambiguous, “... as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18). Christmas provides tremendous opportunities to illustrate this truth.

In 2015, an estimated $373 billion was received for charities from Americans. About $119 billion of that amount went to religious charities – including churches and para church organizations. That is more than what is spent by the federal government on education or human services. Interestingly, most of that money was received within ten weeks before Christmas.

This fact reminds me that every hour, during this month of December, there is a performance of Handel’s Messiah somewhere in the world. Since the musical was premiered on April 13, 1742, the response around the world has been phenomenal.

George Frideric Handel personally conducted more than thirty performances of Messiah. The millions of dollars that Handel’s performances raised for charity led one biographer to note, "Messiah has fed the hungry, clothed the naked, fostered the orphan . . . more than any other single musical production in this or any country."

In essence, the proceeds have brought peace to many. It is that message of peace, about the Prince of Peace, that continues to bring wholeness and harmony to billions around the world. For this reason, there is no need for anyone to live in turmoil, knowing that God’s peace is available in the Christ of Christmas.

The Virgin Birth: UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL?

Christianity is not unique in claiming that her founder was born of a virgin. It is believed that some
pagan deities were also born miraculously of virgins, making the birth of Jesus nothing new in the history of world religions.

One Buddhist legend claims that Siddhartha Gautama’s (Buddha) mother, Maya, dreamt that a white elephant entered her side and that he was born miraculously from her side.

Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.

At least one New Testament scholar shares the view that Luke presented the story of Jesus’ birth in a way that would make sense to a pagan reader. “Luke knew,” this scholar contends, “that his readers were conversant with tales of other divine beings who walked the face of the earth, other heroes and demigods who were born of the union of a mortal with a god.” 

This historical backdrop leaves us with a critical question – does the birth of Jesus differ from other claims of virgin birth? I believe there are at least three reasons why Luke’s story of Jesus’ virgin birth is noticeably different.

Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. With time, such stories are believed to be factual, even though there is no tangible evidence to support that view.

History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation. In his opening verses, Luke establishes that this was done. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refers to the sources that were at his disposal and declares that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.

That was the context in which Luke presented the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. No other religious claim of virgin birth matches Luke’s standard of historiography.

Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with the deity of Jesus. To claim virgin birth is to make claim to an unnatural birth. With Jesus, it was more than just a claim – He lived an unnatural life. It was because of His claim of living unnaturally, He was eventually accused of blasphemy (The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God).

Interestingly, although it is alleged that the Buddha was born miraculously (of virgin birth), he was known to be “a practical person”. As he sensed his impending death, “he called his disciples and reminded them that everything must die.” So unlike Jesus who said, “Destroy this temple (my body), and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19).

Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other virgin birth claim that is made, no claim precedes the birth. Claims were often made by followers, following the birth and in an attempt to boost the person born.

Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction of the coming Messiah: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23).

Both Old and New Testament texts are clear - the biblical writers were not referring to unusual births like Isaac, Samuel or John the Baptist. There was something unique, not unusual, about the birth of Jesus. Ask Simeon, the priest who was on duty when Joseph and Mary went to dedicate baby Jesus.

In Simeon’s song (Nunc Dimittis), the priest was convinced that the child he was holding was no ordinary baby. In keeping with God’s promise to him that he would not die before seeing the Messiah, Simeon declared, “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, You now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen Your salvation...” (Luke 2:29-30).

As a careful historian, Luke anticipates the skepticism that would arise in telling the story, hence the inclusion of Mary’s question: “how will this be, since I am a virgin?” In addition, he quotes the angel as saying, “for nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:34,37).

To merely see the birth in the context of existing pagan traditions is a disservice to the honor that only Jesus deserves. Amidst the noises during this festive season, please make some time to reexamine what Simeon the priest discovered – “...my eyes have seen Your salvation...”

Is Christmas Christian?

Jesus never celebrated Christmas – neither did any of His disciples. Actually, for more than 300 years after the birth of Jesus, no one celebrated Christmas. The few birthday ceremonies we have recorded in the Bible were celebrated in non-Jewish communities.

Celebrating birthdays was never a Jewish practice. Because of the influence of Judaism on early Christianity, that non-interest became evident. The church even announced that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ’s birthday “as though He were a King Pharaoh.”

The idea of celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25 was first suggested sometime in the year 300. Other dates like January 6, March 25 and May 20 were suggested. May 20 became a favored date since Luke stated in his report – the shepherds who received the announcement of Christ’s birth “were watching their flock by night” (Luke 2:8). It is believed that shepherds guarded their flocks day and night only at lambing time, in the spring.

The early church fathers debated their options and chose December 25 because this date may have had a connection with the pagan celebration of the Dies Solis Invicti (Day of the Invincible Sun). Some believe that the choice of December 25 provided Christians with an alternative festival in place of the one held in honor of the sun-god, who was often identified with Mithras. So, it was not until December 25, 337 AD/CE, Christians officially celebrated the first Christmas.

Some historians contend that in the early 300’s, the cult of Mithraism was a serious threat to Christianity. For a period of time Mithraism was even proclaimed to be the official state religion by Emperor Aurelian (274). It was not until the reign of Emperor Constantine, Christianity began to receive favor from the state.

In 337, Constantine gave December 25 his blessing to observe the birth of Jesus. With time the observance of Christmas eclipsed the pagan festival of honoring the birthday of Mithras.

Initially, the celebration of Christ’s birth was a sacred event. In Christ’s honor, there was Christ’s mass – from which we get the term Christmas - the suffix mas evolves from the Old English word maesse meaning festival, feast day or mass.

By the year AD 360 the church was intentionally celebrating the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. By AD 386, Chrysostom, the great church leader, emphasized, “...without the birth of Christ there is no Baptism, no Passion, no Resurrection, no Ascension and no Pouring out of the Holy Spirit ...’ ”

As the centuries unfolded, the tradition grew to include Epiphany, January 6, when the visit of the Wise men is celebrated – this celebration preceded the celebration of Christmas as we know it. It is on this day that the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Christmas.

At this point in its evolving history, Christmas has adopted many traditions, many of these traditions from non-Christian sources. One tradition that has captured the season is the role of Santa Claus. The term is from the Dutch name 'Sinterklaas' – Saint Nicholas in English.

Saint Nicholas was born on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey sometime about 270 CE. He was the son of wealthy Christian parents who died when he was young - he was raised by an uncle, also called Nicholas, a Catholic Bishop of ancient Lycia. 

Saint Nicholas eventually became a priest during a dangerous time of persecution for Christians - he later became the Bishop of Myra. He was famous for his generous gifts to the poor and was also associated with kindness towards children. The images of Saint Nicholas usually show an old man with long, grey hair and a beard. In Roman Catholic tradition, the Feast Day of Saint Nicholas is December 6th – the day of his death.

In the 16th Century in Europe, the stories and traditions about St. Nicholas had become very unpopular. But someone had to deliver gifts to children at Christmas, so in the United Kingdom, he became 'Father Christmas', a character from old children's stories. In France, he was then known as 'Père Nöel'; in Germany, the 'Christ Kind'.

Early in American history, the German image of ‘Christ Kind’ became known as 'Kris Kringle'. Later, Dutch settlers in America took the old stories of St. Nicholas with them and Kris Kringle became 'Sinterklaas' or as we now say 'Santa Claus'!

In the mix of traditions, it is easy to lose sight of the biblical story of the birth of Jesus Christ. In response, some Christians withdraw from the season. Others become so absorbed with the traditional trimmings, they lose sight of the main story.

For me, I reread the biblical story of Christ’s birth and use the season as an opportunity to recall the uniqueness of His birth, and not merely the traditions that surround the birth.

(This commentary first appeared in December 2014)

Was Jesus White?

Usually around Christmas and Easter, many in the media feature something about Jesus. This year, many chose His appearance, based on a professional study done in 2001.

That study was attempting to discover what the true race and face of Jesus might have been. The study, sponsored by the British Broadcasting Corporation, France Three and Discovery Channel, used one of three first-century Jewish skulls from a leading department of forensic science in Israel.

A face was constructed using forensic anthropology by Richard Neave, a retired medical artist from the Unit of Art in Medicine at the University of Manchester.
The face that Neave constructed was a model of a Galilean man. If Jesus looked like that man, He would have had a broad face and large nose, and differed significantly from the traditional depictions of Jesus in renaissance art.

In another study, the National Police in Italy created a digital image of what they believe Jesus Christ looked like as a young child, based on computer forensics and the world’s most famous relic, The Shroud of Turin.

Using the Shroud, the supposed burial cloth of Jesus, police investigators generated a photo-fit image from the negative facial image on the material. And from this they reversed the ageing process to create an image of a young Jesus, by reducing the size of the jaw, raising the chin and straightening the nose.

The technique effectively reverses the method that Italian police use to generate current likenesses of criminals, including senior mob bosses, for whom new photo-fit images are needed when they have been on the run for decades.

Like you, I am asking, why this insatiable interest in Jesus? Why not in Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus? Why not in Herod the Great? For centuries, scholars want to know more and more about Jesus. What is it about Jesus that generates this interest?

According to the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, “some people have made transformational changes in one department of human learning or in one aspect of human life. But Jesus Christ changed virtually every aspect of human life.” Exploring such claims would be much more profitable than trying to determine the appearance of Jesus.

The influence of Jesus on the world is immeasurable. Dr. James Allan Francis put it so well in his famous narrative – One Solitary Life.

He was born in an obscure village
The child of a peasant woman
He grew up in another obscure village
Where he worked in a carpenter shop
Until he was thirty when public opinion
turned against him

He never wrote a book
He never held an office
He never went to college
He never visited a big city
He never travelled more than two hundred miles
From the place where he was born
He did none of the things
Usually associated with greatness
He had no credentials but himself

His friends ran away
One of them denied him
He was turned over to his enemies
And went through the mockery of a trial
He was nailed to a cross between two thieves
While dying, his executioners gambled                    
for his clothing
The only property he had on earth

When he was dead
He was laid in a borrowed grave
Through the pity of a friend

Nineteen centuries have come and gone
And today Jesus is the central figure                          
of the human race
And the leader of mankind's progress
All the armies that have ever marched
All the navies that have ever sailed
All the parliaments that have ever sat
All the kings that ever reigned put together
Have not affected the life of mankind on earth
As powerfully as that one solitary life.

Since His death and resurrection, the followers of Jesus have made more changes for good than any other movement or system in history. Space would not allow me to expand on the Christian influence on the history of health-care, university education, abolition of slavery, modern science, civil liberties, capitalism and free enterprise.

When asked to arrest Jesus, the Temple guards replied to the chief priests and Pharisees: “No one ever spoke the way this man does.” Now, after almost 2,000 years, that statement is still true.

Who Owns The Western Wall?

Every year, millions of visitors to Jerusalem, visit the Western Wall. A few years ago, my ENT specialist was among those visitors. Like thousands of Jews, he took his son there to mark his Bar Mitzvah. Soldiers serving in the Israel Defense Forces swear loyalty to their nation and homeland at the Western Wall Plaza.  

People from all over the world pay their respects to the Jewish people’s magnificent history by visiting this special site. The ancient, 2,000-year-old stones of the Western Wall have witnessed the Jewish people’s birth, exile, and redemption. This is where the Jewish nation’s past mingles with its hopes for the future.

How then could Muslims claim that the Western Wall is a part of the Al Aqsa Mosque compound in the Old City? The claim was made a few days ago before UNESCO, the United Nations’ Paris-based agency that tries to protect cultural treasures around the world.  

In 2010, the British Advertising Standard Agency ruled that an Israeli tourism advertisement containing a picture of the Western Wall with the Dome of the Rock in the background was misleading. The agency felt that the ad implied that the area in which the Wall was located belonged to Israel – for the agency that was false advertising. 

To whom does the Wall really belong – to the Jews or to the Muslims? What is the Western Wall anyway? 

In the year 37 BCE, Herod was appointed king in Jerusalem by the Romans – shortly after he initiated a huge renovation project for the Temple. He hired many workers who toiled to make the Temple more magnificent. He widened the area of the Temple Mount and built four support walls around it. The Western Wall is the western support wall built during this widening of the Temple Mount Plaza.

Just a few days ago I shared with a group of students what Israeli archaeologists found in 2007. They discovered the source of the huge stones King Herod used to reconstruct the Second Temple in Jerusalem. The stones were found at a quarry, along with coins and pottery, dating back to King Herod. Geological and other tests clearly link the present Western Wall to the quarry.

The Second Temple (which King Herod built) was destroyed in the year 70 CE. Despite the destruction that took place, all four Temple Mount support walls remained standing. Throughout the generations since the Temple’s destruction, the Western Wall was the remnant closest to the site of the Temple’s Holy of Holies that was accessible to Jews. Therefore, it became a place of prayer and yearning for Jews around the world.  

In the year 135 CE, the Romans crushed a Jewish uprising and seized total control of Jerusalem - the Jews lost official links to the region. The Romans renamed the region Palestine. 

The name Palestine was taken from Israel's most hated historical enemy, the Philistines, and was given to the area by the Romans as a means of humiliating the Jews to show them the land no longer belonged to them. With a destroyed Temple and no official homeland, the Jews found much solace in the Western Wall, the only remnant of the destroyed Temple. 

Many of those emotions were shattered when the Muslims invaded the Holy Lands in 638. By 691, at the order of Ymayyad Caliph, Abd al-Malik, the Dome of the Rock was completed on the site where the Jewish Temple was destroyed. As is evident today, the Western Wall was retained as the foundation.  

The Muslim presence remained unchallenged until the Crusades in the eleventh century. The Western Wall never seemed important to Muslims because they were in control and the Jews were not strong enough to challenge them. However, the Jewish interest in the Wall never died.

That ongoing interest was evident again in 1929 when violence erupted because a divider was placed at the Wall. In 1948, in keeping with a UN decision, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, including the Western Wall, fell to Jordanian hands. Jewish homes were destroyed and among those killed was the Western Wall’s first rabbi who refused to leave the Wall or his home - he was killed in the bombings.

The Old City of Jerusalem, and the Western Wall within it, were not in Jewish hands from the War of Independence in 1948 until the Six Day War in 1967. During those 19 years of Jordanian rule, Jews were not able to reach the Wall and prayed in front of its ancient stones. 

During the more than one thousand years Jerusalem was under Muslim rule, the Wall was often used as a garbage dump, so as to humiliate the Jews who visited it. However, following the Six Day War of 1967, The Western Wall and Temple Mount were liberated, the city of Jerusalem was reunified, and the Jewish people were again able to come to the Western Wall to pray.

The recent attempt at the UN for Muslims to regain control of the Western Wall, would most likely deprive Jews of their most holy site and return the area to a garbage dump.

Furthermore, to justify the return of Islamic control of the Wall would be to legitimize the Muslim invasion of Jerusalem in the seventh century. Such justification would also ratify the UN’s insensitivity to Israel’s religious heritage. In 1948, when establishing boundaries for the new nation, the UN was wrong to divide Israel’s 3,000 year-old claim to the city of Jerusalem.  

In terms of modern history, Israel’s return to her ancestral home is phenomenal. Unlike under the reign of Joshua in the Old Testament, she cannot kill those who shared the land with her, before independence. The nation must pursue peaceful co-existence. That requires a respectful use of sacred sites, including the Western Wall.

He Chose Not to Fight for His Freedom

Clients expect their defense attorneys to make them look good. Whereas clients who are guilty expect leniency, clients who are innocent expect total exoneration. Unless for some unknown reason, innocent clients usually fight for their freedom.

The Easter story is the story of an innocent man who chose not to fight for his freedom. He had the resources to fight and He chose not to do so. In telling the story, Matthew quotes Jesus as saying, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53). 

Considering that a Roman legion had 6,000 soldiers, Jesus was claiming that he had access to at least 72,000 angels to protect Him from Roman crucifixion, one of the worst forms of capital punishment in the history of mankind. In his gospel, Luke contends that one such angel provided strength to Jesus before He was arrested by the Roman authorities (Luke 22:43). In other words, rather than provide release from the trial, the angel provided ability to cope with the trial.

Both the Jewish and Roman trials were mockeries and travesties of justice. Attorney Steven Allen analyzes these trials in his book, The Illegal Trial of Christ. Here he examines both Jewish and Roman civil and religious law and exposes the violations that occurred during Jesus’ arrest and trial. The trials were held in the wrong place, at the wrong time, by the wrong people and with the wrong witnesses. Yet Jesus never fought for a retrial.   

Earlier in His ministry, attempts were made to kill Jesus. This is how John described one of those attempts: “At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, ‘Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill?’... At this they tried to seize Him, but no one laid a hand on Him, because His time had not yet come” (John 7:25-30). 

John’s comment, “...His time had not yet come”, gives the impression that the death of Jesus was prearranged. Peter, one the disciples of Jesus, was convinced that the death of Jesus was no accident, it was prearranged. In his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Peter said, “This Man [Jesus] was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge...” (Acts 2:23).

Interestingly, some 700 years before the death of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah predicted that the promised Messiah would experience a tragic death. The prophet went as far as to say that the promised Messiah would be pierced (Isaiah 53:5). However, Isaiah did not say who was the Messiah to whom he was referring. Many Jews are still awaiting the arrival of that Messiah.

Unlike the Jews who are awaiting the arrival of the Messiah, Jesus contended that He was the Messiah. Following His death and resurrection, Jesus said to His disciples, “...everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). It was because of His claim to be the Messiah, first century Jews sought to kill Him (Luke 22:66-71).

As far as Jesus was concerned, the authorities killed the Messiah, and that killing was consistent with what was expected to happen to the Messiah. Therefore, to avoid the crucifixion would be to deny a messianic requirement. Jesus was no insurrectionist, as the authorities contended, in order to justify their murderous act - He died as was expected of the Messiah. 

That being the case, one must now answer the question, why was it necessary for the Messiah to die? The apostle Paul, a Jewish convert to Christianity, answers that question in one of his letters: “...that Christ [Messiah] died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3). His use of the word Scriptures here is in reference to the Hebrew Bible.

In other words, Paul is contending that according to the Hebrew Bible, Jesus died for the sins of the people. Could Paul have been referring to the words of Isaiah? “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed” (Isaiah 53:6).

Because Jesus was aware that His cruel death was consistent with His messianic role, it made sense not to seek a retrial or to avoid the consequences. He was aware that He was dying because of “our iniquities and our transgressions.” In addition, Jesus was aware that “by His wounds we would be healed.”

For this reason Jesus could shout triumphantly from the cross. His statement, “IT IS FINISHED” was similar to the shout of an athlete as he crosses the finish line. For Jesus, the mission was a victory, not a tragedy. That victory is what we claim when we commit our lives to Him – He died for me. I am so glad He did not seek a retrial.

Body Snatching!

Body snatching is the secret unearthing of dead bodies from graveyards. A common purpose of body snatching, in England during the 19th century, was to sell the bodies for dissection or anatomy lectures in medical schools.

In my home-state Florida, body snatching is a crime. The law states, “A person who willfully and knowingly disturbs the contents of a tomb or grave commits a felony of the second degree.” A conviction for such a crime can result in a prison term of up to fifteen years and a fine of not more than $10,000.

From ancient times, tombstones and coffins contained inscriptions warning offenders not to interfere with the contents. Tampering with the dead was a dishonor to the memories of the dead. In addition, the habit encouraged the practice of necromancy – communicating with the dead. The Bible’s description of witchcraft and sorcery in the Old Testament includes necromancy.

In the New Testament, after the death of Jesus, the Jewish authorities found a new reason to enforce this ban of tampering with dead bodies. The Jewish authorities realized that the tomb where the body of Jesus had been placed was empty – His body could not be found.
                          
Therefore, according to the New Testament record the Jewish authorities devised a plan to bribe the soldiers who were on duty to guard the tomb. The soldiers were to testify that “His disciples came during the night and stole Him away while we were asleep” (Matthew 28:13).

The Roman soldiers accepted the bribe, thus implicating the disciples of Jesus. However, nowhere in history do we read where the disciples were charged for stealing the dead body of Jesus. Obviously, such a charge would require the prosecution to produce as irrefutable evidence the stolen body. There was evidence of an empty tomb, but not a stolen corpse.

In his volume, New Testament History, the late Professor F.F. Bruce tells the story of Roman Emperor Claudius and his edict to forbid tampering with dead bodies. This edict was issued within fifteen years after the resurrection of Jesus:

“It is my pleasure that sepulchers and tombs, which have been erected as solemn memorials of ancestors or children or relatives, shall remain undisturbed in perpetuity... Let no one disturb them on any account. Otherwise it is my will that capital sentence be passed upon such person for the crime of tomb-spoilation.”

That edict of the Roman Emperor Claudius has been housed in the Cabinet des Médailles in France since 1878. The inscription is said to have been “sent from Nazareth” to Paris. The writing-style on the inscription belongs to the earlier half of the first century.

The date and the source of the inscription leave unanswered a few important historical questions. For example, why would the Emperor of a region covering one million square miles be so interested in establishing an edict for a region covering six square miles? And that question leads logically to another - was there a presumed incident of body snatching in that area to warrant such an edict?

Students of Church History discern significance in the fact that the Roman Emperor’s edict coincided with a period of much growth in Christianity. Nazareth was the area in which Jesus, the founder of Christianity was raised. 

Further, the primary message of Christianity was that Jesus was raised from the dead. Positive analysis in regard to this is that the corpse of Jesus had been stolen by the disciples. The Jewish authorities were in effect more deeply troubled by those facts than historically assumed – the facts that the tomb was empty and that the body could not be found. 

What options could best explain that profound predicament? Was the charge of theft by the disciples possible? Clearly, such a charge is fanciful. The disciples were so scared of the authorities, why would they so foolishly implicate themselves? Such a stealing charge would constitute a serious crime, attracting even a death sentence.

As a matter of fact, why didn’t the authorities arrest them if they felt the disciples committed a crime?

In addition, the crucifixion had taken place in Jerusalem, some eighty miles away from Nazareth. Would they have disposed of the corpse in Jerusalem or travel with it for a few days in the Near Eastern hot temperatures? Preposterous!

What would seem to be the best option is the one recorded in the most reliable document of ancient literature – the New Testament. The New Testament writers contend that Jesus, who was crucified, came back to life on the third day following His death.

The New Testament writers further contend that for forty days the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds of persons in a variety of settings – in small groups, in personal encounters and even on one occasion by more than 500 persons at the same time.

Logically then, if those records were incorrect, why weren’t they challenged? Or, why did the authorities not locate the corpse and arrest the disciples for body snatching? Nothing like that was necessary because the evidence of the resurrected Jesus was overwhelming and irrefutable.
                                                                                                                                                                                   
The resurrected Jesus was seen and heard for more than five weeks after the Roman authorities certified his death and burial. The Apostle Peter testified concerning the truth of such powerfully persuasive facts when he declared “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact” (Acts 2:32)

Hoax or History?

Muslims do not believe Jesus died as the Bible claims He did. The Qur’an explicitly states (4:157-159): “And for their saying, ‘Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.’ Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.”
In commenting of this text, Baidawi, a highly esteemed thirteenth-century Muslim jurist and exegete said: “It is related that a group of Jews reviled Isa [Jesus]...then the Jews gathered to kill him. Whereupon Allah informed him [Jesus] that he would take him up to heaven. Then Isa said to his disciples, ‘which one of you is willing to have my likeness cast upon him, and be killed and crucified and enter Paradise?’”

This claim of the non-death of Jesus is an argument of history, not only theology. The claim is alleging that the New Testament is wrong to state that Jesus was killed by means of crucifixion – Jesus did not die on the cross. Muslims believe someone else died in His place. Among other things, the Islamic claim is a challenge to the accuracy and credibility of the New Testament record. 

The implications of this no-death claim is too serious to go unnoticed. Apart from challenging the credibility of the New Testament, the view is suggesting that all Christian doctrines that are based on Christ’s death on the cross are false, in that there was no death on the cross. In addition, the Christian claim of the resurrection is a hoax, in that there can be no resurrection if there were no death. 

Furthermore, all the Old Testament references to the death of Jesus were misinterpreted. Added to these would be all the references to the death of Jesus, following the death of Jesus. In essence, the Christian Bible is unreliable, in that it records an event that did not take place. Some Muslims explain this dilemma by suggesting that the Early Church adjusted the records to fit their theology.

However, other than Christian writers, non-religious historians reported on the death of Jesus. Housed in the British Museum is a document entitled, “the letter of Mara Bar Serapion.” In this letter, written about thirty years after the death of Jesus, Mara asks, “what advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?” 

Even the Jewish Babylonian Talmud states, “On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth), let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover.”

In spite of the overwhelming evidence to support the death of Jesus, Islam is not the only ones supporting the non-death theory. As early as the second century, Gnostic Basilides denied the death of Jesus. He taught that at the crucifixion, Jesus changed form with Simon of Cyrene who had carried the cross. The Jews, mistaking Simon for Jesus, nailed him [Simon] to the cross. Basilides contended that Jesus stood by deriding their error before ascending to heaven.

In the third century, Mani of Persia taught that the son of the widow of Nain, whom Jesus raised from the dead, was put to death in Jesus’ place.

Many Muslim scholars cite the Gospel of Barnabas to support the Qur’anic teaching that Jesus did not die as told in the New Testament. Ironically, those who cite this sixteenth-century source, think they are quoting from the Letter of Barnabas, written in the first half of the second century. Whereas the Letter of Barnabas affirmed the death of Jesus and was considered to be among the most important post-New Testament writings, the same cannot be said of The Gospel of Barnabas.

The Gospel of Barnabas contends that Judas Iscariot was substituted for Jesus (Section 217). This view has been adopted by many Muslims, since so many of them believe that someone else was substituted on the cross for Jesus. Interestingly, most religious scholars will concur that The Gospel of Barnabas is a fake.

From my research, no credible historical source would challenge the crucifixion of Jesus. Many would debate the significance of His death – but not the fact of His dying on a cross. 

Apart from the clear and frequent references to the death of Jesus in the New Testament, extra-biblical Jewish and Roman testimonies affirm that Jesus died. For instance, Tacitus’ Annals speak of “Christ, who was executed under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”

In the second century Justin Martyr referred to the “Acts of Pontius Pilate” under whom “nails were fixed in Jesus’ hands and feet on the cross...” Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, wrote that “there was a wise man who was called Jesus ...Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.”

We need not deny the death of Jesus – to do so would be to deny what actually happened. Unlike other deaths, the death of Jesus does not mean defeat. Rather, the death of Jesus means victory. That is why He gave a victory shout from the cross.

Prophet or Politician?

During his speech before the U.S. Congress last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to the Jewish Purim holiday. He cited the biblical deliverance of Jews from genocide under ancient Persian Empire rule and called attention to the story of a Jewish girl named Esther, who rose to become Queen of Persia.

Queen Esther, a courageous Jewish woman exposed the plot and gave the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. According to Prime Minister Netanyahu, "The plot was foiled, our people were saved. Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us.”

According to the Old Testament book of Esther, during the time of King Ahasuerus, Haman, a minister to the king, sought to annihilate the empire’s Jews in retaliation for being insulted by a Jewish man named Mordecai. The man learned of Haman’s plan for retaliation and warned his cousin Esther, who had become queen of the empire but whose Jewish identity had been kept secret. 

On the 13th day of the Hebrew month of Adar, following several days of fasting and prayer, the Jews rose up against their enemies and were victorious. The Jewish festival of Purim is celebrated every year in early spring to commemorate the Jewish rise against the Persian Empire – the Prime Minister’s speech coincided with that annual observance.  

Some 2,500 years earlier the Esther story unfolded. Then, as today, the threat against Israel is real. Instead of a Haman scheming to kill the Jews, it’s Iranian mullahs who are accused of plotting to wipe Israel off the map, and being aided in the process by the soon realization of a goal more than 20 years in the making – obtaining a nuclear arsenal.

In a November 14 sermon aired on Iran’s state-run television, Ayatollah Ali Movahedi-Kermani made the following statement: “The Sejjil ballistic missile can hit and raze to the ground any place in Israel, as well as any American base in the region.” Crowds listening to the speech shouted: “Death to America! Death to England! Death to Israel!”

Like the biblical character Esther, Prime Minister Netanyahu sees himself in a strategic position. Esther’s cousin Mordecai asked her, “And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?” 

To this Esther replied: “...I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:12-16). Other than Esther, the Jews seemed to have no other option – they were defenseless. That is no longer the case.

According to Business Insider, Israel has the most powerful military in the Middle East, followed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. In addition to being battle-tested against a variety of enemies, the Israel Defense Forces have a qualitative edge over all other militaries in the region, as well as a highly-capable air force. "Pilot to pilot, airframe to airframe, the Israeli air force is the best in the world."

From that position of military strength, much restraint is necessary from Israel. Despite the current divisions among countries in the Middle East, any aggression from Israel, can position the nation to become a common enemy – that will certainly unite militants in the region.

One must not forget that the regional dislike for Israel is less political and more ideological. The most serious threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa is what some call “Apocalyptic Islam.”

The term “Apocalyptic Islam” introduces the topic of end-of-the-world religious ideology. According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, “in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, more than 750 million Muslims believe they will live to see the return of the Mahdi.”

Imam Mahdi is a messianic figure often referred to as the twelfth imam in Shiite Islam. According to one Islamic website, there are at least four signs that will precede the coming of Imam Mahdi. All of these signs include some kind of battle. Interestingly, both ISIS and Iran see themselves as key players in these apocalyptic battles.

Some analysts believe “Iran is controlled by religious hardliners afflicted with a messianic fervor whose primary goal is to hasten the return of the Mahdi. 

This is to be accomplished by annihilating Israel, waging war against infidels and sowing chaos. The price for Iran may be national martyrdom, for which its causalities will be richly rewarded in the afterlife, while survivors will enjoy the favor of the returned Mahdi.”

Freedom of Religion?

There is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom of worship. Freedom of worship implies the right to gather, pray and sing. In essence, it is the liberty to conduct religious activities within areas designated for such practices.

Worship at its core is essentially a private and personal process, a communion between God and an individual. No government could restrict such worship, any more than it could monitor and censor every citizen's thoughts and prayers. Even forbidding individuals to worship together in public cannot actually prevent individuals from worshiping God in private.

However, freedom of religion is quite different. The free exercise of religion under the American Constitution includes the freedom to openly express, follow and live out one’s faith - not just in private, but also in the public square - without government coercion, censorship or any other form of restriction.

The First Amendment of our Constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion in America extends well beyond the freedom to worship. It includes the freedom to live out our conscientiously held beliefs.

The concept of religious liberty held by the Constitution's framers included not merely the freedom to worship, but also the free exercise of conscience - carrying out one's moral beliefs with conviction and action. 

James Madison expressed this understanding in his original amendment to the Constitution: “The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.” Hence, because of the protections guaranteed by our Constitution, each of us has the right to practice our faith openly and as we choose. 

In addition, Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” 

Both the United States and the United Nations understand freedom of religion as the right to live according to one’s own faith, that is, to “manifest” one’s religion or belief in both “in public or private,” without interference from the state. 

Despite this understanding, a German trial judge recently outlawed the circumcision of children on the basis that the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents”, to carry out their religious beliefs. The decision of the judge is part of a global ideological redefinition of religious rites. Some ideologues are now associating circumcision with mutilation or even child abuse.

For millennia, faith adherents have believed that circumcision is done for boys (rather than to them). By prohibiting the rite of circumcision is to deprive Jewish and Muslim boys a religious benefit to which they are entitled while dispossessing them of a core aspect of their personal identity. 

Opponents of freedom of religion may bring up the Aztecs, arguing that a robust view of religious liberty would require allowing children to be sacrificed to pagan gods. But that is not true in that fundamental liberties are not absolute. The law properly prohibits religious practice when there is a compelling government interest. For example, the state can force a child to be given life-saving blood transfusions even though doing so violates the restrictive religious beliefs of the parents of the child. 

This is much more than an intellectual discussion.
Attempts are already in place to restrict or outright violate religious liberty. Many are aware that the federal government has begun to gut the only federal conscience regulation protecting the conscience rights of American health care professionals.

In addition, through code enforcement and city planning, many cities are limiting the visibility of houses of worship. Property management firms are also limiting proselytizing in areas under their control. More and more, specific attempts are being made to restrict the freedom of religion as it relates to the public display of one’s faith.

Religious freedom is one of those unique rights that, to be fully enjoyed, other rights like association and speech must also be protected. Although critical, religious freedom provides more than religious liberties. Interestingly, whereas the freedom of religion guarantees the freedom of worship, it is not true to assume that the freedom of worship would guarantee the freedom of religion.

Peace in Palestine?

For many Christians, peace in Palestine is impossible. They share the view that without Jesus, the Prince of Peace, peace in the Middle East is not possible. If that were the case then, why “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122:6)? Furthermore, was it not Paul who taught us to pray for “those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives...”?

Christians should always pursue peaceful options. Agreed, the Israeli-Palestinian scenario is very complex and at times appears to be an exercise in futility. However, we must not forget that the conflict first involves people and not land. For this reason, greater attempts must be made to foster ideas among people in cross-border activities.

Ron Pundak, in the Palestine-Israel Journal (Volume 18 No. 2 & 3, 2012) makes the point, “in order for peace to come about, decisions need to be made by state officials at the highest levels. But in order for it to be digested, accepted and implemented, grassroots activities must take place before, during and after an agreement.”

Such grassroots activities have been in place for many years. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one can find people-to-people peace building activities taking place in various forms and at various levels. Cases of dialog between non-official, yet influential individuals from both sides, continue to exist. 

Because of our dependence on the media for information, we are often subject to the agenda of the media. That agenda focuses primarily on diplomatic conversations among politicians. That level of diplomacy is necessary but cannot be effective without strong grassroots activity. 

In preparing this blog, I became so much more aware of ongoing attempts among academics, research groups and entrepreneurs – all determined to foster better relationships among Arabs and Jews. Through the dissemination of information and while making the public see that there is a realistic plan as well as a credible partner on both sides, the architects of grassroots efforts hope to change the political mindset of the people, who would then themselves pressure their political leaders to change. 

For instance, some change can begin in the media. Joint educational programs for journalists or young leaders are one way of reaching the masses indirectly. Another is by establishing “values of peace” through meetings between school children, joint sporting events and the performing arts. 

My research tells me that there is some dialog taking place between professionals. There is joint-discussion on topics of mutual interest like the environment, water and agriculture. Limited dialog is also taking place among doctors who jointly conduct breast cancer research, as well as other areas of medical science. While the participants in these activities mainly discuss professional matters, they still create an environment that is conducive to changing attitudes regarding each other and to the spreading of knowledge and ideas.

The most difficult area of dialog is religion. Both Jews and Arabs claim a common heritage in Abraham. As descendants of Abraham, Muslims believe the promises God made to Abraham, were intended for them. Jews disagree. They believe the promises were intended for the descendants of Isaac, not Ishmael, Abraham’s other son who became the father of the Arab world. The spirit of disagreement and conflict was seen very early in the history of both groups. Interestingly, it was said of Ishmael and his people, “and they lived in hostility toward all their brothers” (Genesis 25:18).

Hundreds of years later, Mohammad appears on the scene. He is born in Mecca and as an Arab has a cultural link to Ishmael/Abraham. However, when Mohammad was born, followers of Abraham’s monotheism in the Arab world were called Jews.

Even a cursory study of Islam, the religion practiced by most Arabs, will show that Mohammad was unable to convince Arabian Jews that he was a prophet sent from the God of Abraham. Actually, monotheism as practiced by Abraham, was far removed from what was practiced by Arabs. 

Those religious differences brought about hostility between Islam and Judaism – and that hostility continues to be evident today. For example, in Islam’s Hadiths (Bukhari 52:177), “Allah's Apostle said, the Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’" 

Muslims who adhere to that ideology contend that there should be no attempt at peace with Jews. This provides fuel for Hamas and other Muslims who resent Jews. Thankfully, all Muslims do not adhere to this ideology – with such Muslims, it is possible to live peacefully with Jews.

Palestine and Palestinians

Palestine is not a country. Historically, it is a geographical region where Jewish and Arab people live. The term “Palestine” (Falastin in Arabic) was an ancient name for the general geographic region. It is believed that the name was derived from the Philistines who invaded the area between the eleventh and twelfth centuries, before the Common Era.

The Romans corrupted the name to “Palestina,” and the area, under the sovereignty of their city-states, became known as “Philistia.” Six-hundred years later, the Arab invaders called the region “Falastin.”

Throughout subsequent history, the name remained only a vague geographical entity. There was never a nation of “Palestine,” never a people known as the “Palestinians,” nor any notion of “historic Palestine.” The region never enjoyed any sovereign autonomy - remaining instead under successive foreign sovereign domains from the Umayyads and Abbasids to the Fatimids, Ottomans, and British.

Interestingly, the term “Palestinian” was used during the British Mandate period (1922-1948) to identify the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine. The non-Jews of the area were known as “Arabs,” and their own designation of the region was balad esh-Sham (the province of Damascus).

In early 1947, when the United Nations was exploring the possibility of the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into two states, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs, various Arab political and academic spokespersons spoke out vociferously against such a division. They argued, the region was really a part of southern Syria, no such people or nation as “Palestinians” had ever existed, and it would be an injustice to Syria to create a state ex nihilo at the expense of Syrian sovereign territory.

Following the Six-Day-War (1967), there was a strategic change in language among Arabs. The term “Palestinian” was coined to lend legitimacy to claims for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

This ploy was revealed, perhaps inadvertently, in a public interview with Zahir Muhse’in, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee. In this March 31, 1977 interview, with the Amsterdam-based newspaper Trouw, Zahir Muhse’in said: 

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Wow! In the absence of sound history, we have come to believe revisionist history – a mythic narrative that teaches that Zionists, with the support of the British, have stolen Palestinian land, exiled the people, and initiated a reign of terror and ethnic cleansing.

The revisionist narrative contends that Israel as a racist, war-mongering, oppressive, apartheid state, illegally occupies Arab land and carries out genocide of an indigenous people that had stronger claim to the land than Israel itself.

That is the argument that fuels the Israel-Palestine conflict. That is the rationale behind the preamble of Hamas’ Charter: ″Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it″.

I am not suggesting that Israel should obliterate Hamas instead. I dislike war. As a Christian, I am encouraged to pursue peace. I am also encouraged to pray for persons in leadership – “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:2).

However, I recognize that governments have a responsibility to protect their people. The apostle Paul, in the context of governmental authority, referred to the barbaric Roman government as “God’s servant” (Romans 13:1-7). Similarly, Israel has a responsibility to protect and pursue peace for her people.


RECOMMENDED

“Why the Jews” and “Jerusalem” (earlier blogs)
The Fight for Jerusalem by Dore Gold
Why the Jews by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin.
Epicenter by Joel Rosenberg

Video: The Middle East Problem

JERUSALEM!

My prediction for 2014 – the city of Jerusalem will be in the news more than any other city in the world. At the moment, Secretary of State John Kerry is on his tenth visit to Jerusalem since assuming office one year ago. Kerry has visited Jerusalem more than any other foreign city since taking office.

What really is so significant about Jerusalem? In his book, The Fight for Jerusalem, Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, makes the point: “No city is more important to the peace of the world than Jerusalem.” Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world and has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times and captured and recaptured 44 times in its long history. Probably film producer Anthony Bourdain was correct when he said, “Jerusalem is easily the most contentious piece of real estate in the world.”

History confirms that King David subdued the Jebusites, the city's Canaanite founders, more than 3,000 years ago. Later, the Babylonians and Romans routed the Jews and Jerusalem. Muslims booted the Byzantines. Christian Crusaders mauled Muslims and were, in turn, tossed out by the Tartars.

The Ottomans followed, then Britain, then Jordan, before finally, in 1967, the city came nearly full circle when Israel annexed East Jerusalem. That sparked another cycle of violence, this time between Israelis and Palestinians.

Unlike many major cities of the world, Jerusalem is not known for any major river or coastline. The city, just about 45 square miles, with some 800,000 people, is actually situated in the heart of the Judean Mountains and is built on a hilltop. It is about the size of the city of Salem in Oregon, which borrowed its name from the biblical idea of peace.

There are no natural resources, no unifying language or attractions that would make the city of Jerusalem particularly popular. Then, what attracts an average of 3.5 million tourists to the city every year? The answer is simple – religion.

Jerusalem is home to some of the holiest sites of the world’s three major religions. The Temple Mount is the most sensitive location. A hilltop platform complex, the thirty-five acre Temple Mount is the former Mount Moriah of 2 Chronicles 3:1. There, the first Temple, built by King Solomon was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.

The Second Temple was constructed on the same site in 515 BCE, until the Romans demolished it in 70 CE. Despite this history, the Temple Mount is now largely off-limits for organized Jewish prayer. Jewish prayer is instead conducted at the Western Wall, a retaining wall from the Second Temple, located adjacent to and just below the Temple Mount. Although this history is clearly verified in various forms, some revisionists are choosing to deny the history and ultimately Israel’s right to the area.

The Temple Mount is also the third holiest site to Muslims. It is now home to two major Islamic shrines. The first of these, the Dome of the Rock, built in the late seventh century, houses the rock from which Muhammad is said to have ascended to heaven. The second site is the al-Aqsa Mosque, the largest mosque in Jerusalem, completed in the eighth century.

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher stands relatively close to the Temple Mount. The church was originally built by the Roman emperor Constantine in the fourth century at Golgotha, the site where it is believed, Jesus was crucified.

So what you may ask - what if three religions want to make claim to the city of Jerusalem? What does that have to do with the prominence of Jerusalem in the news for 2014? Part of that answer has to do with the prominence of religious news from the Middle East and Jerusalem in particular during 2014.

The three major religions of the world, often referred to as the Abrahamic faiths, believe a messiah-like figure will play a major role in bringing about peace in Jerusalem. According to Islam, a messianic figure known as the Mahdi, will appear and establish his headquarters in Jerusalem. Jesus (Isa) will also appear and with the Mahdi, wage war against the Antichrist.

Based on Zechariah 12:2-3, Jews contend that Jerusalem will play a role in end-time prophecy. Among other things, the Prophet Zechariah quotes the Lord as saying, “I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations.”

When asked to comment on the timing of His return, Jesus said, “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near” (Luke 21:20-24).

In essence, the major religions believe that both Jerusalem and a messianic figure will play major roles in the future of the world. Is it just possible, that the present turmoil is indicative of apocalyptic activity? In our quest for peace, I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore that point of view.

“Bow...or Burn”

This headline, “Bow...or Burn,” smacks with arrogance. Actually, the words came from the lips of a Babylonian king, more than 2,500 years ago. The words were a part of an ultimatum given to three Jewish colleagues who refused to comply with the king’s order to give allegiance to a god, other than the God they worshiped. 

The event, as recorded in Daniel 3, is a classic case study in civil disobedience. The appropriateness of the event for such a study is supported in the historical accuracy of what was recorded in the text.

Specific details like location, civil officers, musical instruments and names of people in royalty can be verified in non-biblical historical documents and archaeological discoveries in recent years. In addition, structures like huge idols and the use of furnaces for capital punishment can also be verified in other historical events.

For example, Herodotus [1.183] mentioned a similar image, forty feet high, in the temple of Belus at Babylon. It was not the same image, for the one here was on the plain of Dura. In addition, Julius Oppert (1825-1905), the French-German Assyriologist/ Archaeologist believed the site he located in Dura, Babylon, with “a large brick square, forty-five feet on a side and twenty feet high” may have been the foundation for the ninety-foot high image referred to in Daniel 3.
It was at that site, King Nebuchadnezzar ordered the Jewish exiles to “bow...or burn.” Despite the views held by some liberal scholars, the story is no “fairy tale” like Cinderella or Goldilocks and the Three Bears. We must deal with both the history and mystery of the story.

The history is simple. The Jews were captive to the Babylonians. Thousands of Jews were forced to leave their land and go into exile some 1,000 miles away. While in exile, the king of Babylon gave instructions that everyone must bow to the golden image he built. The effort may have been intended to unite the massive empire of nations Babylon inherited and conquered. 

The Jewish colleagues refused to bow. Their response was clear, “we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up” (Daniel 3:18). These guys were convinced that the God they served was able to deliver them from any punishment imposed. Even if they were not delivered, their resolve was the same – we will not bow.

As promised, the king ordered that they be thrown in the furnace to burn. The king was even heard to say, let me see “what god is there who can deliver you out of my hands.” At that point, recapitulating was not an option. 

Historians have a problem in recording what happened next. The men who would not bow could not burn. According to the biblical text, “...the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them” (Daniel 3:27). Although tempted to comment on this amazing miracle, as promised, I must instead address the defiance of the Jewish men to civil authorities.

Nebuchadnezzar’s command to bow down to the golden image is one of those rare instances when godliness is expressed by civil disobedience. There was no chance, as in Daniel 1, for the three Hebrews to please God and the king at the same time. What the king commanded was clearly condemned by the Old Testament Scriptures. 

When placed in a position where one must either obey God or men, then one must obey God and disobey men. If obedience to one of man’s laws would result in our disobedience to one of God’s laws, we must obey God by disobeying men.

They quietly obeyed God by not bowing down; and then, without resistance, they accepted the king’s punishment. They left the rest to God. That kind of godly disobedience is far from inflammatory. It is the only kind of disobedience one finds in the Bible.

To date, the civil disobedience of our time is not primary, but secondary. In America, I am still to find a biblical precedent for disobeying legitimate laws because another law is unbiblical. Even when our obedience to God requires us to disobey a human law, there are proper ways to disobey. Daniel’s three friends disobeyed the command of Nebuchadnezzar, but they did so in a manner that did not undermine the bigger messages of godly order and civility.

Civil disobedience in apartheid South Africa and in America during the Civil Rights era leave us with some positive examples of civil disobedience. Interestingly, both situations were heavily influenced by Christian ethics. Slavery was somewhat different, in that the changes did not come about solely because of civil disobedience. However, despite the various interpretations by historians, it was the influence of Christian leaders that brought about changes.

Like in Babylon, whenever a government calls on its people to defy godly values and submit to godless values, it is time for civil disobedience.