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.

Laugh Out Loud!

When last have you had a good laugh? Did you know that laughter is good for you? When we laugh we stretch muscles throughout our face and body. As a matter of fact, our pulse and blood pressure go up, and we breathe faster, sending more oxygen to our tissues.

Some psychologists believe, laughing is one way in which we express our true selves. We may learn how to walk, stand, sit, and eat properly, but when we genuinely laugh, we lay all pretense aside as our carefully polished image goes right out the window.

A researcher from Vanderbilt University, conducted a study in which he measured the amount of calories expended in laughing. It turned out that 10 to 15 minutes of laughter burned 50 calories. William Fry, a pioneer in laughter research, claimed “it took 10 minutes on a rowing machine for his heart rate to reach the level it would after just one minute of hearty laughter.”

The focus on the benefits of laughter really began with Norman Cousin's memoir, Anatomy of an Illness. Cousins, who was diagnosed with a painful spine condition, found that a diet of comedies helped him feel better. He said that 10 minutes of laughter allowed him two hours of pain-free sleep. The bottom line, laughter is good for you.

However, in affirming the value of laughter, I am not attempting to justify frivolity, vulgarity or even jokes at another’s expense. The biblical counsel must still be our guide – “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen” (Ephesians 4:29).

In his book, Laughter: A Scientific Investigation (Penguin Books, 2001), Robert Provine, contends, “laughter has a social function. In the absence of stimulating media (television, radio or books), people are about 30 times more likely to laugh when they are in a social situation than when they are alone.” Indeed, people are more likely to smile or talk to themselves than they are to laugh when they are alone. Aside from the obvious implication that sociality can enhance laughter and perhaps one's mood, these observations strongly suggest that laughter is a social signal.

Laughter binds people together. It synchronizes the brains of speaker and listener, so that they are emotionally attuned. Provine believes that laughter establishes or restores a positive emotional climate and a sense of connection between two people, who literally take pleasure in the company of each other. There is a sense in which levity can defuse anger and anxiety, and in so doing strengthen relationships.

I would tend to agree that laughter is a tool. It is the tool that is often used to build relationships. Professor Provine contends that "laughter is social, so any health benefits might really come from being close with friends and family, and not necessarily from laughter itself."

The Bible encourages laughter, when viewed as a physical expression of joy or cheerfulness. In the book of Proverbs we read, “a cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones” (Proverbs 17:22).

There is a healing effect when we are joyful, cheerful people. The word used for "joyful" here is the Hebrew word "sameah" which means, 'to be glad, happy, or joyful.' The idea behind this word is that someone is choosing to rejoice - to consider the good that God has done, rather than the misery and the opportunity to be sad and depressed.

Apart from the joy that the cheerful heart brings, the Proverbs text mentions “a crushed spirit as drying-up the bones”. This powerful contrasting imagery has been confirmed in research done by the American Medical Association - if you forcefully restrain a normally active rat, deadly frustration results. The emotional stress produces lethal results.

So, if laughter is a social signal of personal and communal joy, then the question needs to be answered – when last have you had a good laugh? In the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes, we are reminded that “there is a time to laugh” (Ecclesiastes 3:4). If you have not laughed for a long time, you might need to check-out a therapist – you need help!

Defying Gravity!

What gives the song Defying Gravity a universal connection is the overall idea of letting go of society's expectations and just being yourself. The song has become a self-esteem anthem for millions around the world. However, the song merely reflects the idea of leaving the influences of others behind, in order to experience personal independence.

Following his resurrection, Jesus literally defied gravity – He left earth. Christians refer to this experience as the ascension of Jesus. Five times New Testament writers employ the Greek term analambano (to take up) of Jesus’ ascension. Each time the verb is in the passive voice, He “was taken up.” The passive voice represents the subject of the verb as being acted upon. Thus, in this instance, indicating that the taking up was empowered from above.

Like me, you are probably asking, can someone really believe in ascension in our scientific age? Could one really believe that Jesus was literally “taken-up” from earth? Assuming Jesus was not ascended as reported by Luke in Acts 1:9, we are left with a few difficult historical questions – Then, when did his ministry come to an end? Or, how come, in documenting the history of the church in Acts, there is no record of Jesus’ movements. In addition, no post-resurrection corpse of Jesus was ever found.

In post-resurrection New Testament passages, Stephen, Paul and John claimed to have encountered Jesus. But none of them provided geographical locations where they met. At no point in sacred or secular history does any historian refer to Jesus in terms of His physical location. Following His alleged resurrection, someone must account for His absence from the tomb and from anywhere on earth. The best account for his absence is his ascension, as recorded in the book of Acts.

Like His death and resurrection, the ascension of Jesus was predicted. A thousand years before His birth, David prophesied the ascension of the Messiah when he announced the Lord’s enthronement at the Father’s right hand (Psa.110:1).

In this Psalm, David says, “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool’”. Jesus quotes this verse in a discussion with the Pharisees to prove that the Messiah is more than David’s son (Matt. 22:44). He is David’s Lord. Interestingly, no other psalm is so frequently quoted in the New Testament.

Like the Psalmist, Jesus predicted His own ascension. In announcing his death to his disciples, He promised to go and prepare a place. Such a mission necessitated leaving earth. It was shortly after making that promise, Jesus said, “it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Holy Spirit will not come to you...” (John 16:7).

Luke contends, just after instructing the disciples to wait in Jerusalem, “Jesus was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight” (Acts 1:9).

This year, Ascension Day, one of the earliest Christian festivals, will be observed on Thursday, May 10. It is observed as a public holiday in many countries. Interestingly, it is celebrated 40 days after Resurrection Sunday – consistent with the ascension of Jesus, 40 days after his resurrection.

The theological implications from the historic ascension of Jesus are massive. Questions like, where did Jesus go, or, where is Jesus now, cannot be avoided. In addition, he accurately predicted his death, his resurrection and his ascension. He also predicted his return – could that be the next big story? With such a successful track record of accurate predictions, it would seem foolish to conclude that his return is unlikely.

Without his ascension, a conversation about his return would be mere wishful thinking. It would then seem prudent to follow the admonition of the angels that were present at his ascension – “this same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 2:11).

It was because of his confidence in the return of Jesus, Paul said in his last letter to young Timothy, there is a reward “also, to all who have longed for his appearing” (2 Timothy 4:8). Whatever your theological position regarding the timing of Jesus’ return, what is certain, there will be a defying of gravity, in order to be with him.

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)

Ashamed and Uncomfortable?

In his book, Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, Jim Cymbala tells the story of a soloist at Brooklyn Tabernacle. She was invited to sing at a church and was told in advance, “We want to ask you not to sing any song that mentions the blood of Christ. People feel uncomfortable with that, and our goal here is to be user-friendly.”

Uncomfortable about the blood of Christ? Today, many churches even find the frequent observance of the ordinance of remembering the death of Christ in communion to be a distraction in their up-beat worship services. Some churches even relegate the practice of believers’ baptism, with its symbolism to the cross, to a private adjunct activity, following a main service.

To be honest, we want a happy Christianity, without symbolic reminders of sin. A Christianity with minimal need of reflection. The cross invites us to reflect on the heinousness of sin and the heavy price Jesus paid for it. Forgiveness of sin is not amnesty. Forgiveness is possible because Someone paid the price for sin - death on a cross.

As an atheist, the late Christopher Hitchens could not accept this Christian doctrine. On one occasion he said, “I find something repulsive about the idea of vicarious redemption – you can throw your sins onto somebody else, vulgarly known as scapegoating.” Hitchens understood the message of the cross, but he was not prepared to embrace it.

The cross of Jesus Christ differentiates Christian faith from religion in general. Religion tells us what we must do in order to achieve forgiveness. Christianity insists that forgiveness has already been paid for on the cross. Paul contended, whereas Jews demanded miraculous signs and non-Jews (Greeks) looked for wisdom, he preached Christ crucified – a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to non-Jews.

As a matter of fact, Paul argued that God’s power was evident in the cross of Christ. Whereas others depended on oratorical skills and philosophy to make an impact; for him, it was the cross of Christ that enshrined the power to make an impact. To the Corinthians Paul said, “When I came to you...I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). He was convinced that what others considered foolishness, was God’s demonstration of power.

In addition, whereas we view death as coming to the end of the road, God viewed the death of Jesus as the beginning. But why would God use the horrific death of Jesus on a cross to bring new life? Paul provides two answers. The first, no one other than God could get the credit. Absolutely no one could bring new life from death – that is a demonstration of divine power. Paul’s second reason is that no one can boast about what he or she accomplished. The truth is, new life in Christ cannot be acquired by any human effort.

The Bible calls this grace – undeserved favor. In one of his letters, Paul said, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8).

But couldn’t God have accomplished grace by some other means, probably, not as severe as the cross? The logic is simple – punishment must be commensurate with the crime. Because of the severity of sin, severe punishment was inevitable. Hence, the worst sinner could find God’s grace, because of the cross.

Furthermore, if we could have paid for our sin, then what would happen to those who could not afford to pay? Also, if we could have paid for our sin, we could boast about our ability to help ourselves. Because of the cross, such boasting is not possible, in that new life in Christ is a gift. Since it is free, one may ask, wouldn’t it then cheapen the gift? The question implies that my contribution increases the value of God’s gift – ludicrous thinking.

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul argued that any attempt to add to what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, nullifies the value of the gift – “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned” (Galatians 1:8)!

The 17th century hymn-writer Isaac Watts got it when he wrote: “Forbid it Lord, that I should boast, save in the death of Christ my God; All the vain things that charm me most, I sacrifice them to His blood.” This Easter season might be a good time to return to the words of Fanny Crosby’s hymn, “Jesus Keep Me Near the Cross”, or Elizabeth Clephane, who in 1872 wrote “Beneath the Cross of Jesus”.

There is no user-friendly version of the Gospel. Without the cross, we are presenting another gospel, not the one God offers to anyone who seeks Him. Like Paul, I contend, “I am not ashamed of the gospel...” I further contend that the cross is still the best antidote to the narcissism and violence in our culture today.

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.

FAKE NEWS OR GOOD NEWS?

When I was a child, anything that was intended to mislead was called a lie – it was not the truth. Some have since described such lies as half-truths, and more recently as fake news.

According to the New York Times, fake news refers to fictitious articles, fabricated with the deliberate motivation to defraud readers. Generally, with the goal of profiting through “clickbait” (Internet content of a sensational or provocative nature, whose main purpose is to attract attention and draw visitors to a particular web page).

PolitiFact described fake news as “fabricated content designed to fool readers and subsequently made viral through the Internet to crowds that increase its dissemination”. While in Germany recently, President Obama referred to fake news as “active misinformation”.

It is so sad when one cannot trust the media, committed to trustworthy communication. It is like we need a campaign for good news. News that is wholesome and reliable.

In a culture plagued with fake news, Good News is always good. That was true for the shepherds in Bethlehem when they were told by an angel “I bring you good news of great joy…” At that period in history, shepherds stood at the bottom rung of the Palestinian social ladder. They shared the same status as tax collectors and dung sweepers.

In reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, Luke says that the shepherds were “living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night” (Luke 2:8). As second class and untrustworthy Jews, no one expected them to host angelic messengers.

Near-Eastern Studies scholar, the late Dr. Joachim Jeremias, contended that shepherds were despised in everyday life. They were deprived of all civil rights. They could not fulfill judicial offices or be admitted in court as witnesses. According to Jeremias, “to buy wool, milk or a kid from a shepherd was forbidden on the assumption that it would be stolen property.”

One wonders, why would angels choose shepherds to announce the birth of Jesus? They could have opted for the religious or political elite of the day. It is obvious, even with the announcement of His birth, it would seem that the name of Jesus was never to be associated with snobbery and class prejudice - the good news was for everyone, not merely the elite.

The New Testament was clear in reporting the words of the angel – “I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10). We are reading this information more than 2,000 years later, and can confirm that the good news of Jesus’ birth continues to have a global audience and impact.

Interestingly, the term “good news,” is a single compound word in Greek. It is the same word from which we get the English word gospel. Hence, the gospel is good news. For New Testament writers, this was more than a play on words. They actually believed, witnessed and passionately taught that the coming of Jesus was good news to the world.

Many of those New Testament eyewitnesses gave their lives in the process of sharing the message of good news to the world. Thankfully, millions have followed them in paying the ultimate price to share with others the message and mission of Jesus. The impact of that sharing is evident, not only in the size of Christian churches, but more so in the influence of Christian values in society.

Even a cursory study of the history of hospitals and health care will recognize the contribution of the Christian message. The same can be said of major universities and education on a whole, especially in the western world.

Despite attempts to deconstruct history by deleting the role of Christianity in many institutions, it is more than apparent that Christianity influenced the abolition of slavery and infanticide. In addition, it is because of the Christian ethic that the outrage against euthanasia and abortion persists.

Sometimes one wonders, where would civilization be today without Christian notions of compassion and forgiveness? In attempting to answer, simply peruse the history of institutions like the Boy Scout movement, YMCA, Credit Union, Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity and so many others. Serious students of history in civil liberties, medicine, the arts, economics, science and the humanities, often express a sense of awe, because of the influence of Christianity in the birthing of these disciplines.

However, the good news of the birth of Jesus was not only intended to influence horizontal relationships. The birth was primarily intended to bring about vertical relationships with the God of heaven. Jesus Himself said, “I have come that you might have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). That fullness of life Jesus promised is both for now and eternity – that is good news.

Interestingly, the good news of Christmas is more than a once a year celebration. It is best reflected in a lifestyle, displayed throughout the year. Agreed, the Christmas season provides additional opportunities to care and share, but it does not stop there. It is a spirit that should influence us throughout the year.

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)

Steph Curry’s Jesus

Steph Curry and I have a few things in common. Apart from gender, we both love basketball, family and Jesus. In receiving the Most Valuable Player (MVP) award last year, Curry unapologetically said, “First and foremost I have to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for blessing me with the talents to play this game, with the family to support me, day in, day out. I’m his humble servant right now and I can’t say enough how important my faith is to who I am and how I play the game.”

In responding to Curry’s faith, some bloggers expressed the view that the Jesus in whom he trusts, is more hype than history. In other words, Curry’s faith is based on a mythical figure, and not a real person. One blogger went as far as to suggest that other than the antique New Testament, no other ancient literature acknowledged the existence of Jesus.

Really? Let us first examine the kind of evidence we will need to verify the existence of Jesus apart from what is cited in the New Testament. Unlike some items in science, historical data cannot be repeated. Historians must appeal to different kinds of evidence to be able to validate historical data. Agreed, we do not have anything Jesus wrote, neither do we have any photographs others took.

In other words, physical evidence appears to be very rare. Actually, for almost 2,000 years we’ve gone without archaeological evidence of Jesus. Then we came across the first-century ossuary (bone box) of Jesus’ brother, James, the head of the Jerusalem church. The fragile limestone burial box bears the inscription, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

According to the publishers of The Brother of Jesus by Shanks and Witherington, “the ossuary and its inscription are now regarded as authentic by top scholars in the field; they represent the first visual, tangible, scientific evidence of Jesus’ existence.” Another useful resource on the physical evidence of Jesus is in New York Times Bestseller, Bart Ehrman’s volume, Did Jesus Exist?

Like in the case of most ancient persons, historians look for information about the person and not from the person. Historians look for written sources, preferably sources that are relatively near the date of the person or event that they are describing.

It is important that the various sources corroborate with what each of the other sources has to say. In addition, it is important to know that the various sources are independent of one another and do not rely on each other for all of their information.

Unlike today, record keeping was rare when Jesus was around. Scholars believe the vast majority of people in the ancient world could not write. This explains why the Bible so often states, “he who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Writing was done by hand and writing materials were very expensive.  

However, it is important to understand that the absence of much written stuff and physical evidence, do not necessarily mean the non-existence of personalities like Jesus. Agreed, the situation becomes a bit more complicated when our modern-day understanding of a journalist was not imbedded among the disciples of Jesus.

However, Luke makes it clear in his opening verses that “many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from first were eyewitnesses...” (Luke 1:1-2). We do not know if those earlier writings to which Luke referred, were ever included in the New Testament canon.

What we do know, is that a number of non-Christian writers wrote about persons who knew and were greatly influenced by the life of Jesus. The first surviving reference to Jesus by a non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind appears in the writings of Pliny the Younger (62-113 CE/AD).

Tacitus (55-117), another Roman historian is even more explicit in his Annals. A third Roman writer who referred briefly to Jesus and Christians is Seutonius (70-160). According to the late Professor Bruce Metzer, “the early non-Christian testimonies concerning Jesus, though scanty, are altogether sufficient to prove that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in Palestine during the early years of the first century. Today no competent scholar denies the historicity of Jesus.”

The earliest non-Christian witness to the historicity of Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. He was personally involved with some of the most important events that he narrated, especially in his eight-volume work, The Jewish Wars.

Interestingly, none of the non-Christian sources cited here is as reliable as the New Testament. There is more than enough evidence to believe that the Jesus in whom Steph Curry has placed his faith, actually lived on earth in the first century. Should one choose not to believe this, does not nullify Jesus’ existence, and our need to acknowledge Him as Lord of our lives.

Good Friday?

A number of studies confirm that crucifixion is one of the worst forms of capital punishment in history. The only thing worse than crucifixion was what the British called, Hanged, Drawn and Quartered. This barbaric act was introduced in 1351 and was used for men convicted of high treason.

It is believed that crucifixion began among the Persians. Alexander the Great introduced the practice to Egypt and Carthage, and the Romans appear to have learned of it from the Carthaginians. Although the Romans did not invent crucifixion, they perfected it as a form of torture and capital punishment.

Crucifixion was designed to produce a slow death, with maximum pain and suffering. Historians agree that it was one of the most disgraceful and cruel methods of execution and usually was reserved for slaves, foreigners and the vilest of criminals. For this reason, Roman law protected Roman citizens from crucifixion, except in the case of desertion by soldiers.

Prior to crucifixion, Roman law required victims to be flogged. The usual instrument for flogging was a short whip with several single or braided leather thongs of variable lengths. For scourging, the victim was stripped of his clothing, and his hands were tied to an upright post. The severity of the scourging was intended to weaken the victim to a state just short of collapse or death.

Although the severity of Jesus’ scourging was not mentioned in the gospels, Peter’s use of the word wounds, would suggest the result of harsh scourging (1 Peter 2:24). The Roman soldiers, amused that this weakened man had claimed to be a king, began to mock Jesus by placing a robe on His shoulders, a crown of thorns on His head, and wooden staff, as a scepter in His right hand.

According to an extensive study done in 1986 On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ, it is believed that the severe scourging, with its intense pain and appreciable blood loss, most probably left Jesus in a pre-shock state. The physical and mental abuse meted out by the Jews and the Romans, as well as the lack of food, water and sleep, contributed to Jesus’ generally weakened state.

After the scourging and the mocking, at about 9:00 o’clock on Friday morning, Jesus was so weak that He could not carry His cross for the 600 yard-trip to the place of crucifixion. Throughout this ordeal, the Roman soldiers and civilian crowd taunted Jesus. 

At about 3:00 o’clock that Friday afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, bowed His head and died. Because of the Sabbath in a few hours, the Jews did not want His body to remain on the cross. In order to verify His death, one of the soldiers pierced the side of Jesus with an infantry spear. This piercing produced a sudden flow of blood and water.

How could such barbarity lead Christians to call this day Good Friday? The use of the adjective good does not describe the barbarity of crucifixion. Rather, it describes the outcome of what was intended to bring disgrace and shame.

Christians believe that the barbarity of the crucifixion was consistent with the severity of the punishment Jesus was undergoing. When one considers that that punishment was commensurate with the crime, one is prone to ask what crime could warrant such severe punishment.

According to the apostle Paul, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures/Hebrew Bible” (1 Corinthians 15:3). In another letter to the Corinthians, Paul contended, “God made Him/Jesus who had no sin to be sin for us...” (2 Corinthians 5:21. Even Peter, a close buddy of Jesus said, “Jesus Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree...” (1 Peter 2:24).

Jesus’ contemporaries knew that His cruel death was not because of wrongs He did – He was dying for others. Paul indicated that he got that information from the Hebrew Bible, written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Paul was very likely thinking of Isaiah who wrote, “But he (Christ) 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 53:5).

Paul was confident that the death of Jesus affected his way of life. His preaching focus was on the death of Christ. His lifestyle was shaped by his understanding and appropriating the death of Christ. In his letter to Christians from Galatia, he said, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).

Does the death of Jesus mean anything to you? Do you understand that He did not die because He was overpowered by the Romans? He died as a sacrifice and not as a victim – that is the message of Easter. And that is why it is appropriate to say Good Friday.

THE CROSS: Embarrassing?

In his book, Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, Jim Cymbala tells the story of a soloist at Brooklyn Tabernacle. She was invited to sing at a church and was told in advance, “We want to ask you not to sing any song that mentions the blood of Christ. People feel uncomfortable with that, and our goal here is to be user-friendly.”

Uncomfortable about the blood of Christ? Similar discomfort was experienced in the first century. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul noted that the cross was “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles...” (1 Corinthians 1:23). Today, many churches even find the frequent observance of the ordinance of communion to be a distraction in their up-beat worship services.

In her book, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ, Fleming Rutledge, contends that preaching on the cross has been sidelined. She believes that this is so because “people don’t want to hear about sin, suffering, evil or judgment.”

Instead, we want a happy Christianity. One without the consequences for sin. A Christianity with minimal need of reflection. The crucifixion invites us to reflect on the heinousness of sin and the heavy price Jesus paid for it. Forgiveness of sin is not amnesty. Forgiveness is possible because Someone paid the price for sin - death on the cross.

As an atheist, Christopher Hitchens could not accept this Christian doctrine. On one occasion he said, “I find something repulsive about the idea of vicarious redemption – you can throw your sins onto somebody else, vulgarly known as scapegoating.” Hitchens understood the message of the cross, but he was not prepared to embrace it.

The cross of Jesus Christ differentiates Christian faith from religion in general. Religion tells us what we must do in order to achieve forgiveness. Christianity insists that forgiveness has already been paid for on the cross. Paul contended, whereas Jews demanded miraculous signs and non-Jews (Greeks) looked for wisdom, he preached Christ crucified – a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to non-Jews.

As a matter of fact, Paul argued that God’s power was evident in the cross of Christ. Whereas others depended on oratorical skills and philosophy to make an impact, for him, it was the cross of Christ that enshrined the power to make an impact.

To the Corinthians Paul said, “When I came to you...I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). He was convinced that what others considered foolishness, was God’s demonstration of power.

In essence, Paul was contending that our natural understanding of power was different from God’s. In addition, whereas we view death as coming to the end of the road, God viewed the death of Jesus as the beginning of new life. But why would God use the horrific death of Jesus on a cross to bring new life?

Paul provides two answers. The first, no one other than God could get the credit. Absolutely no one is able to bring new life from death – that is a demonstration of divine power. Paul’s second reason is that no one can boast about what he or she accomplished. In essence, new life in Christ cannot be acquired by any human effort. It is unmerited.

The Bible calls this grace – undeserved favor. In his letter to the Ephesians Paul said, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8).

But couldn’t God have accomplished grace by some other means, probably, not as severe as the cross? The logic is simple – punishment must be commensurate with the crime. Because of the severity of sin, severe punishment was inevitable. Hence, the worst sinner could find God’s grace, because of the cross.

If we could have paid for our sin, then what would happen to those who could not afford to pay? Also, if we could have paid for our sin, we could boast about our ability to help ourselves. Now, such boasting is not possible, in that new life in Christ is a gift. Since it is free, one may ask, wouldn’t it then cheapen the gift? The question implies that my contribution increases the value of God’s gift.

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul argued that any attempt to add to what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, nullifies the value of the gift – “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned” (Galatians 1:8)!

For this reason, I would argue like Paul, there is no user-friendly version of new life in Christ. Without the cross, we are presenting another gospel, not the one God offers to anyone who seeks it.

The 17th century hymn-writer Isaac Watts got it when he wrote: “Forbid it Lord, that I should boast, save in the death of Christ my God; All the vain things that charm me most, I sacrifice them to His blood.”

During Lent – Do You Fast or Diet?

There is a difference between fasting and dieting. Both involve food restrictions, but their objectives are vastly different.

Wikipedia describes dieting as “the practice of eating food in a regulated and supervised fashion to decrease, maintain, or increase body weight.” In other words, dieting is a conscious control or a restriction of the diet in order to achieve physical outcomes.

Whereas both dieting and fasting are voluntary, starving is not. Starving is the most extreme form of malnutrition. Starvation is more the absence of food, as opposed to a conscious decision to avoid eating for a specific period of time.

Fasting is quite different from dieting and most definitely, starvation. Fasting is primarily a willing abstinence or reduction from certain or all food, drink, or both, for a period of time. Unlike dieting, the purpose of fasting is spiritual transformation.

Based on a recent analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2007 to 2012, it was estimated that 67.6 million Americans were obese, and 65.2 million Americans overweight - many are concerned about the volume of food we eat. However, although necessary, addressing concerns of obesity is not fasting. Fasting is intended to bring about spiritual transformation.

In the process of seeking spiritual transformation, fasting triggers other benefits. According to Sarah Knapton, a science correspondent with the London Telegraph, “Fasting for as little as three days can regenerate the entire immune system, even in the elderly, scientists have found in a breakthrough described as remarkable.”

New research is suggesting that intentionally depriving the body of food can kick-start stem cells into producing new white blood cells, which fight off infection. Scientists at the University of Southern California say the discovery could be particularly beneficial for people suffering from damaged immune systems, such as cancer patients on chemotherapy.

Such benefits however, are only perks, when compared with the spiritual transformation that accrues from fasting. Fasting is possibly the most powerful spiritual discipline of all Christian disciplines.

Fasting was an expected discipline in both the Old and New Testament eras. For example, Moses fasted at least two recorded forty-day periods. Jesus fasted 40 days and reminded His followers to fast, "when you fast," not "if you fast".

Fasting is a biblical way to truly humble oneself in the sight of God. King David was correct when he said, "I humble myself through fasting" (Psalm 35:13). Through fasting, one acknowledges and submits to another, bigger than oneself. Even as a king, David found it necessary to acknowledge a greater authority.

In essence, fasting is an external demonstration of an internal spirit of brokenness. That attitude of brokenness is fertile ground for divine transformation. It was the same King David who stated in another Psalm, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise” (Psalm 51:17).

It is therefore obvious why fasting and prayer go hand in hand. They are the only two disciplines that trigger the blessing promised to God’s people in 2 Chronicles 7:14. “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

In our self-absorbed and narcissistic culture, to talk about brokenness before God is radical. To fast in our post-modern culture is a statement against conceit and egotism. It is to live with a plan of depriving oneself of something of value for something of greater value.

Whereas fasting from food is not necessarily for everyone, other deprivations could realize similar outcomes. As the late Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, “Fasting should really be made to include abstinence from anything which is legitimate in and of itself for the sake of some special spiritual purpose.”

What benefits do you hope to derive from fasting during this Lenten season? Remember, if the benefits you derive are only physical, you are not fasting, you are on diet. Fasting brings about spiritual transformation. That transformation becomes evident in our relationship with God and attitude to others.

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.

The Origins of Christmas

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 flock 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, 336 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. A few years later, Pope Julius I officially declared that the birth of Jesus would be celebrated on December 25. 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. 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 re-read 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.

Unlike some theories of unusual births, the birth of Jesus was predicted hundreds of years earlier. In addition, His miraculous birth was consistent with His mission – His birth was no ancient legend. So, like the wise men, “come let us adore Him.”

Did It Really Happen?

On October 21, 1997, the Lee County School Board in Florida voted 3 to 2 to adopt the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools program. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and People for the American Way were quick to bring a lawsuit against the School Board. The lawsuit contended that the planned course would present the Bible as history – and that would be unconstitutional.

In a split decision, U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Kovakevich said that the School Board can implement a course based on the Old Testament, but may not teach a planned companion course based on the New Testament.

In her twenty-page ruling, the Judge said she had been convinced by the school’s argument that the Old Testament course was “ostensibly designed to teach history and not religion.” But she ruled out teaching the New Testament as history, saying that she “finds it difficult to conceive how the account of the resurrection or of miracles could be taught as secular history.” The judge’s ruling leaves us with a major question: Can the resurrection of Jesus be viewed as an historical event? 

As a term, history may refer to what actually happened, or it may refer to an historian’s interpretation of what actually happened. The historian does not have to believe what happened, but is obligated to report what happened.

In attempting to determine what happened, historians ask questions about location and witnesses to the alleged events. They look for corroborative evidence. They examine archaeological findings in their quest to answer the big question, did it happen?

Judge Kovakevich suggests that such tests cannot be applied to the resurrection of Jesus. In essence, she finds it difficult to conceive that Jesus could rise from the dead. If that is her position, then she is not interested in investigating the event of the resurrection. Rather, she is expressing her inability to conceive of such an event.

Matt Perman makes the point that a method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation." William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence." In other words, we ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it.

When we look at the evidence, the truth of the resurrection emerges very clearly as the best explanation. There is no other theory that even comes close to accounting for the evidence. Therefore, there is solid historical grounds for the truth that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

No one is asking the historian to explain the process of resurrection – that is the job of the theologian. However, we are asking the historian to respond to the Christians’ claim of an empty tomb. Following His death, Jesus was placed in a tomb, a common practice at that time. Three days later, Christians’ claim that the tomb was empty.

In order to avoid theft, the authorities actually secured the tomb in which Jesus was placed. Yet the tomb was found empty. The announcement of an empty tomb was not made in another city some years later. Rather, it was made in the same vicinity where Jesus was killed, a few days later. If the claim of resurrection was false, then why didn’t the authorities simply identify a sealed tomb?

Interestingly, it was in order to respond to an empty tomb, the Jews attempted to bribe the guards that were on duty to protect the tomb. The case of bribery would not have been necessary if the tomb was not empty.

Furthermore, the story of the empty tomb was not legend. There is clear evidence that within seven years after the alleged resurrection, the story began to be documented. Normally, it would take decades before a story is considered to be a legend. This story was documented within the lifetime of eye witnesses. 

One finds it very strange that the tomb of Jesus was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for Jesus, it suggests that his bones weren't there.   

Following his conversion, Paul, a strong opponent of Christianity, made it very clear: “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless, and so is your faith...” (1 Corinthians 15:14). 

Scholars may debate the process of resurrection. However, there should be no debate about the fact of resurrection – the empty tomb continues to provide historical evidence that something phenomenal happened following the death of Jesus.

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)