DrIBEX Ideas

When we consider that most of the final chapter of the Didache is centered on eschatological themes, it is surprising to discover that so little has been written about the role this specific chapter plays overall doctrine of the “Last Things.” There have been a few articles, but nothing has been written that approaches the thoroughness of the unpublished 1949 Harvard dissertation of George Eldon Ladd titled “The Eschatology of the Didache.”

Here is my own translation of the chapter:

16:1 Be watchful over your life;
do not let your lamps be quenched,
and do not let your waists be ungirded.
But be prepared,
for you do not know the hour in which our Lord is coming.
16:2 And frequently be gathered together,
seeking what is appropriate for your souls;
for the whole time of your faith will not benefit you
unless you are perfected in the last time.

16:3 For, in the last days
the false prophets and corrupters will be multiplied,
and the sheep will be turned into wolves,
and the love will be turned into hatred.
16:4 For, when lawlessness increases,
they will hate each other
and they will persecute
and they will betray each other.

And then will appear the world-deceiver as a son of God,
and he will do signs and wonders,
and the earth will be delivered into his hands,
and he will do unlawful things
that never have happened from eternity.

16:5 Then the human creation will come
into the fiery test,
and many will be led into sin and will perish,
but the ones remaining firm in their faith,
will be saved by the curse itself.

16:6 And then the signs of the truth will appear:
first, a sign of an opening in heaven,
then a sign of a trumpet sound,
and the third [sign will be] a resurrection of dead ones—
16:7 but not of all [the dead],
but as it was said:
“The Lord will come and all the holy ones with him.”

16:8 Then the world will see the Lord coming atop the clouds of heaven …

The chapter opens with an intense three-fold exhortation: 1) “be watchful” 2) “be prepared” and 3) “be gathered together.” With these imperatives, there is only one indicative statement that serves to be the basis for the three admonitions: “for you do not know the hour in which our Lord is coming.” Then follows the details of this coming with a series of future indicative statements in 16:3-8, with no further imperatives. We do not know if there originally were additional exhortations following 16:8 since it probably is not the original ending – more on that soon.

The reference to being “perfected in the last time” recalls the other reference to being “perfect” in 6:2. The author skillfully placed these references at the beginning and the end of this second main section of the book to serve as an inclusio that frames this part of his literary discourse.

These urgent exhortations are in light of what must have been considered an imminent coming of the Lord, and they are consistent with similar exhortations in the NT in light of the parousia (Matt. 24:42-44; Luke 12:35; 1 Thess. 15-18; 2 Pet. 3, etc.). Many writers have affirmed that Matthew’s “Olivet Discourse” and especially 24:42 must have influenced the writer in these verses. The current scholarly preference is that here and elsewhere he utilized oral Jesus tradition and was not using any proto-canonical writings. My own opinion is that the Didachist is here and throughout the chapter influenced by what he also calls the “Gospel of our Lord,” a Greek translation of Matthew’s logia. I also conclude that, whatever sources he may or may not have used, he adapted them and shaped them into this form for his own purposes

There is an intensely practical purpose that the Didachist has in all this: the preparation of his readers for the difficulties of the end. The “World Deceiver” (ὁ κοσμοπλανὴς - a title coined by the Didachist?) will shortly appear as a false son of God and will deceive the entire earth by claiming divine powers. The one way to withstand these troubles is by faithful attendance at the Christian gatherings. He urges his readers to faithfulness so that they will not be among those who turn away.

There has been much speculation about the identity of the “curse” in 16:5b: “but the ones remaining firm in their faith, will be saved by the curse itself.” The word is καταθεμα, one of a number of words that can mean “curse.” The word does not occur in the LXX and appears in the NT only as a preferred variant reading in Rev. 22:3. One could wish that the statement by Paul in Gal. 3:13 might use this word: “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree,” but the “curse” there is καταρα. , Schaff comments, “This is the most difficult passage (in the Didache) next to “the cosmic mystery” in XI. 11.” Even in 1887 he mentions at least seven interpretations of the word. It is probably still best, in light of Deut. 21:23, (despite the different Greek word), that this 16:5 is a paradoxical statement that the “cursed one”(i.e., Jesus) will save the faithful from the eschatological curse, because he already experienced it by being cursed by God. Probably the Didachist had Deut. 21:23 in mind and simply used another word.

The three “signs of the truth” that he describes in 16:6, 7 have similarities to Matthew’s discourse but also differences. He mentions an “opening in heaven,” which could be simply a preparation of the sky for the later appearing of the Lord (16:8). Some scholars, however, have translated the word evkpeta,sewj as a “spreading out,” signifying a celestial “sign of the cross” being displayed. The “trumpet” echoes (pardon the pun) the same sound in Matt. 24:31; 1 Cor. 15:52; and 1 Thess.4:16. To think that the Didachist, however, is referencing any Pauline statement is simply not valid. Paul and the Didachist were probably both echoing an original statement of “the Lord.”

The final sign, “a resurrection of dead ones,” should not surprise Bible readers familiar with Daniel’s 12:2: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” What we do not expect, however, is that the Didachist limits the ones in this resurrection. He adds, “but not of all [the dead]” and then quotes Zech. 14:5, applying the “holy ones’ in that passage to “saints” not angels. This has often been taken as indicating the chiliasm, or millenarianism of the author. Since 2nd century authors like Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian were pronounced chiliasts, we should not be surprised if the Didachist was also sympathetic to this view of the future kingdom.

This brings us to the end of the book, which just about all, including Leon the scribe, believe was not the original ending. “Leon” indicates by the blank lines following 16:8 in his manuscript that his vorlage also did not contain anything beyond these words and that this was not the original ending. Since the Apostolic Constitutions and other works that incorporate the Didache do have additional words at this point, scholars have speculated if these works may contain the original ending. Robert E. Aldridge suggests that a combination of Constitution’s ending and that of the Georgian version “may be accepted as the proximate true ending.” However, I would like to offer my own solution as a variation of Aldridge’s. Since part of Constitution’s ending is very clearly a borrowing of Paul’s statement about the glorious eschaton in 1 Cor. 2:9, I offer the ending without that insertion which I am sure that the original Didachist would not have used. Thus after 16:8 would be the following words:

“…with the angels of His power, in the throne of His kingdom, to condemn the devil, the deceiver of the world, and to render to everyone according to his deeds. Then shall the wicked go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous shall enter eternal life. And they shall rejoice in the kingdom of God, which is in Christ Jesus.”

In his dissertation, Ladd suggests that the abbreviated ending of the chapter 16 may not have been accidental. While not being dogmatic, he suggests that the original ending of Didache may have contained a clear reference to an earthly kingdom following the resurrection of the righteous dead and preceding a resurrection of the wicked dead after that kingdom. By the third century, when chiliasm had fallen out of favor with many segments of the “Great Church,” the chiliastic ending was stricken and its more generic ending left. What appeared in the Apostolic Constitutions and the Georgian version thus was a doctored ending that omitted the chiliastic reference in favor of a view more amenable to the church at that time, even adding the Pauline statement from 1 Cor. 2:9 for good effect.

(For further study, see my article in Bibliotheca Sacra, “The Didache Apocalypse and Matthew 24” (Vol. 165, 2008).

This is a temporary violation of the self-imposed end to my blog - because the Dropbox link to the following file did not work!

Many Christians assume that everything Jesus said is found in the canonical Gospels, but if John wrote that Jesus did many more things than could be recorded, we should expect that He also said many more things than were recorded. Rick Brannan collects and brings these sayings to our attention, some of which are even found in other books of the NT.

Ironically, these sayings are called agrapha (“unwritten”) but they were indeed written down, just not written down in the canonical Gospels. Brannan uncovers the evidence of these sayings also in the Apostolic Fathers (esp. 2 Clement) as well as in Justin Martyr and even as variant readings in some NT manuscripts. Another valuable contribution is the inclusion of a number of papyri fragments which include these sayings.

In addition to the agrapha, Rick publishes and explains some of those second century “gospels” that did not make it into the canon, but are the sources of some of our traditional ideas about the Nativity! What is advantageous about his presentation is that he includes both the Greek original plus his clear translation, which previous editions of these gospels usually do not. Because of the digital format, the Greek words even have morphological tagging – something that printed Greek editions of these gospels do not have! Since the Greek original and the translation are separate works, the Logos user can also view them in parallel windows for comparison.

This work is a very valuable contribution that goes beyond previous lists of sayings and publications of only the English gospels. Rick’s brief but insightful comments about each of the sayings, variants, and gospels round out his work in a way that makes it accessible to both lay readers and scholars.

I heartily commend this valuable contribution to the burgeoning field of Jesus studies.

Here is the pre-pub page for Rick’s digital Book. http://www.logos.com/product/17854/greek-apocryphal-gospels-fragments-and-agrapha

A few months ago uber-blogger, Phil Johnson, “retired” from blogging. That was a major decision for a guy who had a lot of readers.

My world is much smaller, but for personal reasons, I must also retire from blogging and it will most probably be a permanent decision. I have enjoyed sharing ideas from Dr IBEX, but the time has come to concentrate on other projects and on my own personal health and family.

Thanks for the memories.

Will

PS I enjoy posting on the Nerdy Language Majors Facebook group, but even that will be curtailed.

“To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen” (Jude 24– 25 NIV).

Heavenly Father, while many clamor about and try to “claim” more blessings from you, may this be a year in which we come alive to the multiplied blessings you’ve already lavished upon us in the gospel. Already you have rescued us from the dominion of darkness and have placed us in the kingdom of your beloved Son, Jesus (Col. 1: 13). Already you have blessed us with every spiritual blessing in Christ (Eph. 1: 3). Already we are completely loved by you because of Jesus’ completed work on our behalf. As the year progresses, open the eyes of our hearts to see all these glorious riches more clearly and enjoy them more fully (Eph. 1: 18– 19).

Scotty Smith, Everyday Prayers: 365 Days to a Gospel-Centered Faith

What do you preach on the Sunday AFTER Christmas? Perhaps this event which took place 40 days AFTER the birth is appropriate. These summary ideas are seed-starters for your own further reflection. I wrote out the Scripture (Luke 2:25-35) in the last post.

When Jesus was 8 days old he was circumcised (Lk. 2:21). When he was 40 days old he was presented in the Temple as part of the ceremony of the Redemption of the First Born Son (Lk. 2:22-34; Num. 3:11-12, 40-43). Mary purified herself by immersion in one of the “baptismal” pools for this function right outside the Temple. They then entered with the baby to find a priest for the ceremony. They did not have to find one because the Lord directed one to find them (Lk. 2:25-27). But when Simeon took Jesus in his arms to perform the ceremony (returning the son in exchange for 5 silver coins), he uttered some amazing words about the child’s future that must have stunned the proud parents (Lk. 2:28-32). The child was to bring salvation as the glory of Israel and as a light to the Gentiles! Mary had known about His future ministry to Israel, but this blessing for the goyim came to her as something brand new!

But Simeon then delivered the dark side to this message of Jesus’ Messiahship (Lk. 2:34- 35). The child would not only cause the rise of many in Israel, he would also cause many of them to fall (who would reject Him). Furthermore, he would be a sign that would attract severe opposition (“many would speak against Him”). No Mother likes to hear people criticizing and rejecting their kid! Finally, Simeon tells the teenage Mother that some day a sword would pierce her soul! Here the darkness and death that accompanied the First Nativity becomes even more evident.

There were a number of incidents during Jesus’ adult ministry that must have caused pain to Mary (Lk. 4:16-30 and Mk. 3:31-35 drive the sword deeper into her heart). None were more painful, however, than what she saw and heard at the foot of a Roman cross over thirty years later (Jn. 19:26-27). It was at that unbelievably painful moment that she must have recalled Simeon’s words about the sword piercing her soul.

But the pain and death that originally hung over this Nativity were all part of the process of bringing salvation to Israel and also to Mary herself. How wonderful it is to see Mary and Jesus’ once perplexed half-brothers gathered in that upper room to worship the Ascended One and to wait for His promised Spirit (Acts 1:14).

Yes, Christmas IS a time of light and peace, but first came the darkness and war that was encountered and defeated by Messiah’s coming!

“Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah.
And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said,
“Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel.”
And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.
And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”
(Luke 2:25-35)

Simeon speaks sobering words that the coming of the baby will be a “stone” (of stumbling), a “sign” that will be opposed, and a “sword” that will pierce Mary’s heart.

I love Christmas carols, but “Biblical” Christmas hymns are different from our familiar and beloved carols. These songs are rooted in the history of Abraham, Moses, David, and the desire to “ransom captive Israel.” They are found in Luke 1 and 2, surrounding the brief but more familiar hymn of the angels (Luke 2:13-14).

What does Mary sing about in Luke 1:46-55? “My soul magnifies the Lord” (Magnificat in Latin). She magnifies the Lord’s mercy to those who fear Him, His generosity to the poor and hungry, His hostility to the proud and rich, and the help He gives to Israel. She sings about the fulfillment of the Lord’s promised covenant mercy. And she talks about Abraham, for all this is done to fulfill what He “spoke to our Fathers, to Abraham and to His seed forever.”

How about Zechariah’s song in Luke 1:67-79? “Blessed be the Lord…” (Benedictus in Latin). The Lord comes to accomplish redemption for His people and to bring salvation to the house of David. More specifically, this refers to a king from David’s line, a king who is going to deliver Israel from their enemies and from the hand of those who enslave them. The birth of the fore-runner to the Messiah is a sign that the Lord has “remembered His holy covenant, the oath which He swore to Abraham our Father.” Day has dawned; light has shone in the darkness – but the darkness is specifically something that has overtaken Israel.

What does Simeon sing about after the birth of Jesus in Luke 2:28-32? “Now dismiss your servant in peace…”(Nunc dimittis in Latin). When he takes the infant Jesus into his arms, he thanks God “because my eyes have seen Your salvation.” And what is that? Access to heaven? Forgiveness of sins? Yes, but more! This little one is “the light of revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel.”

The angelic hymn sung to the shepherds should be understood in that context. Peace on earth is not some left-wing dream. It’s the promise of peace for Israel, which will lead to peace for the nations.

Before we sing any more new Christmas hymns, we all should try to learn the words of the Magnificat (Mary’s) and the Benedictus (Zechariah’s) and the Nunc Dimittis (Simeon’s) so well that these hymns will burst forth from our hearts at Christmas. Then we will sing about Jesus’ birth in light of the promises to Abraham and David - as did Mary, Zechariah, and Simeon.

“The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood. We saw the glory with our own eyes, the one-of-a-kind glory, like Father, like Son, Generous inside and out, true from start to finish.” (The Message).

So staggeringly new was this conception of God in a human form that it is not surprising that even in the Church there were some who could not believe it. What John says is that the word became sarx (σαρξ). Now sarx is the very word Paul uses over and over again to describe what he called the flesh, human nature in all its weakness and in all its liability to sin. The very thought of taking this word and applying it to God was something that their minds staggered at. So there arose in the Church a body of people called Docetists.

Dokein (δοκειν) is the Greek word for to seem to be. These people held that Jesus in fact was only a phantom; that his human body was not a real body; that he could not really feel hunger and weariness, sorrow and pain; that he was in fact a disembodied spirit in the apparent form of a man. John dealt with these people directly in his First Letter. “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:2–3). It is true that this heresy was born of a kind of mistaken reverence which recoiled from saying that Jesus was really, fully and truly human. To John, it contradicted the whole Christian gospel.
It may well be that today we are often so eager to preserve the fact that Jesus was fully God that we tend to forget the fact that he was also fully human.

The word became flesh—here, perhaps as nowhere else in the NT, we have the full humanity of Jesus gloriously proclaimed. In Jesus we see the creating word of God, the controlling reason of God, taking human nature upon himself. In Jesus we see God living life as He would have lived it if he had been a man.

“He wished to become one of our children in order to make us His Children” - Augustine

“The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood. We saw the glory with our own eyes, the one-of-a-kind glory, like Father, like Son, Generous inside and out, true from start to finish.” (The Message).

This is the sentence for the sake of which John wrote his gospel: John 1:14. He has thought and talked about the Logos of God - that powerful, creative word who was the agent of creation; that guiding and directing word who puts order into the universe and intelligence into human beings. Now he says quite simply: ‘This word which created the world, this reason which controls the order of the world, has become a person, and with our own eyes we saw him.’ The word that John uses is theasthai; used in the NT more than twenty times and always used of physical sight. This is no spiritual vision seen with the eye of the soul or of the mind. John declares that the word actually came to earth in the form of a man and was seen by human eyes. He says: ‘If you want to see what this creating word, this controlling reason, is like, look at Jesus of Nazareth.’

This is where John parted with all thought which had gone before him. This was the entirely new thing which John brought to the Greek world for which he was writing. Augustine afterwards said that in his pre-Christian days he had read and studied the great pagan philosophers and had read many things, but he had never read that the Logos became flesh.

To a Greek, this was impossible. The one thing that no Greek would ever have dreamed of was that God could take a body. To a Greek, the body was an evil, a prison house in which the soul was shackled, a tomb in which the spirit was confined. It was nothing less than blasphemy to involve God in the affairs of the world. The Jew Philo could never have said it. He said: ‘The life of God has not descended to us; nor has it come as far as the necessities of the body.’

So here was the alarming new idea—that God could and would become a human person, that God could enter into this life that we live, that eternity could appear in time, that somehow the Creator could appear in creation in such a way that he could actually be seen.

More tomorrow

The episode about the shepherds, which takes up more space than the discussion of the birth itself, has a real historical plausibility to it, since Bethlehem was one of the main areas near Jerusalem where sheep were raised for the sacrifices in the Temple. Due to their profession, shepherds were viewed as unclean peasants by some Jews, but Luke sees them as examples of the marginalized, for whom the birth of a savior would be seen as good news indeed (Lk. 1:52, 4:18).

Throughout the Bible, angels are harbingers of divine activity and messengers of God, and the angel of Luke 2 is no exception. Lk. 2:9 speaks of the glory of the Lord shining around the angel and the shepherds, a reference to the bright and shining presence, or Shekinah, of God. Naturally, the shepherds are frightened by the sight. Verbrugge in A Not So Silent Night develops the idea that the use of the term “host” to describe the angels stresses a military role as they enter into conflict with the “legions” of Satan, a term used of wicked and good angels in the Gospels (cf. Mark 5:9 and Matt. 26:53). Their song then could be compared to an ancient “Hail to the Chief.”

“Do not be afraid,” the angel reassures them, “for see—I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Messiah the Lord” (Lk. 2:10–11). The angel emphasizes that the savior is born “to you,” the shepherds—that is, to the least, the last and the lost.

The “savior language” used by the angel draws on the rhetoric of the imperial cult in Luke’s day. Throughout the empire, boastful inscriptions celebrated the birth of the emperor who had “pacified” the entire region around the Mediterranean. Caesar is described as a god walking upon the earth in the flesh. In his gospel, Luke is using this same language, portraying the Jewish infant of humble origins, Jesus, as the real Savior and the real Lord whose coming will bring peace on earth, compared to the Emperor Augustus, who is just a pretender or counterfeit. In other words, the message of the angels to the shepherds was that Jesus is Lord. Therefore, Caesar is not.

When the shepherds hear the news (Lk. 2:15), they go to the manger in haste to see with their own eyes the confirming sign. They then go forth as the very first evangelists or proclaimers of the good news. How insightful that the first messengers of Jesus’ birth were despised shepherds, not the professional clergy in Jerusalem! Over thirty years later the first messengers of Jesus’ resurrection were despised women, not the fearful male disciples (Lk. 24:22-24).

Let’s all of us - males, females, laypeople, ministers - be faithful witnesses this Christmas to the One whose birth has changed our lives forever!

It has probably happened to every family at least once. It is Christmas morning and everyone is excited about those presents under the tree! A child (usually the youngest) begins to remove the wrapping paper and then open the box, inside of which is the actual present. Then the child is noticed later playing with the wrapping paper or the box more than the present!

Yesterday we noticed that Hebrews 1 describes the Son as the exact imprint of the Father’s nature. No longer did the Hebrews need to be satisfied with sketches of the Father drawn by the prophets - now they had the exact impression of the Father’s features stamped in His Son.

The chapter continues with a number of OT texts showing that the Son is superior to angels (Heb 1:5-14), but a modern reader might wonder about this random shift toward angels. The writer will soon show that Jews held these messengers in high regard because they were the “mediators” of the Torah given at Sinai (Heb 2:1-2; κύριος ἐκ Σινα ἥκει … ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ - Deut 33:2 LXX). In chapter one he shows that as important as were the angels, they paled in comparison to the Son, since none of the exalted things spoken about Him in the OT (Heb 1:5-13) were spoken about angels.

Now back to that story of the child paying more attention to the package than to the present. In the first century many Jews had become focused on the outer trappings of OT religion - and there was some amazing packaging like the Temple - but they needed to move on to the One who was the culmination of Jewish faith, the Messianic King-Son. In a skillful and rhetorical manner that could be described as slowly opening a present, the Author of Hebrews does not mention that Son by name until 2:8 (“he who was made for a little while a little lower than the angels, Jesus”). None of the “wrappings” (angels, sacrifices, etc.) should cause us to be distracted from the Father’s present to us, His Son.

While such a temptation may seem far from Gentile readers, many today can be tempted to be dissatisfied with what they have, and become distracted by angels, saints and other spiritual “things.” Don’t start playing with the package instead of the true present. He is superior to everything else.

Someone asked me what verse(s) best summarize the message of the entire Bible. I initially mentioned Acts 13:32 and Matt 1:1, but I am now convinced that Hebrews 1:1-2a is the best epitome of the Big Story. “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” (ESV). The writer goes on to describe one of the glories of that Son as being “the exact imprint of His (God’s) nature” (1:3, ESV). The word for “exact imprint” is the Greek χαρακτὴρ which is pronounced like our English word “character.” It is a word drawn from the practice of engraving, the stamping of hot metal with a pattern which the metal will then bear. Imagine an emperor employing an engraver who carved his royal portrait on a metal stamp. The engraver then used that stamp to make a coin, so that the coin gave the exact imprint of what was on the stamp.

Hebrews 1:3 says that the exact imprint of the Father’s very nature has been precisely reproduced in the soft metal of the Son’s human nature. That is the message of the Incarnation and thus the real message of Christmas.

Now think further about the message of these verses (Hebrews 1:1-3). Suppose again that the emperor had been waiting for a long time to inform his subjects as to what he was really like – to give them a good idea about his character. And suppose that the metal stamp, or die, hadn’t been invented yet. He could only send out sketches of himself that didn’t give them his full picture. Then came the reality: hard metal die on soft metal, exactly reproduced. Yes, says the writer to the Hebrews: God for a long time had sent advance sketches of Himself to His people (through prophets), but now (in the end of the days) He has given us His exact portrait.

These verses portray succinctly the whole sweep of the Biblical Story – and then describe it as coming to its climax in Jesus. You want to know what God is really like? Then look at the Son, His exact imprint - and behold His glory!

My own perspective:
I am a unabashed fan of all of JRR Tolkien’s writings and I also loved Peter Jackson’s earlier “Lord of the Rings.” My wife was surprised, therefore, when I told her that I didn’t like the new “Hobbit” film. One reviewer said that it was a long trailer for a violent video game. Maybe that is a bit harsh, but I did get the same feeling as I endured the carnage. I read The Hobbit years ago, but my memory just does not recall this approach to the story. Or maybe I should ask “What Story?” The best sequences were the encounter between Bilbo and Gollum in the cave, and the tenous relationship between Bilbo and Thorin Oakenshield. While the film is a technical masterpiece of digital imagery, somehow the story about a hobbit who “lived in a hole in the ground” was lost on me.
I realize that a novel cannot simply be transferred to the screen, but if Tolkien’s son, Christopher, was not pleased with the Jackson trilogy, he will be saddened also by this adaptation. I guess that I am just too strong a believer in honoring authorial intent. The magic in the original story was lost amid the technical wizardry (no pun intended).

Response from former TMC student and current professor, Peter Epps:
One thing that seems to happen when people remember the book The Hobbit and criticize the movie is that they make a unity out of the book that it doesn’t have. The Hobbit is a wonderful tale, but it sprawls over more time and more radically different settings than Lord of the Rings. It opens in a tone obviously addressing children, but incorporates all manner of recondite lore and some rather advanced moralizing about war by the end. When folks compress that into a remembered tale of simplicity, with a unified story, they usually think of the opening chapter, the finding of the ring, and the riddling with Smaug. They tend to forget the really dark and breathless bits, including cannibalism and torture, in the Misty Mountains; or the hard-to-figure elves of Mirkwood; or the huge side-plot worked out among Gandalf, Beorn, and others beyond the hobbit’s ken. It’s a wonderful tale, but not unified.

My biggest worry, however, is the technology possibly overtaking the character interactions. It would be so easy to turn The Hobbit into an amusement park ride, and so hard to make a good movie out of it.

The Christmas portions of the gospels are at once the most beloved and the most mythologized texts in the NT. Like works of art that have been lacquered with coat after coat of varnish, the details of the original stories are sometimes hard to see clearly. In previous posts I suggested that a close reading of Matthew’s account reveals that the star may be something entirely different than a comet or supernova or planetary conjunction, as is so often taught.

Today we turn to Luke’s account, famous for spawning a zillion nativity scenes with kids clothed in bathrobes and towels around their heads. The most obvious misreading of this text lies in the portrayal of an unmentioned innkeeper who heartlessly turns away the poor couple and forces them to find a stable. (Pity the poor kid who performs that role! His fate is almost as bad as the Jewish boy asked to play Haman in a Purim Play).

Where did they stay in Bethlehem? Luke tells us that after the birth, Mary put the baby in a “manger,” or feeding trough, because there was “no room for them in the καταλυμα - kataluma” (Luke 2:7). While this term was translated as “inn” by the KJV, Luke elsewhere uses it to mean a “guest room” (Luke 22:11, the site of the Last Supper). When Luke does wants to speak about an inn, he uses the Greek word πανδοχειον - pandocheion (Luke 10:34, in the parable of the Good Samaritan).

Thus, Luke says nothing about Joseph and Mary being denied access to an inn and Mary having to bear the child in a barn. Historically, it is far more likely that Mary and Joseph had their child in the humble back portion of the ancestral home where the most valued animals were fed and housed, because the guest room in the family home was already occupied. In any case, Bethlehem was such a small village that it is not even clear it would have had a wayside inn. Admittedly, Jesus’ beginnings were humble, but we don’t need to mythologize them into a story about a pregnant Mom being cast out by a heartless innkeeper.

You probably know that by conflating the two separate accounts of Matthew and Luke, Nativity sets for years have included the Magi with the shepherds in that stable scene. It is obvious that Matthew states that they came to a house, not to a stable (Matt. 2:11).

I am not trying to be α cynical ‘‘Grinch,” and yes, our own Nativity set does contain the Magi! I am just asking us all to base our beliefs on the actual text of Scripture and not on centuries of religious paintings and a translation that could be improved!

In the 16th century, a Catholic professor was brought before the Inquisition for teaching ideas like the above. Check it out: https://www.dropbox.com/s/oh57denfdott183/Inn%20and%20Guest%20Room%20Article%202010%20NTS.pdf

I often use the word Messiahmas, simply to emphasize the Jewishness of the Christian Natvivity message. But is mixing Hanukkah with Christmas just going too far?

Let me explain. Hanukkah begins on Chislev 25 and continues for eight days. The correspondence with the number of December 25 is only a coincidence and really has no significance because the Jewish holiday falls on different dates on our calendar every year. This year its dates are December 9-16, but the first candle is lit on the evening of the 8th on our calendar. Each night an additional candle is lit, commemorating the traditional miracle that the Menorah burned for eight days with only one day’s supply of oiI. I say “traditional,” not because I don’t believe in miracles, but because the earliest texts that describe the events, the books of Maccabees and Josephus, make no mention of the miracle of the oil. What they do describe is the liberation of the Temple in December, 165 BC, after three years of defilement by the troops of the Syrian/Greek ruler, Antiochus Epiphanes.

This vicious persecution produced faithful Jewish martyrs who were prophesied about in Daniel 11:32, and were referred to later in Hebrews 11:35-36 as members of the Hall of Fame of Faith. This is sometimes called the first religious persecution in history, but it was not the first time the Jewish people were threatened with destruction by Gentile rulers. On the three occasions that ancient Jews were threatened with extinction, they ended up each time with a holiday! Think of it: Pharaoh’s threats in Exodus, and the Jews get Passover; Haman’s threats in Esther, and the Jews get Purim; the threats of Antiochus, and the Jews get Hanukkah!

But what has any of this to do with the Nativity of Jesus? Sometimes Hanukkah is called the Festival of Lights, and Jesus was the Light of the World! True but that may be coincidental. The Gospel of John mentions that Jesus was in the Temple of Jerusalem during Hanukkah and while teaching there, He made one of His greatest claims to Deity (John 10:22-30). So it appears that Jesus observed Hanukkah! How ironic that a Jewish holiday that did not make it into the Hebrew Bible is mentioned in the Christian Bible!

But the unseen connection of Hanukkah with Christmas lies in this fact. If Antiochus had been successful in destroying the Jews, there would have been no Jewish Miriam and no Jewish Bethlehem to provide the people and the place for our Messiah to be born! One might say that if there had been no Hanukkah, then there would have been no Christmas!

So when you wish your Jewish acquaintance a Happy Hanukkah this year, tell them that! You may be surprised at where the conversation could then lead!

(By the way, this festival can be spelled about a half dozen ways. Just remember that the first letter is a guttural, and don’t pronounce it the way I heard from one Gentile: “chanookah”).

Many of you were encouraged when I posted about the positive progress of a former student struggling with doubt. For your further encouragement and prayer, I enclose some recent correspondence. Continue to pray for him.

I wrote this week: “How are you doing, my friend? Are you in the word daily? Are you still focusing on Jesus?”

His response:

“YES, I have been, pretty much daily in the Word. I have been really busy between other things, but just finished John’s gospel yesterday. I was very moved thinking about how all the disciples saw the wounds of the resurrected Christ, and how Thomas actually touched them, and how it says, “Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are the people a who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:29

The NET version says the proclamation of Thomas is climax of the entire gospel, something I didn’t really understand until now, and something I can really appreciate. It makes sense, I suppose, that John would be focused on belief in Christ, and evidence of His resurrection, as well as the testimony of the apostles and their slow, but eventual, understanding of who He was and belief in Him. Especially so in a time when he alone remained, and when it had been so long since anyone had personally witnessed the resurrected Christ. It was really appropriate to my own personal struggles, seeing how the apostles came to believe in Him (in a manner of speaking — they believed, but didn’t understand, then doubted, etc). It also felt like weighty evidence to see that the Apostle John himself alludes to the martyrdom of Peter, a very powerful bit of evidence for the resurrection of Christ, and something I had forgotten was actually IN John’s gospel!

Personally, I still rest my (renewed) faith on the fact that I simply cannot deny Jesus as found in the gospels (the only true and historical Jesus). His words, His truths, the prolific miracles, the commitment of the Apostles and their witnessing these things… It’s just too wonderful. He is the one who wins everything over for me (All the Apostles’ teaching, the law, the prophets, etc).

Thanks for keeping in touch and making sure I’m doing alright, it means a lot.”

With the OT background for the Magi that we examined yesterday, what help can also be found in the OT for the correct interpretation of the star? The supernatural character of this brightness is implied by being described as “his star” (Mt. 2:2). I suggest that this unique shining was the glory of God described so often in the OT as the visible manifestation of God’s presence (e.g., Ex.16:10; 24:16-17, 33:22; 40:34). Or it may have been a glorious angel!

The incarnation of the Son was a manifestation of God’s glory (“the glory of the Lord shone around them” Lk. 2:9; “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory” Jn. 1:14). When we recognize this, it is easy to see how the choice of the word “star” was so appropriate to describe just such a supernatural and visible token seen only by a select number (the shepherds and the Magi). No wonder that “when they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy” (Mt. 2:10).

A variation of this view is that the star was an angel, a view advocated in the patristic comments on this passage, and a view I develop in an academic article on this passage in the Tyndale Bulletin. Stars are often symbolic of angels elsewhere in Scripture (Job 38:7; Isa. 14:12; Rev. 1:20; 9:1,2; 12:4). That an angel also served to guide people in the OT can be seen in the following passages that use language quite similar to Matthew’s (Exo. 14:19; 23:20, 23; 32:34). There is, therefore, a wonderful point of contact with the Lukan Nativity because glorious angelic guidance was for both shepherds there (Luke 2:9-14) and the Magi here (Matt 2).

This glory was the glory which the aged Simeon recognized as he held that baby in his arms (Lk. 2:32). This was that glory that shone through the earthly tabernacle of Jesus’ body on the mountain of transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:17; John 1:14), and it is that glory with which He shall come in great power (Mt. 25:31). Jewish people refer to the glory of God as the Shekinah – a later Hebrew word whose root idea is the concept of “dwelling.” The supernatural Shekinah inspired the Magi and directed their steps to the young Messiah.

As we have seen from a close reading of Matthew 2, there is indeed a “mythology of the Magi” that embodies questionable ideas about these men. There is also, however, some marvelous theology for us to see in their visit to Jerusalem and Bethlehem so long ago. We just need to look at the passage through the lens of the Hebrew Scriptures to see their real significance.

I close by asking why we as evangelicals do NOT believe we must have scientific evidence to prove Scripture, and yet we feel like we should find scientific evidence like a comet or planet conjunction to “prove” incidents like this “star”? This was a miracle my friend. Why do we think we have to explain it by science?

Yesterday we looked at a few myths surrounding the visit of the Magi to the child Jesus in Bethlehem. We questioned the ideas about the sources of their knowledge of the star and the “King of the Jews” as lying in astronomical phenomena or in astrological “signs.” What is an alternative explanation for their knowledge?

It is possible that the oracles of Balaam served as the source for their expectation of a Jewish king. Of the four oracles delivered by that fascinating man from beyond the Euphrates River (Num. 22:5), the last is most expressive: “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near: a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel…” (Num. 24:17). It is possible that the Magi from Persia had preserved the words of their “ancestor” Balaam and remembered his ancient prophecy when a “Star” did appear out of Jacob. Mention of the scepter also echoes an earlier Messianic reference in Gen 49:10.

An even stronger source for the Magi’s scriptural knowledge comes from the Book of Daniel. In the LXX Greek translation, one of the words translated “wise men” is the same as the Greek word used in Matthew 2 - μαγοι/magoi - (Dan. 2:2,10). These Magi in ancient Babylon served as a religious caste in the state religion. One of their functions was to interpret dreams — a role in which they failed miserably in Dan. 2:1-13. Note Dan. 2:13, “So the decree went out, and the wise men (Magi) were about to be killed; and they sought Daniel and his companions, to kill them.” Therefore, Daniel and his three friends were associated with the Magi due to their God-given ability (Dan.1:20-21). When Daniel accurately interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. 2:17-45), he was rewarded with an even higher position among them: “Then the king gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men (including the Magi) of Babylon” (Dan. 2:48).

Consider also the amazing prophecy of the “seventy weeks” in Dan. 9:24-27. Verse 26 states that “Messiah (shall) be cut off” after a total period of 69 “sevens” (483 years). Therefore, Daniel’s book provides a timetable for the coming of the Messiah. This timetable from their leader must have been kept through the years by the Magi even after Babylon was conquered by the Persians.

There must have been a growing expectancy among the Magi as the years passed by. These Magi must have been watchful since the prophecy was originally given through one of “their own” many years before. Remember that a large Jewish community continued to exist in Babylon and Persia down through the centuries. They would have cherished Daniel’s prophecies and kept alive their hope.

Some have also suggested that one of the functions of the Magi was in the role of king-makers. It was they who went through the ritual of crowning new kings in Babylon and Persia. This would also shed light on their desire to encounter the “King of the Jews” and to “worship him” (Mt. 2:2).

Now, what exactly was that “star” that led them? Come back tomorrow!

Time to break out those Christmas devotionals! Here is a 3 parter on the Magi.

The visit of the magi to the Child-Messiah, recorded in Matt 2:1-12, is one of the most familiar biblical scenes to most Christians.The perception of this event has been unfortunately marred by a large number of popular misconceptions. Some of these derive from the popular song, “We Three Kings of Orient Are.” Consider the following list of erroneous assumptions about the magi:

1. They were three in number.

2. They were kings.

3. They were from the Orient (i.e, the Far East).

4. They were named Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar.

5. One of them was a black man.

6. They visited the baby Jesus in a stable.

7. They followed an astrological or astronomical phenomenon to Bethlehem.

All of these ideas compose what might be called the mythology of the magi. Some of the misconceptions can be corrected by simply reading Matt 2:1-12. Others can be dispelled by a logical reading of the text giving attention to its Jewish background.

The idea that there were three kings named Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar dates from medieval times, as well as the idea that one of them was black. No number of magi is mentioned by Matthew, but the fact that they presented three different types of gifts (“gold, and frankincense, and myrrh” in 2:11) probably gave rise to the traditional number.

Also, they are not called kings, but magi — a special caste of religious men in Persia which we will examine later. Matt 2:1-2 says that they were from “the east.” In modern times we might think of lands like the Far East, but that is not the way the term was used in biblical language. The “east” was the region beyond the Euphrates River. This would be the area of ancient Persia — today, the countries of Iran and eastern Iraq. This would also argue against the idea that one of them was black, although this is remotely possible if one of them came from as far as India. Their names, of course, are purely traditional.

Far more prevalent is the idea, perpetuated by millions of nativity scenes, that the magi were present with their camels along with the shepherds at the manger of the baby Jesus. This idea conflates Matthew with Luke’s account, particularly Luke 2:15-20, and is refuted by statements in Matt 2:1-16. First, we read in Matt 2:1, “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem.” Furthermore, Matt 2:11 states, “And going into the house (not a stable), they saw the child … (paidion in Greek, not brephos, the word for ‘infant’ in Lk. 2:12, 16).” Jesus could have been as much as two years old, since Herod ordered all the boys from two and under to be killed (Mt. 2:7, 16). Whatever age Jesus was at this time, He was definitely not a baby in a manger. He was a young child living with his parents in Bethlehem before their flight into Egypt (Matt. 2:13-15).

Some think that the magi were astrologers who had discerned through their stargazing that the sign of a Jewish king had appeared and that he had been born somewhere in Israel. While the magi may have engaged in some form of astrology, it is difficult to comprehend how God would communicate His will through a means He had so strongly condemned (Deut. 18:9-14; Isa. 47:12-14). If we allow for such a method of divine communication, how can we condemn the utilization of astrology for fortune telling today? Others suggest that the magi had observed some unique astronomical phenomenon — a comet, a supernova, or a planetary conjunction. The astronomer Kepler observed in 1603 A.D. an unusual conjunction of planets and found that in 6 B.C. there had been an unusual conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. Therefore, Kepler placed the nativity of Jesus at that time. Although this explanation has satisfied many, it does not explain the fact that the magi referred to “his star” (Matt 2:2). Furthermore, it is difficult to comprehend how such an astronomical phenomenon could have moved to Bethlehem and how it “went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was” (Matt 2:9). If a comet or meteor had performed that feat, there would have been no house or town remaining from the heat!

Having evaluated some myths surrounding these interesting visitors, what can be concluded about their identity and their knowledge about the promised Jewish king? Furthermore, what was the nature of that wondrous “star” which prompted their long journey? There is no necessity to look beyond the sacred Hebrew Scriptures for a correct understanding of Matthew 2:1-11.

The next few days we will look at those Scriptures for some answers to these questions. Stay tuned!