Why were the Wise Men Wise?

Where Is He?

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him." 

Mt.2:1,2

Always intriguing, is the account of the men referred to as Wise Men or Magi in the passage cited above. We do not know much about these men (IT DOES NOT SAY THERE WERE THREE OF THEM)but being listed as Magi (Magus), these were  philosophers, priests, or astronomers of the day. They lived chiefly in Persia and Arabia and were the learned men of the Eastern nations devoted to astronomy, religion, and to medicine. They were held in high esteem by the Persian court, were admitted as counselors, and followed the camps in war to give advice. Daniel the prophet was such a person in both the Babylonian and Persian Courts some 167 years before Jesus. If indeed they came from this region, then they traveled many miles from the Far East to the Middle East and at great expense to find Jesus.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which is just six miles from Jerusalem. At the time of Jesus’ birth, all kinds of spiritual activity was taking place in Jerusalem. All of the major religious leaders of the world were in Jerusalem, but none of them were seeking Jesus. Herod, self and Roman proclaimed "King of the Jews," wasn't even aware of Jesus until the Magi came.  Many others of noted prominence were there at the time Jesus was born, many traveling to their homelands for the taxation, yet none were aware of Jesus. No one even noticed "His star" except the Magi. Why? Because the Wise Men were looking for Jesus. They were willing to make a four to five-month trip across a hot desert to find Jesus. So noted was the event to them and the occurrence of the celestial dance, that they were willing to do whatever it took to find him and as the text states "worship Him."

Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a pearl that is so valuable we will sell everything we have to get it (Mt.13:46). It seems the Wise Men from the East understood this long before Jesus ever spoke the parable. They were willing to give up everything they had to come and worship Jesus, who at the time of their arrival was only a toddler. They were willing to give up the comforts of their homes for a long, tough journey because they WANTED to worship him.

If these men thought it worthy of note, that even the heavens pointed to Jesus to come and find Him, then shouldn't we take note of this too? I find it interesting at how virtual strangers would give up so much to go find someone they didn't even know, because they knew He was "born King of the Jews."

What would you give up in order to come worship Jesus?  What holds you back from seeking  a relationship with Jesus so valuable that it’s worth giving up everything for?  Maybe it is time for you to start your journey.

Jim

Laodecia - What Can A Walk Through History Teach Us?

So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."

Rev.3:16

Laodecia. A name today that with many acquainted with the Bible conjures feelings of nausea and displeasure. This is largely in part due to the statement in Revelation, that God was threatening to "spew them out of His mouth.," had they not heeded what He was saying.  Yet, as we were playing a "Bible" game the other night, Laodecia was one of the cities on the game board and it invoked me to write about this city in today's blog. 

Laodecia was a common name back in the days following the Persian Empire. There were

several daughters named this, and with that several cities that had the distinction of having this name - all in different areas. We have the privilege of knowing which city is being referred to in our instance in Revelation, because it states that it was in what was then called Asia (properly Asia Minor). It was located in the Lycos valley of what is now modern day Turkey, in the province of Phrygia  (Rev.1:11).  In the days following Persia, it was distinguished from the other cities by the designation "Ad Lycum." Prior to this the city was known as Diospoilis, or "city of Zeus." It also bore the name Rhodas at one point and finally named Laodecia. It did not gain any prominence until  the early 200's  BC, when Achaeus was its king. Until then, it was a city that just passed from one kingdom and ruler to another in very insignificant ways. Antiochus II (261-246 BC) of Syria came to power during this time, and in the process married a woman bearing the name Laodice, whom he then name this city after. They had  two sons: Seleucus II Callinicus, Antiochus Hierax and three daughters: Apama, Stratonice of Cappadocia and Laodice.  He inherited a state of war with Ptolemaic Egypt, the "Second Syrian War", which was fought along the coasts of Asia Minor. During the war he was given the title Theos (Greek: "God"), being such to the Milesians in slaying Timarchus. The tragedy  of the war reads like a soap opera, where to bring truce and end to the war, he signs a pact with Ptolemy II Philadelphius. Part of this pact was that he had to take Ptolemy's daughter Bernice as wife and to do so he had to depose and exile Laodice to Ephesus. Around 246 BC Antiochus left Berenice and their infant son Antiochus in Antioch to live again with Laodice I in Asia Minor. However,  Laodice I took the occasion to poison Antiochus while her partisans at Antioch murdered Berenice and their infant son. Antiochus. She then proclaims Seleucus II as King.

Amidst all of the human intrigue, the city grew. It became populated with Syrian and Jewish people who were transplanted from Babylonia to the cities of Phrygia and Lydia. In 190 BC.it became center of industry, famous specially for the black wool of its sheep and for the Phrygian cosmetic powder for the eyes manufactured there ( Rev.3:18). In 60 AD, the city was almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake, but the citizens were so wealthy that they quickly rebuilt it at their own expense (Rev.3:17).  Little is known of the early history of Christianity there; Timothy, Mark and Epaphras (Col.1:7) seem to have been the first to introduce it and the only other reference to it is in the Revelation. After the first century in 1071 the city was taken by the Seljuks; in 1119 it was recovered by John Comnenus, and in the 13th century it falls into the hands of the Turks. Wars between the Turks and Mongols have left little archaeologically. Nothing from before the Roman period has appeared. One of the two Roman theaters is remarkably well preserved, and there may still be seen the stadium, a colonnade, the aqueduct which brought the water across the valley to the city by an inverted siphon of stone pipes, a large necropolis, and the ruins of three early Christian churches.

So, how does all of this play out for what the Revelation says? It is obvious what happens to the city as it like Sodom and Gomorrah are virtually disappeared from existence. I believe it has a great deal to teach us about the vaunting of human pride and dangers of thinking of yourself above others. It definitely teaches us of the dangers of seeking any of these above the mercy and ways of God. Perhaps along with the warning of the Revelation, the words of Proverbs 3 applies here. "The wise will inherit honor, but fools get disgrace."

Jim

Whining In The Modern World - Christian or NOT!

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?  And "If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?" Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.  

1  Pt. 4:12-19

Suffering is a word with different connotations to different people. To many, it is the ache and pain that comes with death. For the party on the receiving end as well as for those who care for them, death is a painful thing. Those going through it suffer its pains, those who care the pain of seeing the one they love hurt and ultimately die. Disease can cause suffering and pain as well. Cancer, arthritis, skin disease, all have their hurts. No one disputes this.  Suffering can also be caused by economic status, race, in  instances whether one is make or female and the age long debate over those in poverty.

What I find interesting in Peter's statement above, is that it shows us that suffering existed in his day too. What is interesting in Peter's statement is that it is Christians who were suffering. He does not dismiss the fact that they were suffering. What he does tell us is the following:

1. To share (i.e. suffer in the same way) in suffering in the way that Jesus did, a Christian should consider themselves blessed because one cannot do so unless the Spirit of God rests upon and in them. To die for your faith and because Christ is seen in you is a glory to God and God in turn will bring glory to us in turn - and heaven is our reward.
2. To have oppression, slander, shame, to receive degraded status because we are Christians should not be a shameful thing to us. There is nothing wrong with it. We are not greater than Jesus who taught us that the world hates us. We are not greater than the apostles who died at the hands of others, simply because they preached the glory of God in Christ. They did not rise up in arms, lead riots, cause insurrections or stir up mobs. They simply lived as they should in Christ. The lesson for us is that we should do the same! 
3. Peter does tell us that to call yourself a Christian, or even in imitation of being a
   
   Christian and yet suffer because you commit murder, or steal then you are not suffering because or for righteousness but for the evil done. The next two words are also genuinely unique in where they are placed. Evildoer is the next word and is used a myriad of ways in scriptural context. Predominately from two words combined to describe a single thing. Kakos - is something worthless, depraved or injurious whether by itself or done to someone. Poieo - means to make, do, or to raise up. So put together in this text it is referring to someone suffering because they have done or made something evil or injurious. If this is the cause of the suffering, it is not for righteousness but because of the evil done. The next word here is curious, it is that of a meddler in others affairs. If you suffer because of what you say about others, or involve yourself in that you should not, you are not suffering because of righteousness no matter how much you try to excuse it. You are suffering for getting caught doing something that you should not be involved in or contributing to.

So what's the point to Peter's descriptions here?  That judgment starts in the house of God! We speak of judgement of the world, but let us not forget, that it starts with us! Peter's moral echoes Paul's quote from the Psalms (14 & 53) that there are NONE righteous. If we are saved, it shall only be by the grace of God that it is so. And if this the case and you are "suffering," make sure that you are suffering for what is right, because everything else is just whining!

“Sister, there are people who went to sleep all over the world last night, poor and rich and white and black, but they will never wake again. Sister, those who expected to rise did not, their beds became their cooling boards, and their blankets became their winding sheets. And those dead folks would give anything, anything at all for just five minutes of this weather or ten minutes of that plowing that person was grumbling about. So you watch yourself about complaining, Sister. What you're supposed to do when you don't like a thing is change it. If you can't change it, change the way you think about it. Don't complain.” 

 Maya Angelou

Wouldn't Take Nothing for My Journey Now

UNITY - What Jesus SAID!!

" A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.  By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." 

Jn.13:35,36

This is what Jesus said.  To add anything to this, or to take anything away from it is wrong. Period.  It is the hallmark of what it means to be HIS follower. Love One Another!  The word LOVE here is agape....best defined as "love as God loves." So, this begs a question for Christians in their behaviors toward one another, are we loving each other as God loves us? Does our words, behavior, actions, show that love? If not, we are missing the mark! Wait...isn't that called sin? Missing the mark? 

Now, let's get a little definitive. Love one another as Jesus states this here is the same as  "Love the brotherhood" (1 Pt.2:17, see also 1 Pt.3:8; 1 Jn.3:16). Admittedly, the first question is what define's a "brother." Answer? ANYONE who "believes and is baptized shall be saved (Mk.16:15,16)." is my brother, regardless of whether we see everything eye to eye. A brother or sister may be erring, but that does not make them NOT a brother or sister and does not cancel out anything with regard to the way that I am to act toward or treat them.  I may not agree with them, I may not even be able to worship with them, but they are still my brother or sister. The name over the door does not matter with regard to that. Family is family, even if or when estranged. 

If I understand Jesus correctly in the parable of the Good Samaritan, I am to consider everyone as a brother. So, that defines my actions, words and demeanor towards all people. Yet, there seems to be more emphasis to those who have put on Christ in baptism. Yet, the question comes up, "the bible says to withdraw yourself from brethren who sin." Many have not studied what this means and take the traditional religious "Amish" view of this to "cut off, shut out, shun" people. Yes, the Bible teaches to "mark" brethren for teaching a false doctrine, behaving seditiously, and to withdraw from brethren under certain situations.  What people fail to apply here is that this in no way is an authorization for ME to behave "badly" and use Biblical Authority as an excuse to do so. So the question to ask with Jn.13 as our model, is "Would God behave, act, say the way that I am getting ready to, toward this person?" If the answer is no....then you better NOT! 

Please do not misunderstand. This and this commandment is not a carte blanche to just lovingly accept anything that claims a sense of being godly. Sin is sin and I am not to support it or condone its behavior. But be careful in taking a stance against sin, that the Devil does not cause you to sin. When do we have the tendency to sin the most?  With family or in situations where I let my guard down. Where family dynamics introduces different thoughts, behaviors, and words. What is interesting to me, is while the Prodigal Elder Brother wanted to "write off" the younger brother, the Father reminded him, that the Prodigal son was still a son, and thus still the Elder brother's brother.

Complicated isn't it?  The next several articles will follow this theme and we will discover more about the idea of what God means by UNITY!

Jim

You DON'T Want to See!

It is interesting in study of the scriptures to notice when things begin and the consequences of those things.  It is the story of humanity, and the great revealer of the grace and mercy of God.  To say as Paul quote, "There is none righteous, no not one" a quote even from the days of David (Psa.14:3; 53:3), you can understand when you look at the purity of God versus the humanity of man. 

What started out described and implemented by God in the Law of Moses as a good thing, winds up being even before the cross to the promised land, a corrupted thing. yet, during the First Temple period it remains reasonably sound and mostly what God wants. However, while the efforts of Ezra and Nehemiah are notable, noble, and commissioned by God, the Priesthood never resumes its full status. The scripture while a standard is trumped by "circumstances of life."  The Jewish people were not "their own" and from the Babylonian Captivity forward are always subjugated and occupied - subject to the whims of those who ruled over them. Such, was the priesthood, especially the High Priest.

In the era of the Maccabees, following the re-dedication of the temple, there was a division in the ranks over the question of whether to continue fighting or not. When the revolt began it was seen as a war for religious freedom to end the oppression of the Seleucids. The Maccabees wanted to continue the revolt and conquer other lands with Jewish populations. When Judah Maccabee died in battle in 160 BC he was succeeded by his younger brother, Jonathan, was already High Priest, but the dynasty was established and from that point forward the High Priest's role was more political than religious. Independent Hasmonean

Burial Ossuary of Joseph ben Caiaphas
High Priest in the time of Christ

rule lasted until 63 BC, when the Roman general Pompeus intervened in Hasmonean civil war, making it a client kingdom of Rome. The Hasmonean dynasty ended in 37 BC when the Idumean Herod the Great became king of Israel, designated "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate, effectively transforming the Hasmonean Kingdom into Herodian Kingdom – a client kingdom of Rome. Annas, the Father-in-law of Caiaphas the High Priest at the time of Jesus, was chosen to the high priesthood by Quirinius, the imperial governor of Syria; obliged to give way to Ismael by Valerius Gratus, procurator of Judaea, in the beginning of Tiberius' reign, 14 A.D. Eleazar, the son of Annas, followed Ismael; then Simon; then Joseph Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas (John 18:13).

What is the point of all of this? Well, in our study we have been looking at coming up - the trials of Jesus and how illegal things were handled and were about the whole deal. Even non-Jews and non-Christians have commented about the illegality of it all. Yet, the whole incident shows us several things about humanity:

• When a society is based upon corruption, that corruption will eventually rise and feed upon itself until it is destroyed.
• When people act based upon covetousness, nothing is illegal, even when the act itself is illegal.
• One should not expect fairness, from a society and system that is corrupt.

The teaching of Jesus becomes paramount in his final days because there is no greater injustice than His crucifixion. An innocent man dies, all because men think only of themselves more than their brother (Mt.22:37-40) or God. These men that were High Priests, served themselves, their own glory and power. God's word had only a superficial place to elevate them in the eyes of others. The will of God had no place in their lives.

Before we do a lot of condemning here though - go look in your bathroom mirror. You're liable to see a reflection of yourself that you don't like (Jas.1:22-25).

Jim

Dayenu

No, Jim’s not going mad.  Dayenu is a song that is part of the Jewish holiday of Passover.

The word "Dayenu" means approximately, "it would have been enough for us", "it would have been sufficient", or "it would have sufficed" (day in Hebrew is "enough", and -enu the first person plural suffix, "to us"). This traditional up-beat Passover song is over one thousand years old, but the tradition goes back even further than that. Some have even suggested that this is a song of the captivity, sung when the Jews were able to return to their homeland under Ezra.  

Dayenu has 15 stanzas representing the 15 gifts God bestowed. The first five involve freeing the Jews from slavery, the next describe the miracles he did for them, and the last five for the closeness to God he gave them. After each of the stanza, it is followed by singing the word "Dayenu" (it would have been enough) repeatedly in between stanzas. 

Jesus would have sung this song.

The song is about being grateful to God for all of the gifts he gave the Jewish people, such as taking them out of slavery, giving them the Torah (Law) and Shabbat(the Sabbath), and had God only given one of the gifts, it would have still been enough. This is to show much greater appreciation for all of them as a whole.  I understand the “blanch” that some take toward the OLD LAW, that it was done away with, and we’re not bound by it anymore. But, we do not need to throw the baby out with the bath water. There is a good concept taught in this song, which as we stated before Jesus would have sung with His family, friends, and His disciples as part of the Passover observance.

Some have suggested that this was the song sung in 

Mt.26:30 before they went to the Mount of Olives.

• Whether it was the song of Matt.26 or not, the point is - are we grateful for what God has done through Jesus to restore us unto fellowship to Him?  Dayenu!  
• Is realizing that God has given us yet one more day of life enough? Dayenu! 
• That you have food today and clothes on your back and shelter over you enough? Dayenu!  
• That we have the Church, the body of Christ with all of its flawed people and knowing that Christ died to make this possible enough? Dayenu! 

In this modern world of bigger is better, and more – more – more, where is Dayenu in our lives?

 “Was there no one found to return and to recognize and give thanks and praise to God except this foreigner ?”

Luke 17:18

Jim

"So what if He is?"

The last article, ended with the question of whether you believe the accounts given where Jesus did the things He claimed.  Because if He did as He claimed, then there is NO comparison to any of the others - He IS the One and there is NO other. Yet, this poses another question, "So what if He is?" 

It is curious to me, at the ambivalence of many in today's society, that have no care whether there is a God, or whether there should be any attention paid to the fact that if there is a God then what does that mean for us?  Yet, this is not a new question. Pharaoh of the Exodus asked the same question, "Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice...?" Here is something to consider in this question, posture, and attitude.

• While it is phrased in the form of a question, it is the expression of an attitude and a disposition. While many see nothing wrong with it here is something to consider. When you disregard respect for something, you also disregard the rights and wishes of the people that do believe there is a God. This is a prevailing attitude among people today. 
• Enamored over the "rights" or "entitlements" of the mass opinion, what does it matter if there are those who want to listen to God's voice? If I don't have to listen to God, then why should I grant you any feeling or respect that you should? Ergo, This was seen in the incidence in Exodus, as well as it was seen in Rome, Nazi Germany, and other such establishments that adopt the same proud attitude. 

 "So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause."

Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman) in

 "Star Wars III: The Revenge of the Sith

Here is the quandary. When we do not accept righteousness, when we do not accept the authority of the God who asks for that righteousness, what is left?  Well, man becomes "a law unto himself." Not necessarily a bad thing until someone comes along and says, "Why should I listen to you?" Everyone likes throwing God off, until evil and cruelty reign. Yet, this is the child of an attitude where we men "set his mouth against the heavens" (Psa_73:9), and "exalted himself above all that is called God" (2Th.2:4). 

When men exalt themselves, it is to their own destruction. When men say "it is

unsinkable" they are proven wrong. When men say "we can do it ourselves" they are proven wrong just like children and toddlers. Without guidance to proper and productive behavior, man CANNOT direct his own steps (Jer.10:23). 

The truth?  There is NOTHING to compel you to listen to, follow, or even admit that God is real. There is NOTHING to compel you to believe that Jesus is the Christ. But...you DO have a choice!  

• Door #1 - Believe God, follow God and understand an opportunity to live for eternity awaits you (Jn.3:16)  
• Door #2 - Deny there is a God, live the way you like, think only of yourself and understand the path of  destruction that awaits you and your descendants if you do.

Choose wisely!

Jim

Was Jesus Made Divine By Humans - Part 5 Did Jesus Ever Claim to be Divine?

The question under consideration for this article, is whether the Messiah was ever promised to be Divine, and if Jesus is the Messiah, whether He ever claimed to be Divine?  Psalm 110 spoke initially to this as we have seen in the previous post. It was God Himself, that said that the Messiah would "Sit at His Right Hand." Yet, there is another prophesy that speaks to this and introduces one called the "Son of Man" coming to the Ancient of Days (God) and being given an eternal Kingdom made up of all nations. Of course, this is the prophesy of Dan.7:13,14.

This also reflects visions of David in Psa.2:6,7 "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."  Here the Messiah is:

• Set by God upon the throne of His Kingdom
• Declared by God to be His  "Son"
• Is described as the "begotten" of  God.

We have seen that Jesus was not made Divine by Humans, but now the question arises as to whether Jesus ever claimed to be Divine? The Psalms and Daniel very definitely state that the Messiah is one instilled by God and one whom God calls "His Son." Daniel's "Son of Man" is recognized by scholars Jewish and otherwise, to be the Messiah. Even the Samaritan in John 4 said that this was taught to her by her circles (John 4). Notice her statement, "The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias comes, which is called  Christ: when he is come, he  will tell us all things.(Jn.4:25)." What you specifically want to notice here is Jesus' response in vs.26, "Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he."(vs.26)  Jesus DEFINITELY stated here, that He is the Messiah that was to come. That was the way that SHE understood it.

Messiah is one thing, but Divine?

Yet, to many, it is one thing to claim to be the Messiah, and another to claim to be divine. The next article will focus Messiahs, and what set Jesus apart in a world that had them then, and even has them now. But for this article, the question is whether Jesus ever claimed to be Divine? 

The first question to ask ourselves here, is what does it mean to claim to be divine? One can be sent by God and called an Angel, Messenger, Prophet, Evangelist. Yet, to refer to oneself as Divine, means to place oneself in God's realm, to say that you are God. A statement that threw the Jewish leadership into a violent tizzy in Jesus' day is in Jn 8:56-58. Jesus here made the statement, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."  They then wondered how Jesus who hadn't even turned 50 years old, could have seen Abraham who had died some 2500 years before Jesus was even born. Jesus then makes a very remarkable statement, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." There are a couple of of interesting things in this statement that we need to observe:

• "Before Abraham Was" - is an obvious statement that before Abraham existed. Before 2500 years ago.  That is a statement!
• "I Am" - in Greek is "ego emi" It is a simple statement, yet for the audience familiar with the Old Testament it is the same statement found in Ex.3:14. The Jewish audience understood it this way to. I AM is "I Exist" - it is the name of God.
• What is interesting, is the audience's hostile reaction to the statement that Jesus makes. They regarded Jesus' statement as blasphemous. What is blasphemy? To speak profanely about God (i.e., curse God), or to claim to be God. 

The Healed Blind Man

Now the question, is there any other evidence that Jesus claimed to be divine outside of this verse? It is clear that the apostles themselves understood him to be or thought that he was. Yet, there is another instance in John 9:33-37. Jesus healed a blind man who was chided by the Jewish authority for stating simply that Jesus was From God. After they cast him out of the hearing, Jesus found him. He asked a simple question, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" This is definitely an allusion to the Psalms and Daniel that we had seen previously. The man answered, "Who is he, Lord,  that I might believe on him?"  Jesus answers, "You  have both seen him, and it is he that talks with you."

Thomas' Explicative

After the Resurrection, Thomas (called doubting Thomas by history) says that he will not believe that Jesus is risen until he can touch him, touch the wounds and prove that it is him. When he does, his statement is explication! John 20:28 "My Lord and My God."  Thomas states that he no longer doubted, Jesus was the Son of God!

The Father and The Holy Spirit

The Father and the Spirit state such in Mt.3:17, Lk.2:10; 3:21. 

Yet, Jesus Himself stated it best,  'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead (Lk.16:31).'  You either believe based upon the evidence or you don't. What does the evidence say to you?  If Jesus is Divine as He claims and you give your life to Him, then eternal life is what He promises you in turn, and the only thing you have to lose is not living a worldly sinful life. If you choose not to believe? Well, that is up to you. Are you willing to live with the consequences if your choice is wrong?

Jim