Tenth article in the series “With Good Reason”
by Keith Bassham
The Christmas story is a fitting conclusion to the apologetics series, for in that story I see at least four apologetic strains of thought, ribbons if you will, that will tie up a package.
First, there is the prophetic ribbon. When Jesus came, he was expected, at least by some. For instance, take the story of the wise men in Matthew 2:1-6:
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
Two things stand out here. First, something triggered this expedition from the East by these “wise men,” (magi, a person akin to a combination of a priest and astronomer), and that something is often thought to have been the Hebrew scriptures introduced into Babylon during the time of the prophet Daniel. That and the sign in the sky (the “star”) prompted them to make their way toward Judea. The second thing that stands out about this text has to do with Herod’s inquiry of the scribes, who themselves turn to the prophet Micah, chapter five and verse two, that describes the birthplace of the coming King as Bethlehem — written 700 years before the birth of Jesus Christ.
Other prophecies concerning the birth of Jesus designate him as a member of the Israelite tribe of Judah, a descendant of King David, whose coming would cause great sorrow among “the daughters of Rachel” (this has to do with Herod’s slaughter of the infants), and a temporary stay in Egypt shortly after his birth.
Of course, other prophecies about his life and ministry are also numerous, but take just the ones having to do with the birth of Jesus. To nail the birthplace alone 700 years before the event — and not merely the nation, but the precise village — has to be more than coincidence, but the knowledge to specify those other details at the same time requires supernatural insight, a word from God.
But, if he was expected, and the prophets did tell about him ahead of time, why was he rejected and eventually executed? Actually, that rejection is also foretold in the Old Testament as well. However, there were some who both expected him and gladly welcomed him. In Luke 2, Joseph and Mary are presenting the newborn Jesus in Jerusalem and in verses 25-32 we read,
And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same mahave seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
No doubt there were many other devout souls who were delighted to know the Son of God had come into the world.
The second ribbon on the package is reality. Jesus was born in real time and space. Both Matthew and Luke give us historic context. We are not expected to believe that Jesus came into the world as some sort of legend. Joseph and Mary and Zacharias and Elizabeth and Simeon and Caesar and Herod and Quirinius (Cyrenius) are real people, and Bethlehem and Jerusalem and Nazareth are real places, and all these events happened in real time.
Ironically, it is on this subject, time, where Luke’s story runs into difficulty (hey, we’re doing apologetics, remember). For one thing, historians can’t find a record of a universal decree matching the one Luke describes in his gospel. Likewise, on the surface it looks like he may have gotten the timing wrong on the Cyrenius and Syria business.
In Luke’s defense I will say this. His gospel was written not long after the events he describes, and he does say in the opening that he had a good knowledge of the events and persons involved, so I am going to assume a couple of things. For one, he couldn’t be making things up because there were people still around who would know better. Two, just because it appears he got some timing or a person’s title wrong does not make it so. I can remember reading a text that said Moses could not have written Genesis or any of the other books of Moses because writing had not yet been invented. I also read somewhere that Genesis was wrong because it said Abraham had camels and camels had not been domesticated in Abraham’s time. And for a long time no archeological evidence existed for Hittites, or for the monarchy of David, or even Philistines — outside the Bible, of course. And yet, in all these circumstances, eventually archeology provided independent witness to the facts as presented in the Bible.
So what is the truth? We do know that Augustus did authorize a number of censuses (that is the meaning of the “taxed” here), and there may not have been a single over-arching decree as we would understand it, but such a census was definitely his policy and consistent with what we know of him. On the timing related to Cyrenius, there may be a problem or there may not. Again, it may depend on the way we read the text, how rulers are designated, grammar issues…I’ve seen all sorts of explanations. The bottom line is this: though there may be some difficulties and objections, there are solutions, and given the history of archeology, the ultimate solution may be in some long-buried room waiting to be discovered. Until then, I’m inclined to give Luke the benefit of the doubt.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Luke was off. Far from it. But say that he was. Does that really invalidate everything else in his gospel, or in the rest of the New Testament? Scholars may really want to quibble about decrees and obscure artifacts, but certainly the person sharing your office does not. However, it would give the unbelieving world great comfort if they could use a technicality in one part of a Bible reading to reject something else far more important. For instance, if Luke is off on the name of a Syrian ruler, perhaps nothing he says should be taken seriously. If there is no decree from Caesar Augustus, then perhaps there is no virgin birth, nothing special about Jesus other than he had a more spiritual way of looking at things than most people. And, if we can fault Luke in chronology, then maybe there’s nothing in that story about the rich man burning in hell either. You can see how people might want to think such things.
Thus the importance of Christmas apologetics. Jesus, a real person, was born in real time and space.
The third apologetic ribbon has to do with the purpose of Jesus coming, and you might notice I’ve used that phrase a few times in place of “birth” or “being born.” One of the great theological truths of the Bible is that Jesus did not begin to exist in Bethlehem about 2,100 years ago, but that he came. Hear his words to Pontius Pilate (another real person in space and time) in John 18:37: “Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.”
And read these words from his prayer in John 17:
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (verse 3)
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (verse 5)
As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. (verse 18)
…for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. (verse 24)
Jesus was not merely born as you and I were. He obviously existed and had a relationship with the Father before his fleshly introduction into the world in Bethlehem. If anyone has ever asked the question, “Why does the doctrine of the Trinity matter?” you may want to start here. More than 40 times in John’s gospel, Jesus refers to himself as being sent, and in one of the most-loved passages in the entire Bible, the sending is there:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
And why was he sent, for what purpose did he come? He answers the question himself in Luke 19:10: “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
Placing those two texts together (John 3:16 and Luke 19:10), we see that God has commissioned and sent His Son into the world to be born as a man, and dying as a man on the cross, he provided a way of salvation to all those who believe on him.
There are many things that Jesus did do, and many things he could have done, but there was one thing he had to do, and that was the purpose for which he came. His teachings, his example, his compassion — all are described in detail in the four gospels and commented upon in the other New Testament texts, but the acts of Jesus which receive the spotlight are his death and resurrection.
The last ribbon on the apologetic Christmas package is the world stage these last 2,000 years.
Several years ago, the late D. James Kennedy wrote an article (and a book) describing the world if Jesus had not come. Recalling how George Bailey saw what impact his existence had, and what his non-existence implied in It’s a Wonderful Life, he said,
But what if Jesus had never been born? What difference would it have made if a Bethlehem stable had never served as a makeshift delivery room? A great deal. Jesus, the greatest man who ever lived, has changed virtually every aspect of human life. Much of what we take for granted — our high regard for human life, the elevation of women, education, science, charity, hospitals, capitalism, the abolition of slavery, representative government, literacy, and the development of art and music — all find their roots in Christ and His teachings.
As we began this series early in the year, I mentioned the writing of new atheists who not only say there is no God, but that believing in God is actually hurtful, and in the minds of some, dangerous and wicked. (You will also remember that we wondered then how you can deem some things good and some things evil without some form of moral authority such as God.) They often point out the foibles and faults of theists — religious wars, persecutions, hypocrisies, and even terrorist acts in the name of God. And much of the time, their harshest criticism comes down on Christianity.
Kennedy’s work, What if Jesus Had Never Been Born, answers those critics. In the West, nearly all hospitals, orphanages, educational institutions, and other such works were begun by Christians as acts of charity. In politics, science, and philosophy, Christians have historically been important figures. These facts do not prove the reality of God or the truth of Christianity, but, as Kennedy points out, it is truth that…
…the message of Jesus has brought transformation and incalculable benefit to our temporal existence.
But as wonderful as Christ’s profound impact on this world is, it is his transforming power in the lives of countless individuals down through time that is far greater still. The benefits in time of the Christian faith are far outweighed by the wonder of what He has done in providing eternal salvation to all who, by grace, place their faith in Him. Truly, Jesus Christ is a Savior to be celebrated in both time and eternity.
The Baptist Bible Tribune wishes all our readers a very blessed and merry Christmas, with good reason.