740
December 1928
T h e
K i n g ' s
B u s i n e s s
What Occurred on Dec. 25? On what day of the month was Christ born ? We wish to present a view which we believe worthy of consideration-. Tradition says Jesus circumcised 8th day of Feast of Tabernacles. We know the first day fell on month of Tishri, the 15th (our Sept. 29th). (See Lev. 23:33-43; cf. Luke 2 :1-24.) His birth was revealed to the shep herds 8 days before His circumcision. Work back 9 months from Sept. 29th and it brings you to Dec. 25th the previous-year. It looks as if the anniversary of the miracle of the virgin birth fell on Dec. 25th. It is signifi cant that our New Testament places the great emphasis upon the day of the virgin conception, not on the actual birth date. Is that not where the emphasis should be put? It marked the time when the Second Person of the Trinity, by the act of the Holy Spirit, took lodging in the womb of Mary. Read Mt. 1 :18-23 and note that in v. 18, “Now the birth of Jesus Was on this wise”—the word rendered “birth” is literally “b e g e t t i n g The‘point is that the bepettmg o f Jesus was in contrast to the beget ting of all other kings of Israel. He had no human father. It is only recently that this line of evidence has been noticed by Bible students and some of course still take, the old position that there is no warrant for the Dec. 25th date. But why was it that from very early times, Sept. 29th was kept as “Michaelmas day” (festival of Michael and all angels). The church has lost sight,of the reason. Suppose it was the day Jesus was born! Lk. 2:9 tells us at His birth “the angel of the Lord came upon them.” His conception was, announced by Gabriel (Lk. 1:19, 26-28) but the announcement that the Prince of Peace was on earth would naturally be made by the head of the heavenly host who is designated in Scripture as Michael (Jude 9; Dan. 12:1). May that not throw some light upon the meaning of Michaelmas day and the fact that it has always been kept upon Sept. - 29 th ? Is it not striking, to say the least, that it is exactly 9 months between Dec. 25th and Sept. 29th the following year? The fact that there was a pagan feast kept on Dec. 25th long before Christ’s birth would not be sufficient reason to reject the date.. From the standpoint of the shepherds being in the fields and the long journey to Bethlehem to see the child, Dec. 25th has seemed an impossible date for the birth. The Roman government would not be likely to enforce a census at such an inconvenient season. But what of the Autumn time ? The crops were in and the people at lib erty to gpi and register; That would seem the opportune time for the decree. Would it not be appropriate for Jesus to have been horn on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sept. 29) and circumcised the eighth day ( “the great day of the feast”:—Jn. 7 :37) ? In John 1 :14 we read that the “Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us.” We do not attempt to lay this down as final but offer it to our readers for consideration. The writer has not as yet discovered anything out of harmony with this theory.
Concerning Isa. 7:14 To F. F. Our correspondent asks if there is ground, either grammatical, historical or logical,' for doubt as to Isa.' 7 :14 having reference to the miraculous con ception and nativity of Jesus Christ? We believe it a most signal and explicit prediction of the Saviour’s birth. This “sign” -Spoken of in this passage suited the time of backsliding and apostasy.: It told the house of David that, wearying God as they were doing, He would vindi cate His cause in a way they little expected or desired— that He would secure the establishment of His covenant by raising up a child in whom the divine should actually co-mingle with the human, but that this child should be the offspring of an unknown virgin, not of Ahaz or any ordinary occupant of the throne. Before He should come, everything should go to desolation and ruin, first in thé allied kingdoms of Israel and Syria (v. 16), later in Judah (17-25), so that when He came He should find them in a scattered and prostrate condition. Was Jesus God or God-like? One of our^Meaders gives us the following translation of Phil. 2:6: “Christ Jesus, who, though being in God’s . form, yet did not meditate a usurpation to be like God.” From this rendering she derives the impression that Jesus Christ could not have been God when He was upon this earth, but that He was merely God-like. A simple translation of the above is as follows: He did not deem His being on equality with God a thing to be retained as a prize. The meaning is that He did not con sider His dignity as the infinite Son of God a thing to which He must cling for fear He would lose it if He be came man and died for us. Therefore, He laid aside the outward glorious form of deity which He was seen to resume for a moment in the Mount of Transfiguration. This does not mean that as God He undeified Himself, for He retained His miraculous powers and often mani fested omnipotence and omniscience. He did not lay off His sovereign authority for He rebuked both man and demons. We can account neither for His character nor works apart from His claims to deity. Even His death was supernatural. Deity alone could not be a mediator between sinful man and God, nor could humanity alone fulfil this office. The very nature of the office implies two parties and full sympathy with both. None but the .God-man could pos sibly be a true mediator. The Scripture teaching is that “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.;V?| Christ-Revealing “Let us not forget,” said a leading New York Rabbi, this year speaking of his own people, the Jews, “that we are a Christ-producing race.” Let us Christians not for get that our Lord expects us to be a Christ-revealing race.
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker