THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRISTTHE UNTOLD STORY
PART ONE:
THE CHILDHOOD YEARS (BIRTH TO AGE 12)
by Steven Collins
Much has been written about the life of Jesus Christ, the
historical person whose name is attached to the many different
denominations of Christianity which exist today. In fact, so much
has been written that one might wonder whether anything truly new
could be written about this one life. As the reader will see, new
information about the life of Jesus Christ can be ascertained by
combining biblical and secular historical accounts and traditions
about the time in which he lived. This chapter is not intended to
be a complete history of the life of Jesus Christ. It will cover
those aspects of his life and times which have not been generally
known.
The prior chapter dealing with the Parthian Empire discussed
historical events which shaped the world into which Jesus Christ
was born. When some surprising information about his life is
added to the history contained in the previous chapter, it can be
seen that Jesus Christ actually played a role in the great power
politics which occurred between the empires of Parthia and Rome.
If he had chosen to do so, he could have had a much larger role
in the political affairs of that era, and the Bible hints at such
a possibility.
This chapter will begin by offering firm evidence that Jesus
Christ was a real, historical person. Josephus, a Jewish
historian of the first century A.D., regarded the life of Jesus
Christ as an established fact. In Antiquities of the Jews,
Josephus wrote:
"there was about this time [Josephus here refers to matters
concerning Pontius Pilate, Roman procurator of Judea], Jesus, a
wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of
wonderful works, - a teacher of such men as receive the truth
with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and
many of the Gentiles. He was Christ; and when Pilate, at the
suggestion of the principle men among us, had condemned him to
the cross ... he appeared to them alive again the third day, as
the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other
wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so
named from him, are not extinct at this day." 1
In this account, written shortly after Christ died, Josephus not
only gave us a powerful witness that Jesus Christ truly lived,
but also provided an independent corroboration of many of the
biblically discussed events of his life. Josephus refers to him
as "a wise man," and wonders whether he was more than a mere man
because of the "wonderful works" he did. That a non-Christian,
Jewish historian of the apostolic era writes of the miracles of
Jesus as actual facts offer of his miracles. Josephus agrees with
the testamental writings that Jesus was indeed sentenced to be
crucified by Pontius Pilate at the behest of the Jewish Sanhedrin
("the principle men among us"). Josephus acknowledges that Jesus
Christ fulfilled the many prophecies of the Hebrew prophets about
the Messiah, and even refers to his resurrection as a historical
fact!
Josephus' reference to Jesus as "the Christ" acknowledges that
Jesus was the Messiah ("the anointed"). Since a non-Christian
source so close to the actual time of Christ has confirmed these
facts of his life, the musings of modern skeptics questioning
Christ's existence are without merit. Josephus could speak with
eye-witnesses of Jesus' life; modern skeptics are almost two
millennia removed the events, and their writings are merely
speculative.
Roman secular sources also agree with Josephus. Celsus, an
antiChristian writer of the Roman Empire in the second century
A.D., wrote: "It was by magic that he [Jesus] was able to do the
miracles which he appeared to have done." 2 In this statement, an
antagonist of Christianity grudgingly acknowledges the reality of
Christ's "miracles." However, Quadratus, writing in approximately
117-134 A.D. "urged people to believe in Jesus because the effect
of his miracles continued up to the present - people had been
cured and raised from the dead, and 'some of them ... have
survived even to our own day."`3 Tacitus, the famous Roman
historian, writing about the Christians several decades after the
death of Christ, stated: "their originator, Christ, had been
executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius
Pilate." 4
Clearly, Roman records confirm that Jesus Christ lived, and that
he was executed in Judea during the administration of Pontius
Pilate. Even his detractors and non-Christian writers
acknowledged that he performed supernatural deeds, and one writer
recorded that some previously dead persons were known to be alive
as a result of being resurrected by Jesus Christ. Whatever one
thinks about Jesus Christ, we begin with the fact that he indeed
lived and died when the Bible states that he lived and died, that
he performed marvelous deeds, and that he made a major impression
on the civilization of his day.
Let us now review the historical setting into which Jesus Christ
was born. The Roman and Parthian Empires were both powerful,
well-established "superpower" rivals at the time Jesus was born.
Rome ruled the Mediterranean region, and Parthia ruled Asian
lands from modern Syria to India. Palestine was located within
the Roman Empire, but was close to the Parthian border (the
Euphrates River).
In the decades previous to the birth of Jesus, Rome and Parthia
fought several battles with one being fought near Antioch of
Syria (very close to Palestine). 5 in about 40 B.C., the
Parthians launched a major assault which swept the Romans out of
Asia for a short time. For three years (40-37 B.C.) Palestine was
within the Parthian Empire and was ruled by a Jewish vassal king
of the Parthians named Antigonus. At that time King Herod (the
Roman king of Judea) fled from the Parthians in fear of his life.
While the Parthiansponsored rule of Antigonus was brief, it was
apparently popular with the Jews. When the Parthians withdrew
across the Euphrates, Antigonus, with Jewish support, attempted
to maintain himself as king of the Jews, but was defeated by
Herod. Mark Antony (the Roman leader famous for his dalliance
with Cleopatra) ordered Antigonus beheaded, and Josephus records
that this was done to compel the Jews to reaccept the hated Herod
as their kings Mark Antony then led an massive invasion of
Parthia in 37-36 B.C., but his army was utterly defeated by the
Parthians. 7
To help modern readers gain a frame of reference for these
ancient events, these Roman-Parthian wars were more recent events
for the people in the period when Jesus was born than World War
II and the Korean War are to modern readers. Parthian rule over
Palestine was, therefore, vividly remembered by many in Jewish
society as being preferable to Roman rule.
Mark Antony's defeat led to a long period of "detente" between
the two empires, with the Euphrates River serving as the border
between their two vast empires. This prolonged period of peaceful
relations lasted from 36 B.C. until 58 A.D., 8 including not only
all of Jesus Christ's life, but also the early period of the
Apostolic church as well. Rawlinson records that it was an
established Roman policy not to provoke a Parthian war during
that period of time so long as both empires agreed to coexist on
separate banks of the Euphrates River. Rawlinson comments on this
peaceful interlude as follows:
"It is a well-known fact that Augustus left it as a principle of
policy to his successors that the Roman Empire had reached its
proper limits, and could not with advantage be extended further.
This principle, followed with the utmost strictness by Tiberius,
was accepted as a rule by all the earlier Caesars... " 9
Obviously, as long as the Caesars wanted peace with Parthia,
Roman officials along Parthia's border (such as King Herod and
Pontius Pilate) knew they would risk their positions and lives if
they entangled Rome in an unwanted war with Parthia.
Without this period of Parthian-Roman detente, it would have been
well-nigh impossible for some of the events of Jesus Christ's
life to have occurred, as we shall see. The first such event was
the coming of the Magi, or "Wise Men" to pay homage to Jesus. We
read of this event in Matthew 2:1-12, which becomes more
important when considered in the overall context of
Roman-Parthian relations.
The Magi were powerful members of one of the two assemblies which
elected Parthian monarchs and wielded great influence within the
empire. One assembly was composed of members of the royal family
(the Arsacids), and the other consisted of the priests (the
"Magi") and influential Parthians of non-royal blood (the "Wise
Men"). The Magi and Wise Men were jointly known as the
Megistanes. 10 The King James Version of the Bible states in
Matthew 2:1 that "wise men from the east" came to worship Jesus.
The term "Wise Men," can be seen as the proper title of Parthian
Megistanes. The Greek word translated "wise men" is "magian,"
literally meaning "Persian astronomer or priest."" Parthia had
long governed all Persian territory at the time of Christ, and
the "Wise Men" cited in the Bible were clearly members of the
Megistanes, very high Parthian officials. While traditional
Christian accounts of this episode celebrate the coming of "the
three wise men," the Bible does not limit the number of visiting
Magi/Wise Men to three men. Indeed, Biblical events and the
realities of that time argue for a much larger contingent of
Parthian Magi.
Since we saw in previous chapters that the Parthians were
descended from the ten tribes of Israel and that their priests
were likely descended from the tribe of Levi, this delegation of
Magi consisted of leading members of the ten tribes of Israel.
Since there were numerous members of the tribe of Judah in
Parthia's empire, they may have been represented as well.
Consequently, the delegation of Magi could easily have consisted
of at least ten or twelve men representing the various tribes of
Israel.
Also, the Bible shows that the Magi did not visit the young Jesus
in the manger at Bethlehem (as most nativity scenes depict), but
rather visited Jesus in a house somewhat after his birth. Matthew
2:11 states that this visit of the Magi took place in a house
(not at the manger) when Jesus was old enough to be called "a
young child (no longer "an infant in swaddling clothes"). Luke's
version of Christ's birth (Luke 2:8-40) mentions the shepherds'
arrival at the manger, but makes no mention of any Magi visiting
Christ at that time.
Matthew 2:8 adds that Herod sent the Magi "to Bethlehem" after
conferring with the Jewish hierarchy about the prophesied
location of the Messiah's birth. They cited Micah 5:2 that the
Messiah would originate in Bethlehem, and they were likely
familiar with Daniel 9:25-26 which predicted that the arrival of
the Messiah was due at that time. Armed with this information,
Herod then privately met with the Parthian delegation, and
enquired when "the star" which they followed had first appeared.
He apparently learned that this period of time was almost two
years because he killed all male children in Bethlehem under two
years of age in an attempt to kill the Messiah (whom he regarded
as a competitor for his position as king of the Jews).
Although the Bible tells us that "the star" appeared to the Wise
Men almost two years prior to his birth, this offers inexact
information in determining how old Jesus was when the Wise Men
came to him. Since the Wise Men were prominent people in Parthia
at the time of the arrival of "the star," they had to make a very
time-consuming journey to reach Judea. Also, it took time to
prepare the costly gifts to present to the Messiah, set their
affairs in order for a long absence, organize a caravan (and
likely obtain an armed escort for protection) and make the
lengthy journey to Judea, a journey which moved at the speed of
the slowest pack animal in the caravan. Since the "star" may have
appeared to the Wise Men prior to Jesus' birth, Jesus may have
been a few months (or up to two years) old at the time of the
Magi's arrival.
Consider also that Matthew 2:1-3 states:
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea 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 heard these things, he was troubled, and all
Jerusalem with him."
This account does not indicate that three wise men from the east
quietly visited Herod, then Jesus, and then just as quietly left
Judea to return to Parthia. Their arrival in Jerusalem was a very
public affair because "all Jerusalem" was "troubled" by their
arrival. This indicates that the Magi (a delegation of a dozen or
more high Parthian officials) came to Jerusalem in a caravan
loaded with costly treasures and escorted by a strong force of
armed Parthian soldiers! Since the Magi were high officials of
the Parthian government, they would customarily travel with a
substantial escort of Parthian soldiers to guarantee their
protection. Since they were traveling with many costly treasures
to present to the new-born Messiah, their escort may have been
unusually large.
Also, these high officials would have traveled with a large
entourage of servants, animal-handlers, cooks, etc. on such a
long journey. The entourage in this Parthian caravan may have
constituted many hundreds of people! Given the fact that many
high Parthian officials and very expensive treasures were in the
caravan, there may have been many thousands of Parthian soldiers
escorting the caravan. This is not an overstatement. Josephus
records that treasure caravans bringing expensive offerings to
Jerusalem from Jews living in Parthian territory did so with
"many ten thousand men" as escorts. l2 In ancient times,
traveling with expensive items was dangerous. There was danger
not only from brigands, but also from local satraps who might use
their armies to conquer a treasure train passing through their
territories. If Jewish commoners from Parthia were allowed to
travel to Jerusalem with the equivalent of several infantry
divisions as escorts, would an important delegation of Parthia's
ruling class and a treasure train of gifts have been accompanied
by fewer armed escorts?
The Wise Men who came to Jesus were not bringing just a few
samples of gold and other precious things that they carried in
their personal saddlebags. They were coming to worship he who was
born "king" of the Jews. This Parthian delegation was offering
tribute money to a "king," and therefore would more likely have
brought a whole train of pack-animals loaded with "gold,
frankincense and myrrh."
Their caravan was so big that their arrival quickly became a
"cause celebre" in Jerusalem. The whole city was in an uproar
over their arrival, and that argues for a very visible and
impressive Parthian caravan arriving in Jerusalem not long after
Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. The sheer size of the caravan, its
treasures and its escorts awed King Herod and the whole city to
the point they were all "troubled:" This indicates that the
Parthian caravan had so many armed escorts that many feared it
was an invasion force coming to besiege Jerusalem. However, their
announced reason for coming to visit the Messiah stunned a city
of Jews which intensely wanted the Messiah to come and free them
from Roman rule! It is clear that the Jewish hierarchy understood
the Parthians were looking for the Messiah as they quickly looked
for Messianic prophecies to locate the city of his birth.
After their consultations with Herod and high Jewish officials,
the Parthian delegation traveled to worship Jesus and present
their gifts to him (by this time, Matthew 2:11 states Jesus and
Mary were living in "a house," so they were no longer in the
manger). Their journey would have been closely followed by
Herod's spies.
Joseph was then warned by God in a dream to flee into Egypt
(Matthew 2:13) to avoid Herod's impending slaughter of
Bethlehem's young male children. Since Herod's edict applied only
to Bethlehem, there would have been no need for Joseph, Mary and
Jesus to flee unless they were still in Bethlehem. Going to Egypt
took them completely out of Herod's area of jurisdiction.
Herod made the mistake of assuming the Messiah would be born to a
family native to the Bethlehem area. However, Luke 2:4 shows that
although the family into which Jesus was born resided in Galilee,
they had to journey to Bethlehem at that time to comply with a
taxing edict because they were direct descendants of King David.
Since Luke 2:39 states that Joseph, Mary and Jesus returned to
Galilee not long after Jesus was born, and doesn't even mention
the Egyptian trip, it seems apparent that the stay of Joseph,
Mary and Jesus in Egypt was brief. Indeed, since history records
that Herod ("Herod the Great") died in 4 B.C., 13 and Matthew
2:14-19 states that Jesus and his parents returned from Egypt as
soon as Herod was dead (4 B.C.), Herod must have died soon after
he gave the order to slay the male children in Bethlehem.
Since Herod died in 4 B.C. and the date of Jesus' birth is
accepted to be around 4 B.C. by many historians, the events of
his birth, the arrival of the caravan of the Parthian Magi, the
flight to Egypt, the death of Herod and the return of Jesus'
family from Egypt occurred within a short time. Since Luke 2:39
indicates that Joseph, Mary and Jesus returned to Galilee soon
after Jesus' birth, the above events had to occur in a short
period of time.
It is significant that Jesus' parents were faithful to God's law
requiring circumcision on the eight day (Leviticus 12:2-3), and
to Jewish custom by making an offering to God at the Temple in
Jerusalem to consecrate their firstborn male child (Luke
2:21-24). This is an important observation as it shows Jesus was
raised and shaped in a family environment literally obeyed God
and devoutly observed Jewish customs.
History records that Roman-Parthian relations were peaceful at
the time that Jesus was born. The Bible confirms this was the
case as the Parthian Magi did not sneak into Roman territory to
look for the Messiah, but rather came directly to King Herod,
quite open about their reasons for being in Roman-occupied
Palestine. They informed Herod that they had come to worship "he
that is born king of the Jews."
It is a tribute to the power of Caesar's policy that the
RomanParthian peace be maintained that war did not result from
this statement, for Herod could easily have flown into a rage,
and yelled "How dare you ask to see another 'king of the Jews'
besides me; I am king of the Jews!" That Herod swallowed his
pride, and meekly answered the Parthians is quite noteworthy.
This is a tribute not only to Caesar's policy to maintain the
peace, but also to Herod's memory that the Parthians had
militarily controlled the throne of Judea a few decades earlier.
Herod's very meek response to the highly provocative question of
the Parthian officials may also indicate that he was intimidated
by the many Parthian soldiers who accompanied the Magi. Indeed,
since the whole city was "troubled" by the Parthians' arrival,
the presence of many Parthian soldiers may have sparked rumors
that a new Parthian-Roman war was imminent. Herod may even have
suspected that the Parthians' question was designed to provoke an
incident which would lead to an outbreak of hostilities and his
removal from the throne.
A comment must be made concerning the "star" which led the Magi
to Jesus. Some have proposed that this star was a comet or a
celestial phenomenon although the context shows that this was not
possible. The biblically-described star led the Magi over a long
east-towest route from Parthia to Judea, and Matthew 2:9 states
that it finally "stood over where the young child was." No comet
or celestial phenomenon could pinpoint a single city, much less
an individual child within a particular house. The Bible
periodically uses the word "star" to represent an angel (Job
38:7, Rev. 1:20), and there is every reason to believe that this
"star" which led a delegation of Parthian nobles to a specific
child in a specific house in Judea was an angel of God. Nothing
else makes sense. Only an angel (a spirit being) could literally
"stand over" the baby Jesus to designate one specific child to
the Parthian nobles.
Also, there is nothing in the biblical account which indicates
that this "star" was visible to anyone other than the Magi (Wise
Men)! Matthew 2:2 states that the Magi saw "the star," but the
context indicates no one else ever saw it. Verse 7 shows Herod
asking the Magi when "the star" appeared to them, indicating no
one in Judea was aware of any such "star." If there had been some
unusual celestial object in the sky, Herod and his astrologers
would already have known the exact date on which it had appeared.
After leading the Parthians to Judea, the angel ("star")
disappeared, forcing the Parthians to ask Herod for directions.
After the Magi left Herod, the "star" again appeared to them, led
them directly to Bethlehem (Mathew 2:9), and "stood over" the
young child, Jesus to set him apart from all others. Verse 10
states the Magi rejoiced that the star was again showing them the
way they should follow. Obviously, a "star" which appeared,
disappeared and reappeared for the Magi (but which was apparently
not seen by any other humans) was an angel. Supporting this fact
is that Luke 2:8-15 records that the birth of Jesus was announced
to shepherds by angels speaking to them out of a heavenly light
which accompanied their appearance. Since God used angels to
bring the shepherds to Jesus' manger, it follows he also used an
angel to lead the Magi to Jesus.
Having found Jesus, the Magi worshipped him, offering rich gifts
of gold, myrrh and frankincense. They then were warned by God in
a dream (Matthew 2:12) not to return to Herod, resulting in the
prompt exit of the Magi and their escorts from Judea. When Herod
realized that he had been fooled, he wrathfully killed all the
young male children of Bethlehem in a vain effort to kill the
Messiah. However, there is no record that he made any attempt to
overtake or punish the Magi. As high Parthian nobles, they had
"diplomatic immunity," and Herod dared not anger Caesar by
provoking the Parthians. Also, the size of the Magi's armed
escort apparently dissuaded Herod from attempting to pursue them.
There is another important aspect of this remarkable episode.
While it is not surprising that Jewish leaders during Herod's
reign were sufficiently familiar with the prophetic writings to
pinpoint for Herod where the Messiah would be born, it is
surprising that God was working more closely with members of the
Parthian ruling class than he was with the Jewish priests! This
makes no biblical sense unless (A) the Parthians were descended
from the exiled tribes of the House of Israel and (B) the Magi
(Parthian priests) were Levites. During his ministry Jesus Christ
himself asserted that he was not sent to the gentiles, but only
to the descendants of the Israelites. (Matthew 15:24-28 shows the
reluctance of Jesus to assist a gentile.) Throughout the Old
Testament God worked almost exclusively with the House of Israel
and the House of Judah; his involvement with other nations was
incidental (i.e. using them to punish his people when they
sinned). It was not until after the death of Christ that gentiles
were permitted equal access to the God of Israel. The fact that
God was working intimately with the Parthian nobility confirms
that the Parthians were the House of Israel in Asia, and supports
the conclusion that the Parthian Magi (their priests) were
Levites.
The fact that some of the Parthian ruling classes were
worshippers of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is most
revealing. That God himself sent an angel to lead them to Jesus,
and gave instructions to the Magi via dreams is further
revealing. God obviously considered these Parthians to be
"righteous" men under the terms of his laws or he would not have
been dealing with them so personally. That educated Parthians
were ready to visit and worship the Messiah at the time of
Christ's birth indicates they were also familiar with the
prophecies of the Old Testament. Who but transplanted Israelites
would have been looking for the Messiah at that time?
Although we are jumping ahead in the narrative, consider the
events of Acts 2 which state Parthians (verse 9) were among those
who made pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the Feast of Weeks (known
to Christians as Pentecost Sunday). Verse 9 also mentions "Medes,
Elamites, and dwellers in Mesopotamia" as being present at this
feast, and all these regions were provinces of the Parthian
Empire. We know that portions of the ten tribes had been
relocated to "the cities of the Medes," so the presence of devout
visitors from Media could easily designate people from the ten
tribes of Israel. Interestingly, verse 9 also mentions "dwellers
... in Asia" were present. The word "Asia" has clouded origins,
but the Encyclopaedia Britannica states that "It is probable that
it ["Asia"] has an Assyrian or Hebrew root, and was used first...
with a specific or restricted local application, a more extended
signification having eventually been given it..." 14
One of the Scythian tribes was called the "Ash" (or "Asiani"). 15
Since the "Asiani" were one of the Scythian tribes bearing the
name of Isaac (the Sacae or Saka), the Bible's reference to
"Asians" attending the Feast of Weeks could indicate that
Scythians were also present in Jerusalem at that time. This
further indicates that the Parthians and Scythians were the
displaced members of the "lost ten tribes of Israel." The gentile
populations of Asia had no cultural interest in the worship of
the God of Israel; only the ten tribes of Israel would retain
such a custom.
It was not unusual for large pilgrimages originating in Parthia
to travel to Jerusalem to worship the God of Israel. We noted
that Josephus wrote of caravans (of offerings to the God of
Israel) from Parthian Mesopotamian arrived in Jerusalem under the
protection of "many ten thousand men." These must have been
magnificent treasure trains to have warranted the protection of a
sizeable army. Such huge "offerings" going to Jerusalem from
Parthia indicates that many people within the Parthian Empire
worshipped the God of Israel. This meant that, at the time of
Jesus and Herod, there was a great deal of travel and trade
between Judea and many regions of the Parthian Empire.
In an earlier chapter it was shown that the Magi were loyal to
one dynasty (the Arsacids), whose members continuously ruled
Parthia. It was shown that many rulers of Parthian (Saka)
kingdoms had names incorporating the word "Phares" or the
consonants of the Hebrew root word for that name (PH-R-S). This
indicates that the Arsacids were descended from the seed of
David, who was the first king of the Phares family (Matthew
1:2-6). I Chronicles 3:17-24 reveals that the royal lineage
continued to flourish after Judah's captivity. Indeed, this
dynasty was given high status in the Babylonian Empire (2 Kings
25:27-30). This post-exilic elevation of the Davidic dynasty in
Asia likely led to their serving as vassal kings (over captive
Israelites) under Babylonian and Persian masters. Their later
elevation to the throne of Parthia fulfilled the prophecy of
Jeremiah 33:17 that David's descendants would always rule over
the descendants of the ten tribes of Israel. This may explain the
unshakable loyalty of the Parthians to the Arsacids. With the
Parthians being Israelites, and the Arsacids being descended from
King David, the Arsacids were the only dynasty in Asia that was
racially, historically and culturally related to the Parthian
people.
Since Matthew 1:3-17 tells us that Jesus Christ was also a
descendant of Phares and King David, Jesus was a blood relative
of the Parthian ruling dynasty, which also descended from Phares.
The relationship of Jesus to the Parthian Arsacids serves as a
further explanation for the homage paid to Jesus by the Parthian
nobility. It was customary for the Parthian Megistanes (the Magi
and Wise Men) to keep track of Arsacid relatives in foreign
nations. In some cases the Megistanes sent to foreign nations
(Scythia and Rome) to summon various relatives of the Arsacids to
come to Parthia to serve as their king. As mentioned in chapter
eight, some Parthian rulers killed every male relative they could
find in an effort to eliminate potential rivals to their throne.
This compelled the Magi to look for distant individuals who had
the bloodline of the Arsacids (the lineage of Phares and King
David). At the time of the birth of Jesus, the recent Parthian
emperor, Phraates IV (who reigned 37-2 B.C.), had killed many
male relatives, including his own father and almost thirty
brothers. 16 Male Arsacids at the time of Jesus' birth were in
short supply.
When the Magi were led by an angel of God to pay homage to the
young Jesus, they doubtless asked Joseph and Mary everything they
could think of concerning Jesus' background. They must have
learned that Jesus was a blood descendant of Phares and King
David. This relationship made Jesus an Arsacid, a blood relative
of Parthia's kings. In fact, since Parthia could offer the
kingship to any Arsacid, not just the oldest son or closest
relative of the previous king, Jesus Christ was technically
eligible for the Parthian throne. While the Bible does mention
Jesus' royal lineage (of the seed of David), it does not mention
his relationship to Parthia's dynasty. However, as we shall see
later in this chapter, the Bible twice implies that this
relationship existed.
Since the Magi who worshipped Jesus were members of the body
which selected the kings of Parthia and kept track of male
Arsacids, they must been ecstatic to learn that the young Jesus
was an Arsacid. While the Bible is silent on their future
contacts, Parthian Magi likely would have stayed in contact with
Jesus in future years and monitored the events of his life.
We will now examine the possibility that the visit of influential
Parthians to the young Jesus Christ almost led to a
Parthian-Roman war. Recall that from 40-37 B.C., Parthia had
ruled Palestine and Syria before the Romans drove them back
across the Euphrates River. That war ushered in a long period of
Parthian-Roman detente which included the entire lifetime of
Jesus Christ. However, a great Parthian-Roman war was barely
averted in 1 A.D. when (as discussed in chapter eight) a "summit
conference" was held between the Parthian emperor, Phraataces,
and Caius Caesar, the grandson of Augustus Caesar on an island in
the Euphrates River (i.e. neutral territory). Roman sources
record that:
"The armies of the two chiefs were drawn up on the opposite banks
of the river (the Euphrates), facing one another, and the chiefs
themselves, accompanied by an equal number of attendants,
proceeded to deliberate in the sight of both hosts." 17
This "summit conference" averted war, but how could the Magi's
visit have had a role in this crisis? Scholarship has documented
that Jesus Christ was apparently born in approximately 4 B.C.
Bible accounts of the Magi visiting Jesus cease when the Magi
left Judea and returned to Parthia, leaving the impression that
the issue was concluded. However, if we consider the geopolitical
realities of that time, there is no way that the Magi's exit from
Judea ended the matter.
Matthew 2:3 records that Herod and "all Jerusalem" were troubled
by the arrival of the Magi. Jerusalem was a commercial city at
the nexus of major trade routes, and it commonly received
caravans of many hundreds or thousands of people. Three tired
Magi arriving from the east wouldn't have made a ripple in the
city's calm. For that matter, caravans from Parthian territory
(as discussed in chapter eight) could arrive in Jerusalem with
many thousands of armed escorts, and such events did not trouble
the city. What was singularly different about the caravan that
brought the Magi? The Magi (perhaps ten, twelve, or more of them)
were Parthian nobility who selected the rulers of Parthia's
empire. Such a visit was unprecedented and unrepeated in the
history of the city of Jerusalem. Such prominent people did not
"sneak into town," but came with many attendants and perhaps
thousands of regular Parthian soldiers as escorts. This occurred
at a time when Parthia and Rome had a peace treaty, and no major
Roman or Parthian military forces had crossed the Euphrates River
in decades. The arrival of a significant Parthian military force
in Jerusalem escorting high Parthian officials was militarily
provocative and could justifiably be seen by Herod and the Romans
as a treaty violation.
When Parthia had occupied Palestine, it had crowned its own
vassal king, Antigonus, as ruler of Judea. When the Magi
(Parthia's official king-makers) came to Jerusalem looking for "a
new king of the Jews," it must have sounded to Herod and the
Romans that the Parthians were there to reassert their claim to
Judea and dethrone Herod. Their speaking directly to Herod (who
was Rome's king of the Jews) about wanting to find a "new king of
the Jews" could be seen by the Romans as close to a declaration
of war, given the region's history. The fact that King Herod "bit
his tongue" and made no rash statement to the Magi and treated
them with deference argues that the Parthians must have had an
intimidating number of troops at Jerusalem to compel Herod to be
so uncharacteristically meek. Since a major Roman-Parthian treaty
had been in effect for over three decades, Rome felt unthreatened
in the region, and would, consequently, have had a small garrison
in Jerusalem.
Caesar's decree that no Parthian war be provoked also put Herod
in an awkward position. While the Magi and Parthians were in
Judea with no harmful intent, there is no way the Romans could be
sure this "visit" was benign in nature. After the Parthians left,
reports had to be filed with Caesar about this highly unusual
event.
Herod was justifiably fearful of Parthian intentions in the area.
Hadn't they come to anoint a replacement for him as "king of the
Jews?" Hadn't they also deceived him by leaving the area without
his knowledge or permission? Herod's murderous act in Bethlehem
would also have inflamed Jewish opinion, and rumors of revolt
against the hated Romans would have intensified. Faced with a
possible Parthian invasion and/or a Jewish revolt, Herod needed
more Roman soldiers in the region. In his reports to Caesar,
Herod undoubtedly put himself in a favorable light, and warned
Caesar that the Parthians had crossed the Euphrates, made a
military reconnaissance to Jerusalem to spy out the city's
weakness and were openly talking about crowning a "new king of
the Jews." Because the Parthians' arrival in Jerusalem had scared
the whole city, news of this extraordinary event would have
spread quickly along the trade routes connected to Jerusalem.
Also, in 2 B.C., Rome and Parthia were facing a possible conflict
in Armenia over succession to the throne of Armenia. In both
Armenia and Judea, the issue was whether Rome or Parthia would
choose the kings of those nations. While Parthia had not forced
the crisis in Armenia, Parthia's actions in Judea (the Magi's
visit) were provocative. Rome's response was to send a large army
"to the east" to prepare for a possible Parthian-Roman war.
Rawlinson records that the Roman army arrived in 1 B.C., delayed
by the retirement of Augustus Caesar's preferred commander, and
that the situation was further muddled by the death of Phraates
IV, Parthia's emperor during the visit of the Magi to Jerusalem.
l8 Herod the Great had also died by the time Roman reinforcements
arrived, so all the major principals had a fresh viewpoint by the
time Rome and Parthia had their "summit conference" at the
Euphrates River.
Historical accounts do not mention the Parthian visit to
Jerusalem as a factor in this near confrontation, but its
occurrence can now be seen as adding to Roman fears of a Parthian
invasion of its empire. Although the historical accounts mention
only the Armenian dispute, it is worth noting that the Parthian
and Roman armies did not confront each other in the mountains of
Armenia but rather along the Euphrates River (the invasion route
to Syria and Palestine). Since the Roman army arrived in 1 B.C.,
and the Roman-Parthian peace conference did not defuse the
situation until I A.D., there was a twoyear period of "war fever"
in the Mideast. Everyone in the region breathed a huge sigh of
relief when war was averted. As we shall soon see, if a war had
been fought (ending the Parthian-Roman detente), much of Jesus
Christ's ministry in Judea could not have occurred.
Very little else is said in the Bible concerning the early years
of Jesus Christ. Luke 2:40 states that Jesus grew up strong and
healthy, and that he was filled with wisdom and favored by God.
Luke 2:41-50 tells us that Jesus, at age twelve, amazed the
teachers in the Temple with his wisdom. This passage shows that
he was still being raised by his parents according to the Laws of
God, as his family annually attended the Passover in Jerusalem
(the location of the Temple). Jesus would have been seen by
others as a devout, brilliant son of a traditional Jewish family.
Luke's account mentions that Jesus was absent from his family for
a full day before they realized he was missing, and initiated a
search which located him in the Temple. How could Jesus, a twelve
year-old youth, be apart from his parents, and his parents not
know about it for a full day? How did a mere twelve year old lad
even come into the presence of the teachers of the Temple, the
religious hierarchy of the Jewish religion? There is more here
than meets the eye.
It would have been inappropriate for Joseph and Mary to have
allowed Jesus to be wandering around Jerusalem unescorted by an
adult. It seems apparent that Jesus was being escorted by an
adult relative. That they were unconcerned about Jesus' absence
for a full day before searching for him indicates that such
absences were commonplace. It is recorded in the Jewish Talmud
and in other sources that Joseph of Arimathea was the great-uncle
of Jesus Christ. l9 It is likely that Joseph of Arimathea was the
adult relative who was serving as Jesus' mentor and escort.
Joseph of Arimathea was a powerful figure in Jewish society, and
was apparently a member of the Sanhedrin itself. Years later,
when the Sanhedrin plotted the death of Jesus, Luke 23:50-51
asserts that Joseph of Arimathea had not consented to the deed
that was done to Jesus. That Joseph had not consented to the
Sanhedrin' s murderous plot indicates that Joseph was a member of
the body with the inherent right to consent to (or dissent from)
the actions of the Sanhedrin.
It is now clear how the young Jesus came to be involved in a
discourse with the Temple hierarchy. Since Jesus' great-uncle,
Joseph of Arimathea, had easy access to the highest echelons of
Jewish society, it is likely that Jesus simply accompanied Joseph
of Arimathea to the Temple, and eventually participated in a
discussion between his great-uncle and the Temple teachers.
Apparently, Jesus was with his great-uncle often enough that
Jesus's prolonged absence from Joseph and Mary at that time was
not a unique experience.
The remainder of Jesus' life until age thirty is a mystery. While
the Bible is silent on the subject, it does give us a clue. The
fact that Jesus was, by the age of twelve, spending more time in
the care of
Joseph of Arimathea and less time in the care of Joseph and Mary
is significant. It appears that a major transition was occurring
in Jesus' life. When Joseph and Mary found Jesus in the Temple
after a threeday search, (Luke 2:46) Mary reproved him with the
words: "Why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I
have been looking for you anxiously, " (RSV) Jesus replied: "How
is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my
Father's house?" Jesus, at the age of twelve, essentially told
them: "Why were you even bothering to look for me?" The phrase "I
must be in my Father's house" indicates that the Spirit of God
was now leading him away from the household of his human family
and into the work of his heavenly Father. The Bible adds that
Jesus went back to Nazareth with Joseph and Mary, so Jesus did
not yet make a "clean break" from his childhood home. However,
the event at the Temple and Jesus' own words indicated his
departure was imminent.
PART TWO; THE "MISSING EIGHTEEN YEARS" (AGE 12-30)
Is it not incongruous that while Jesus Christ is the central
character of the New Testament, nothing is written concerning the
majority of his life? The Bible tells us a little about his first
twelve years, a lot about his last three and one-half years, but
nothing about an eighteen year span between ages twelve and
thirty.
Luke 3:23 observes that Jesus was "about 30" when he became a
public figure in Judea due to the advent of his ministry, but
where had he been and what had he done in the intervening
eighteen years? Since the Bible makes no direct comment about
this period of time, we must rely on non-Biblical sources for
information about these "missing years."
The New Testament's silence about these eighteen years of Jesus'
life is significant. Since Luke 1:2 states that the gospel
narratives of Jesus' life were eye-witness accounts, it implies
that the gospel writers had not witnessed any of the events of
Jesus' adult life before age thirty. This further implies that
Jesus was not even present in Palestine during the "missing"
eighteen years. If he had been living in Judea or Galilee, it
would have been impossible to hide such a precocious youth who
had been worshipped by foreign nobility as a child, and who had
awed the Temple's rulers with his brilliance at age twelve. Did
the spiritual power that was manifesting itself in Jesus at age
twelve go dormant for eighteen years? Did Jesus "quench the
spirit" at age twelve so he could live as an obscure Galilean
carpenter for eighteen years? That is highly unlikely. Indeed,
the
..........
To be continued
The Missing 18 Years of Jesus' Life #2
Historic records!
THE MISSING 18 YEARS OF JESUS' LIFE #2
by Steven Collins
The Life of Jesus Christ - The Untold Story
Continued from previous page:
Indeed the event at the Temple indicates that Jesus was in
the process of separating from his parents to pursue the divine
mission that he had been born to fulfill. It is the contention of
this book that soon after the Temple incident, Jesus left
Palestine altogether for eighteen years. There is biblical
evidence supporting such a conclusion.
The account of Matthew 13:54-56 indicates that after this
eighteen year period, Jesus was scarcely remembered in his own
home town. Whereas, at age twelve, Jesus is amazing the teachers
in the Jerusalem Temple with his wisdom, the common folk in his
home town synagogue are asking themselves eighteen years later
(after hearing Jesus speak): "Where did this man (Jesus) get this
wisdom?" If the uncommon wisdom of Jesus had been present in
Nazareth for those eighteen years, such a question would have
been ludicrous. Note also verses 55-56 where the listeners ask:
"Isn't this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary?
and his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? and his
sisters, are they not all with us?" This indicates that the
members of his home town synagogue were struggling to identify or
remember who Jesus was. The fact that they easily named all his
immediate family members, and said "are they not all with us?"
indicates that Jesus had not been "with them" as were his other
family members. Their quizzical response to Jesus indicates that
while Jesus had been gone from Nazareth for a long time, his
immediate family members had remained there in the community.
Obviously, if Jesus had been a hard-working carpenter in Nazareth
all his life, the local citizenry would have easily recognized
him. Yet they spoke as having never previously witnessed either
his wisdom or power!
Jesus' wisdom had awed the most learned Jewish leaders in
the nation at age twelve! To believe that Jesus lived the next
eighteen years in Nazareth as a "humble carpenter" while showing
no wisdom at all until age thirty, one has to believe that for
eighteen years Jesus "quenched" the Holy Spirit that was burning
brightly in him at age twelve! Christians are forbidden in I
Thessalonians 5:19 to "quench the spirit." Did Jesus do what
Christians are forbidden to do? Hardly! Yet traditional dogma
(that Jesus lived inconspicuously in Nazareth until age thirty)
advocates just such a view.
The logical conclusion is that Jesus did not work as a
carpenter in Nazareth during the "missing eighteen years." In
fact, the Bible offers no statement that Jesus was ever employed
as a carpenter during his adult life. Matthew 13:55 refers to
Jesus as a "carpenter's son," not as a "carpenter." Luke's
account about Jesus' meeting with the Temple elders at age 12
records Jesus declaring that his future was not linked to the
profession of his physical father, but with the calling of his
spiritual Father in heaven. When his parents chided Jesus for
being in the Temple rather than with them, Jesus replied "know
you not that I must be about my Father's business?" This does not
portray Jesus as a "rebel" since verse 51 shows that he was an
obedient youth, but it shows that as early as age twelve, God's
Spirit was drawing Jesus away from the carpenter "business" of
Joseph, and toward the spiritual "business" of God.
As a child growing up in a carpenter's household, Jesus was
certainly familiar with carpentry, but the Bible does not assert
that he was a carpenter in Nazareth during the "missing years."
Mark's account of Jesus' visit to his old home synagogue (Mark
6:1-6) does quote townsfolk as calling Jesus a "carpenter."
However, these were the same townsfolk who struggled to identify
Jesus, as the context confirms. Note that the Bible itself does
not declare "Jesus was a carpenter," but rather quotes the
comments of those who did not know very well. That some hometown
folk would call him a "carpenter" is consistent with the
likelihood that Jesus had been a carpenter's apprentice to Joseph
when they had last seen him.
This passage also declares that Jesus had four brothers and
at least two sisters. Jesus was an oldest son in a family of at
least seven siblings. Whatever the number of siblings, it is
clear that Mary had a large family after Jesus was born.
The Bible never mentions Joseph, the step-father of Jesus, after
the episode of Jesus being in the Temple at age twelve. Since
Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the siblings of Jesus are cited as
living in Nazareth when Jesus is 30 years old and Joseph is not
mentioned, it is apparent that Joseph died during those "missing
years." Since Joseph of Arimathea was already spending a lot of
time with Jesus at age twelve, he likely became Jesus' guardian
after Joseph died. Joseph of Arimathea was surely a good role
model for Jesus as Luke 23:50 refers to him as "good" and "just."
Given the fact that Joseph of Arimathea was a man of prominence
in the Jewish community, and Jesus' precocious wisdom was known
to the Temple elders in his pre-teen years, how is it possible
that no record of Jesus' activities in Palestine exists for the
missing eighteen years of Jesus' life? The logical answer is that
he was not present in Palestine during that time!
Ordinarily, with the death of a father, the oldest son (even
a young one like Jesus) would have been compelled to begin
working for a living to support the family. However, since Joseph
of Arimathea was a wealthy relative (who could guarantee the
economic health of the family), Jesus was free to pursue his real
calling in life. Also, the Parthian Magi had lavished gifts of
gold, frankincense, and myrrh upon Jesus when they had visited
him shortly after his birth. Since this large sum of wealth would
have been held "in trust" for him by either his parents or Joseph
of Arimathea, Jesus could have tapped that wealth to provide for
his family's needs without having to work as a carpenter.
In The Traditions of Glastonbury, E. Raymond Capt cites
evidence that Joseph of Arimathea was an international merchant
involved with the tin trade in the British Isles. Earlier
chapters of this book documented that the British Isles were
Israelite regions since at least the reign of Solomon. Also,
chapter four presented evidence that large bodies of the tribes
of Simeon and Dan entered Briton and Ireland around 721 B.C. when
ancient Israel fell to Assyria, adding more Israelites to the
population base of the British Isles. It is hardly surprising
that Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the tribe of
Judah, would be trading with people descended from the other
tribes of Israel.
Capt cites the account of Gildas Badonicus (an early British
historian of the sixth century A.D.) which refers to Joseph of
Arimathea as a "nobilis decurio." 20 The very fact that an early
historian of Britain discusses Joseph of Arimathea at all gives
weight to accounts that Joseph was involved with the events of
early Briton. Capt asserts that Joseph's role was as follows:
"The same title 'Decurio' [applied to Joseph of Arimathea] is
used by St. Jerome in his translation of the Vulgate of St.
Mark's 'honourable counsellor' (Mark 15.43) and St. Luke's
'counsellor.' (Luke 23.50) In the Roman world, a 'decurio'
denoted an important Roman office, usually. connected with the
general management of a mining district. The implication is that
Joseph was in charge of Rome's mining interests in Britain. Such
a position would require Joseph to spend a considerable amount of
time away from his homeland." 21
Indeed, Joseph had to be a prominent man in the Roman world
to receive immediate access to Pilate, the Roman administrator of
Judea, during the intense political turmoil surrounding the
crucifixion (Mark 15:43-45). Unless Joseph of Arimathea was both
known to and trusted by Pilate and the Roman rulers of Judea, he
would not have been allowed swift access to Pontius Pilate at so
sensitive and critical a time. Capt also states that during that
period, both Roman and Jewish law called for the disposal of the
bodies of criminals in common pits with all memory of them
removed, unless the body was promptly claimed by a relative. 22
The fact that Joseph of Arimathea came forward to claim Jesus'
body is convincing evidence that he was a relative of Jesus. That
he obtained such approval not by going to an lower official, but
to Pilate himself, indicates that he was used to doing business
with the highest Roman officials.
However, what of the activities of Joseph of Arimathea and
Jesus during the "missing eighteen years?" If Jesus were under
Joseph of Arimathea's tutelage during those years, he would have
spent considerable time traveling, given that Joseph's business
involved international trade between. the nations of that day.
While the information which follows is based on legends and
traditions, they are buttressed by the Bible's implication that
Jesus was absent from Palestine for a prolonged period of time.
Obviously, Jesus went somewhere during that time, and legends and
traditions offer the only evidence that exists.
Many traditions assert that Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus
were not only present in Britain, but had homes in the area of
Glastonbury, England. Supporting these traditions, Capt cites
evidence that Glastonbury bore two titles from ancient times -
"Secretum Domini" and "Domus Dei" (Latin for "The Secret of the
Lord," and "The House of God"). 23 William Steuart McBirnie, in
his book, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, also wrote
concerning these traditions:
"There certainly is no other tradition known concerning the
history of St. Joseph of Arimathea and since the British
tradition is vigorous we see no reason to challenge it ... If in
any country there is a strong tradition concerning some Apostolic
figures, and no counter-tradition elsewhere, then we at least
stand on the ground of possibility and even probability. So it is
with ... St. Joseph. " 24
Capt also lists a fifteenth century document that Joseph
Arimathea converted King Arviragus of first century A.D. Britain
the Christian religion, and that this early king in Britain gave
Joseph and his party twelve portions of tax-free land in the area
of Glastonbury. 25 This tax-free land in Glastonbury is confirmed
in the Domesday Book of early English history under the title
"Domus Dei." 26 The fact that there were twelve portions of land
is significant. Did God inspire this symbolism ... one portion
for each of the twelve tribes of Israel?
Another fact cited by Capt is that the Druids worshipped a
"trinity" of gods "known as 'Bell,' the Creator as regards the
past; 'Taran,' the controlling providence of the present, and
'Yesu,' the coming saviour of the future." 27 The name "Bell"
preserves a Hebrew word for "Lord", 28 and in its expectation of
a coming "Yesu" savior, "Druidism thus anticipated Christianity
and pointed to the coming saviour under the very name by which
Christ was called." 29 The name of "Jesus" is from the Greek, but
the Hebrew name of Jesus was likely "Yeshuah," meaning
"salvation." 30 The presence of Hebrew words in Britain's
Druidic religion indicates that it had some roots in the religion
of the ancient Israelites. This is logical given the dominant
presence of Israelites in Britain throughout the first millennium
B.C.
Other ancient legends assert that Jesus travelled as far
east as India and Nepal. 31 There is a biblical basis for legends
that Jesus could have travelled both in the British Isles, and as
far into Asia as India. In Matthew 15:24, Jesus said: "I am not
sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel." The House
of Israel refers to the ten tribes of Israel who have been
identified in earlier chapters as including the early Britons,
the Sacae/Saka Scythians and the Parthians in Asia. Since the
area of Parthian/Saka dominance extended as far as India, 32
groups of the ten tribes of Israel could be found that far into
Asia. Since Jesus said he was "sent" to those ten tribes, it is
logical that he travelled to where the various tribes of the
House of Israel lived in the first century A.D. Since the British
Isles and even portions of India (at the eastern edge of
Parthia's empire) were then inhabited by the tribes of Israel,
Jesus' presence among these people would be a fulfillment of that
scripture.
As seen earlier, Jesus lived during a period of peace
between Parthia and Rome. During this period, trade flourished
between the merchants of both empires. Rawlinson records that
this trade was "considerable," and that merchants brought
"various metals and numerous manufactured articles" from Rome
into Parthia. 33 Given the indications that Joseph of Arimathea
was involved in the Roman mining (metals) trade, and that
Joseph's homeland in Judea was ideally located to facilitate
exports into Parthia and Asia via overland trade routes, it is
likely that Joseph's business included the export of metal
products into Parthia and Asia. As Jesus grew, he likely became a
trusted member of Joseph's international trading business. Who
could possibly be better suited than Jesus to supervise Joseph's
business trade with Parthian territories? Jesus had already been
worshipped by members of the Magi, the Parthian ruling elite!
Jesus was assured of a very warm reception in Parthia due to the
Magi's favor, and would have been given access to any portion of
Parthia's sphere of influence that he wished to visit. Jesus'
participation in Joseph's international trading business gave him
an ideal opportunity to visit those regions to which the ten
tribes of Israel had migrated (Briton, Parthia, Scythia and other
Asian locations).
One other possibility exists. Earlier chapters have shown
that both the Israelite/Phoenician and the Carthaginian Empires
of the first millennium B.C. planted colonies of Israelites in
North America.
It was also shown that some Carthaginians likely fled North
Africa to seek refuge in their North American colony after the
fall of Carthage. In chapter five we also saw evidence that this
Punic colony in North America lasted until about 500 A.D., so
there was a significant Israelite civilization in North America
during the life of Christ. Since Christ was visiting the regions
of the earth inhabited by the descendants of the ten tribes,
could he have visited ancient North America as well? The
surprising answer may be "Yes!"
Consider the Quetzalcoatl legends of the ancient New World.
While "Quetzalcoatl" is usually depicted as a serpent god, the
legends record that some Quetzalcoatl legends are quite
different.
In Voyages to the New World, Nigel Davies includes a
compilation of various Quetzelcoatl legends. These legends
include the assertions that Quetzelcoatl "had a white skin and
... was tradi tionally expected to return ... but once only, in
human form," that "amid the lamentations of his people,
Quetzelcoatl thereafter set out on his long journey to the place
in the East where he wag destined to meet his end," that "he rose
to heaven and entered therein," and that "he remained four days
in the land of the dead and, on the eighth day, reappeared as the
Morning Star." 34 (Emphasis added throughout) Davies also
comments that Quetzelcoatl is depicted as being a "god in human
form," and that he was the "creator God". 35 It is also
significant that the humanized Quetzelcoatl legends appear only
in the Christian era.
There are additional Peruvian legends about a deity named
Viracocha, who "departed across the sea," but was "destined to
return." 36 Viracocha is also portrayed in Spanish sources "like
Quetzelcoatl - as a benevolent figure who travelled from place to
place, preaching repentance and performing miracles." 37 Charles
Boland's book, "They All Discovered America," adds that "the
first Quetzelcoatl is said to have sprung from a virgin birth."
38
Old World legends about a human-deity who was a benevolent
white (Semitic) person, preached repentance, performed miracles,
was both divine and human at the same time, was born of a virgin,
was from the Old World, took a long journey to the East (across
the Atlantic toward the Old World) on a mission of sel-sacrifice,
was dead, but was resurrected and rose to heaven, and who would
return at a future time unmistakably point to one (and only one)
historical person: Jesus Christ. Indeed, many of the doctrines
about the humanized Quetzelcoatl parallel Christian teachings
about Jesus Christ! Even Quetzelcoatl's title (the "Morning
Star"), is one of Jesus Christ's biblical titles (Revelation
22:16). The many Christian themes attached to the early
Quetzelcoatl strongly indicate that the humanized Quetzelcoatl
represented Jesus Christ who visited the New World during the
"lost" years of his life. These ancient New World legends even
record that he returned to the Old World aware of the destiny of
self-sacrifice which was ahead of him.
The fanciful legends depicting Quetzelcoatl as a serpent god
do not, of course, apply to Jesus Christ. Since Satan is depicted
as a "serpent" in the Bible (Genesis 3:1-13, Revelation 12:9-15),
it is apparent that the worship of Quetzelcoatl was subverted
from biblical themes into a form of Satan-worship (even including
rites of human sacrifice). The separate legendary figure of
Viracocha may also be based on Jesus Christ, or even one of the
Apostles who were sent by Christ to "all nations" (Matthew
28:19).
Earlier chapters presented much evidence that Israelite
civilizations were established in the New World by the
HebrewPhoenicians, Carthaginians, and Iberians. These Israelites,
by bringing Old World knowledge and customs to the New World, had
a large role in the founding of New World civilizations. For
example, the Carthaginians who colonized the New World were
Israelites who practiced human sacrifice as part of their Baal
worship. The fact that ancient New World cultures practiced human
sacrifice indicates this grisly practice was planted in the New
World by the Carthaginians. Since Carthaginians were also North
Africans (familiar with Egypt's pyramids), it is also likely that
the presence of pyramids in the MesoAmerican civilizations of the
New World attests to linkages between the two regions.
At this juncture, we will digress to examine this subject.
While this will not directly involve the life of Christ, it will
support the contention that Jesus Christ was in the New World by
establishing that the Christian religion was present in the New
World soon after the lifetime of Jesus Christ - demonstrating
that the sea route to the New World was known during Christ's
lifetime. To the extent people in the New World were Israelites,
it provides a biblical basis for Jesus Christ to visit the New
World as Matthew 15:24 records that he was "sent to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel (the ten tribes)."
Matthew 15 contains a persuasive argument on this point. In
Matthew 15:21-28, a gentile woman asked Jesus to heal her
daughter (something that Jesus readily did for Jews). Jesus
initially refused to help, stating he was sent only to "the lost
sheep of the house of Israel." Only via a repeated, humble
approach did this gentile woman move Jesus to help her. Jesus'
reluctance to help gentiles "in his own backyard" argues that he
would not have wasted any time journeying across the Atlantic to
visit or evangelize inhabitants of the New World unless they were
Israelites!
We have already seen much evidence documenting that there
was a substantial Israelite presence in the New World both before
and during Christ's lifetime. There is also evidence that
Israelites were present well after his lifetime as well. Some of
this evidence will be examined to demonstrate that transatlantic
voyages werepossible at many times in the Christian era,
including the first century A.D.
The Toltec civilization flourished in Meso-America from 900
A.D. until 1200 A.D. The Encyclopedia Americana states:
"Their capital was Tollan, now Tula...the name 'Toltec' is
derived from the name of their capital ... the most important
figure in Toltec history was... Topiltzin." 39
One of the branches of the Israelite tribe of Issachar was
named after "Tola" (Numbers 26:23). Notice the similarity between
the Israelite name Tola and the root words Tollan, Tula, and
Toltec, indicating the tribe of Issachar was involved in founding
the Toltec civilization. An intermediate location where they may
have also left their tribal name is found in Thule, Greenland.]
An analysis of Topiltzin s name points to a Viking/Scandinavian
origin. His name concludes with the syllable "zin." The letters
"z" and "s" are phonetically similar. Substituting an "s" for the
"z" in his name, we get Topilt-sin, or Topilt-son. The suffix
"-son" or "-sen" is very common at the ends of Scandinavian
names. The consonants "S-N" or "Z-N" at the end of Topiltzin's
name argue for a Scandinavian origin for this man.
An article by Lawrence Athy, Jr. printed in the Epigraphic
Society Occasional Publications, and entitled "Foreign Influences
on the Priesthood and Nobility of Pre-Columbian America"
maintains that the Olmec and Toltec civilizations were ruled and
directed by foreign elites who were tall and bearded. This
foreign elite was in sharp contrast to the squat, flat-nosed and
rarely-bearded Indian peasants over whom the foreign elites
ruled. Clearly, the foreign elites exhibited characteristics of
Semitic people from the Old World. Atby notes that by the time of
the founding of the Toltec civilization, these "tall bearded
elites" had been present in the New World for over two thousand
years." 40
The Toltec ruler named Topiltzin was "a venerable and devout
person ... an old man with a long red beard turning white ... who
had come from a foreign country." 41 Athy further relates:
"Topiltzin and his Toltecs were gentle people, were opposed by a
wicked leader of many of the native people, and were persecuted
to the point that the 'Toltecs abandoned this country and
returned to their place of origin.' Topiltzin called together the
people of Tula explaining that he was leaving due to persecution,
and prophesied the arrival of strangers who would come ... from
the east'...thus the people were to be punished for their
mistreatment of the Toltecs.'...Topiltzin also told them that the
arrival of the strangers would not be witnessed by them ... but
would be seen by the fourth or fifth generation.'" 42
The Spaniards under Cortez arrived approximately three
hundred years later and fulfilled Topiltzin's prophecy about the
destruction of the Aztec culture (which had followed the
Toltecs). Athy adds:
"Cortez had arrived in the year 1 Reed in the Aztec calendar ...
the year in which Topiltzin had been born - the year in which the
return of his sons had been forecast." 43
In chapter five, it was noted that Christian inscriptions
dating from the first to the third centuries A.D. were found in
the Mayan ruins of Comalcalco, indicating Christianity existed in
the New World very soon after the life of Jesus Christ. There is
further evidence that Christianity was at one time
well-established and widespread in the New World, but that it had
degenerated over time as Christian symbols and practices were
blended into the sun-worship religion of the native populations
found by the Spaniards. Consider the following:
"Many of the Catholic rituals taught to the Maya were already
familiar to them, to the great surprise of the early
missionaries. The Maya practiced baptism in water, confirma-tion,
fasting ... The cross was a familiar ikon ... When the friars
explained that the cross was the sign of God, who had died on the
Tree of Good and Evil and now lives in the heavens, the Maya
accepted it as another version of a story they already knew." 44
The cross, in particular, was a well-known symbol in the New
World, especially among the ruling elites. Walter Stender wrote:
"When the Spaniards conquered Peru, they were astonished and
puzzled to find crosses in the temples and palaces of the royal
Inca family ... For the Incas the use of the cross was a
continuance from preceding cultures ... it becomes evident that
the cross had a religious significance." 45 (Emphasis added)
Stender also records the following:
"The Mayas used it [the cross] .. in one of their glyphs...
Legends exist from various sites in South America that white men
came to the natives to teach them a better way of social life. A
similarity is obvious with the well-known Mesoamerican
traditions, where white men arrived and tried to develop the
cultural level of the natives ... all these white men ... were
bearded, and another feature is particularly remarkable: the
garments of these white visitors have been decorated with white
and black crosses ... At the time of the Spanish conquest there
was a broad awareness in South America of an early presence of
white residents ... 46 (Emphasis added)
Stender's article documents that the symbol of the cross had
been present in the New World at least as early as the middle of
the first millennium. Combined with the evidence (from chapter
five) that a Christian inscription had been placed at Comalcalco
in the first to the third centuries A.D., it can be seen that
Christianity had been present in the New World from virtually the
beginning of the Christian era!
During the Middle Ages, there were Christian Norseman allied
with the Catholic Church of Rome. The Epigraphic Society
Occasional Publications has reproduced a series of letters from
three different popes, dated 1282, 1448 and 1492 A.D., written to
Norse bishops and a church in Greenland. 47 The letter of Pope
Martin IV to a Norwegian Archbishop in 1282 A.D. concerned the
tithes of the Greenland churches, and the letter of Pope Nicolaus
V in 1448 A.D. acknowledged that Christians in Greenland "For
almost 600 years [had] kept the faith of Christ...48. This
extraordinary papal letter places Christians in Greenland in the
ninth century A.D.
Viking voyages to the New World had been taking place for
centuries prior to Pope Nicolaus V's letter, and Icelandic
history records that a Catholic bishop named Eric Gnuppson
travelled from Iceland to the New World (Vinland) in the year
1121 A.D.49
This concludes the above digression on the evidence of
Christianity in the New World. It was deemed necessary to confirm
that Christians were voyaging to the New World not only in the
first century A.D., but at many other times prior to the arrival
of Columbus or Cortez. While not directly relating to the life of
Jesus Christ, it does provide background information indicating
that it is not so revolutionary a proposal to assert the Jesus
Christ visited the New World during the eighteen year period
about which the Bible is silent. We will now examine specific
evidence that it was possible for Jesus Christ to have made a
journey to the New World in his lifetime.
There is no doubt that the means for Jesus Christ to travel
to the New World did exist. Earlier chapters have shown that huge
Phoenician and Carthaginian vessels crossed the Atlantic
throughout
..........
To be continued
The Missing 18 Years of Jesus' Life #3Ministry and Death #1
THE MISSING 18 YEARS OF JESUS' LIFE #3
Continued from previous page:
Phoenician and Carthaginian vessels crossed the Atlantic
throughout the first millennium B.C., and Roman vessels also
learned the routes in later centuries.
Records exist that the Romans had ocean-going vessels as
large as 1200-1600 tons displacement, and that such vessels could
be 180 feet in length, have a beam of 45 feet and a cargo hold 44
feet deep. 50 Josephus records that he rode in a Roman passenger
ship carrying 600 people, 51 and Acts 27:9-36 records that Paul
rode in a Roman vessel carrying 276 people in a dangerous sailing
season (when a reduced passenger total was likely). Roman
artifacts have also been found in the New World. Boland comments
on Roman artifacts found on the American east coast. 52 In Saga
America, Dr. Fell documents that Roman coins, artifacts and
inscriptions have been found in the American states of Alabama,
Tennessee, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia,
and others. 53 Dr.Fell's comments on Jewish coins (second century
A.D.) being found in Kentucky, and the Missouri-Arkansas border
region confirm that sailing routes from Judea to ancient North
America were known in the early Christian era. 54 DrYell also
wrote concerning a Hebrew inscription found in Tennessee:
"...the Bat Creek stone from Tennessee, supposed by the
Smithsonian finders to be Cherokee, but recognized by all Hebrew
scholars who have studied it as a Hebrew text of the first
century A.D. Dr. Robert Stieglitz of New York reads it as A comet
for the Hebrews," with reference to Halley's comet, which 'hung
over Jerusalem like a flaming sword' in the year 69 A.D. during
the first revolt ... The evidence suggests that Kentucky and
Tennessee became havens of refuge for persecuted Hebrews ...55
The above piece of evidence places Judean Jews travelling to
ancient North America in the first century A.D. (Just decades
after Jesus Christ's lifetime). From this evidence, it can be
seen that transatlantic routes existed during the lifetime of
Jesus Christ. Since Joseph of Arimathea was involved in an
international trading firm which necessitated long oceanic
voyages, Jesus would have ready access to sailing routes to North
America. If Joseph was also a Roman official (a "decurio"), he
would have had privileged access to Rome's knowledge of routes to
North America.
There is an episode in the Bible which indicates that Jesus
was physically adapted to the effects of long ocean voyages. Mark
4:35-41 describes an event in which Jesus and his disciples were
crossing the Sea of Galilee and were caught in a storm. Verse 37
states: "there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat
into the ship, so that it was now full." Afraid for their lives,
the disciples found Jesus "in the hinder part of the ship, asleep
on a pillow." After being forceably awakened by the disciples,
Jesus commanded the wind to "be still," and an immediate calm
prevailed. Apparently Jesus was sleeping in a lower deck. Hebrews
4:15 tells us that Jesus was a human being as well as the Son of
God, and that he "was in all points tempted like as we are." If
Jesus experienced all the sensations which humans experience, his
human body was subject to seasickness and nausea. That Jesus was
able to sleep on a ship that was rolling and pitching in a severe
storm indicates that his human body had previously become adapted
to the buffeting of waves and the movements of sea swells. His
involvement with Joseph of Arimathea's international trading
business would have given him ample time to get his "sea legs."
While the context of this account shows that this storm was the
most severe experienced by these fishermen on an inland lake, it
was likely less severe than the storms and sea swells experienced
by Jesus on the open ocean (enabling him to sleep through a storm
on an inland lake).
Another biblical account also supports the concept that
Jesus was outside of Palestine during the "hidden years." In John
10:16, Jesus had a discourse with the Jews in which he said:
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold, them also
must I bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
one fold, and one shepherd."
In Matthew 10:6 and 15:24, Jesus referred to the "lost
sheep" of the House of Israel (the ten tribes of Israel). In Mark
6:34, Jesus regarded the multitudes who followed him as "sheep,"
and most of those multitudes would have been Jews of Judea. Since
sheep dwell in "folds," what was meant by Jesus' imagery of John
10:16 that he had "sheep" in more than one "fold?" Jesus refers
to Judea (the land of the Jews) as "this fold," but informs them
that they are not the only "fold." Clearly, the other "fold" was
where the descendants of the ten tribes of Israel lived. Since
Jesus told them "Other sheep I have [in other folds]," his use of
the present tense indicates that it was already an accomplished
fact: he already had "sheep" (followers) in a "fold" other than
Judea. Since there is no evidence of Jesus being in Judea from
ages 12 to 30, he had plenty of time to visit and preach to the
descendants of the ten tribes of Israel during those eighteen
years.
The Gospel books of the Bible (Matthew-John) are eyewitness
accounts of Jesus' ministry to the House of Judah, which lasted 3
and 1/2 years. None of his ministry to the House of Israel is
recorded for us in the Bible even though the Bible implies it had
occurred prior to Jesus' ministry in Judea. The life of Jesus, as
presented in the Bible, is like a book in which only the first
and the last few chapters are included, with all the middle
chapters (the majority of the book) left out! The Apostle John
wrote that the Gospel accounts did not provide a comprehensive
account of the life of Christ. John 21:25 states:
"there were also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if
they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world
itself could not contain the books that should be written."
Johns assertion that the life of Jesus was extraordinarily
active and eventful is significant in light of the fact that the
Bible says nothing about his life from age 12 to age 30. It is
logical that many of Jesus' undescribed activities spoken of by
John 21:25 were not done in Judea, or they would have been
discussed in the "eyewitness" gospels. Many of Jesus' unwritten
exploits must have been performed outside of Judea, and this is
consistent with legends that Jesus travelled to many parts of the
ancient world.
There are reasons to believe that the response of the ten
tribes of Israel to Jesus was favorable. Since some of Parthia's
ruling class worshipped Jesus when he was a child, they likely
welcomed him eagerly in Parthia's Asian empire when he was a
young man. The positive legends about the first Quetzelcoat
(which parallel many biblical facts about Jesus' life) indicate
that he made a lasting, favorable impression in the New World.
The Druids of the British Isles and Northwest Europe had long
expected a savior named Yesu (Yeshuah), and the legends of early
Briton record a warm response to Joseph of Arimathea and other
early Christians. It seems apparent why Jesus told the Jews he
had "sheep" in other "folds."
The New Testament records that Jesus was well-received by
the common people of the House of Judah. (Indeed, who could
respond negatively to one who miraculously healed so many
people?) It was the Jewish hierarchy which reacted negatively to
Jesus. The reason is simple. The nations of the ten tribes of
Israel were sovereign nations at the time Jesus visited them.
Therefore, they didn't resent that Jesus' mission did not include
physical "salvation" from oppressors. They didn't need any! In
sharp contrast, the House of Judah (the portion that lived in
Judea) was hungry for physical "salvation" from Roman oppression.
Their rulers had little interest in a message of spiritual
salvation; they wanted a Messiah bringing physical salvation from
Rome!
As Jesus approached age thirty, he said good-bye both to his
great-uncle's international mining and trading business, to his
"sheep" living in the "folds" of the ten tribes of Israel, and
returned to his native land of Judea. The satisfying years of
international responsibility and warm welcomes among many diverse
and distant people were over. The difficult years of his earthly
mission were now ahead of him, and he knew it.
The New Testament teaches that if Jesus Christ had failed in
his mission (to atone for mankind's sins) God the Father (the
"Most High God" of the Old Testament), would not have permitted a
single human being to ever taste eternal life since mankind would
have had no atoning sacrifice. If Jesus failed, all mankind died
with him. This young Jewish man, with the royal blood of King
David in his veins, and filled with the Holy Spirit of his Father
(the "Most High God"), must have had a tremendous load on his
mind as he made what was to be his last trip home. He must have
felt like he was "carrying the world on his shoulders" as he
returned to Judea, for so he was.
PART THREE: HIS MINISTRY AND DEATH
The Bible asserts that Jesus Christ began his ministry at
the age of thirty (Luke 3:23). This is significant because the
Old Testament required a man to be thirty years old in order to
serve in the priesthood (Numbers 4:3). Jesus Christ, who was God
in the flesh, was not subject to the normal human maturation
schedule. His discourse with the Temple elders indicated that he
was spiritually mature at the age of twelve. However, due to the
sensitivities of the Jewish community in Judea, Jesus did not
enter their culture in a priestly role until he attained the age
of thirty.
When Jesus returned to Judea, one of his first public acts
was to be baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River
(Matthew 3:1316). This affirmed the ministry of John the Baptist,
and set an example for his future followers concerning the
necessity of water baptism. Since he went to the Jordan River to
be baptized, and Matthew 3:16 states "Jesus, when he was baptized
went up ... out of the water," it is clear that Jesus' baptism
was by immersion.
After his baptism, Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-15 tell us of
a direct confrontation between Jesus and Satan the devil. Satan
repeatedly tempted Jesus in an effort to entice him into doing
something sinful or idolatrous. If Jesus had failed the test, he
could not have served as the sinless "passover lamb" which
mankind needed for its salvation. Luke 4:2 asserts that Jesus
fasted for 40 days to prepare for his spiritual battle with
Satan. Fasting is frequently discussed in the Bible as a means of
drawing nearer to God.
One of Satan's temptations involved his showing Jesus "all
the kingdoms of the world," and saying:
"all this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that
is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou
therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine."
Satan claimed to be the unseen ruler of the earth, who had
the authority to select national leaders as he wished.
Furthermore, he was offering temporal power over all the
earth to Jesus if he chose Satan as his lord. Significantly,
Jesus did not dispute Satan's claim to being the unseen lord of
all the world's nations, and that he had the power to select
their human rulers.
Jesus, in resisting these temptations, was qualifying to
replace Satan as the ruler of the earth, but the Bible is clear
that the actual rulership of Christ will not occur until his
second coming. His first coming was to qualify to replace Satan
as world ruler, and to become an atonement for all mankind so
they could have eternal life. The Bible acknowledges Satan as the
"prince of this world" (John 12:31 and 14:30), and acknowledges
him as "the prince" of this world even after the death of Christ
(Ephesians 2:2). He will remain the "prince" of this world until
Jesus dethrones him at his second coming, at which point
Revelation 20:1-3 states that Satan will be imprisoned and
restrained from invisibly manipulating the nations.
Consider Satan's sweeping offer and Jesus' response. Jesus
did not challenge Satan's right to give the world rulership which
he offered; however, he declined a temporal world rulership under
Satan's auspices in favor of a future, eternal world rulership
under God (Revelation 19:11-16, 20:1-6).
Remember these facts: (A) Jesus had already been worshipped
by some of the kingmaking Magi of Parthia (an ancient
"superpower"), and his status as a relative of the Arsacids made
him eligible for Parthia's throne, (B) Jesus had been
well-received in Briton, and his Hebrew name identified him as
the promised Messiah (the "Yesu") expected by the Druids, (C)
Jesus had already gained a following in the New World, and was
likely the subject of the first Quetzelcoatl legends, and (D) the
Jews were expecting the Messiah during his lifetime due to the
timetable of Old Testament prophecies. In other words, Satan's
offer was quite practical in human terms. The physical conditions
were already in place for Jesus to be made a powerful world
leader! Satan was offering his services to use the above
circumstances to make Jesus a world emperor if he was willing to
choose short-term gain instead of long-term good. Thankfully,
Jesus resisted his offer.
It should now be apparent that Jesus Christ was hardly an
obscure carpenter in Galilee. At the time he began his ministry,
he had concluded visits to the far-flung ten tribes of Israel,
utilizing his excellent relations with the Parthian Magi to
travel east into Asia as well as the transoceanic routes
available to him via Joseph of Arimathea's business to travel
westward to Europe and the New World. Jesus would have been known
to the influential classes of the Parthian Empire, Briton, the
New World, and also the Roman officials of the countries in which
Joseph's mining and trading company conducted business. Luke 2:52
hints that he was well-liked wherever he went. Luke wrote that
after Jesus amazed the teachers in the Temple with his precocious
wisdom at age twelve, he:
"...increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and
man."
Luke's comment that Jesus' wisdom and favor (fame) continued
to increase after age twelve contradicts the modern viewpoint
that Jesus' went "dormant" to live as an obscure carpenter in
Galilee until he "burst" onto the scene at age thirty. Since
Jesus was unknown in his Judean hometown at the time he began his
ministry at age thirty, it is apparent that the "favor" he had in
the eyes of "man" occurred in regions far from Judea and Galilee.
After the confrontation between Jesus and Satan, Jesus began his
ministry with miraculous events and numerous appearances in
synagogues (Matthew 4:23-25 and Luke 4:14-15). He did mighty
miracles, and people "glorified" him (Luke 4:15). Luke 4:16-30
then describes his visit to the synagogue in Nazareth (his home
town) where they tried to kill him. This event contained several
harbingers of the future impact of Jesus' ministry in Judea.
Luke 4:16 begins by stating that Jesus "came to Nazareth, where
he had been brought up." Notice that Luke did not say Nazareth
was "where Jesus lived," but rather that Nazareth is "where he
had been brought up." This language indicates that Jesus had
lived in Nazareth only during his formative years. Indeed, the
Living Bible renders this passage as "he came to the village of
Nazareth, his boyhood home." Luke's comment clearly indicates
that Jesus did not live in Nazareth as a young man or adult!
Luke then tells us that Jesus "as his custom was, went into the
synagogue on the Sabbath Day, and stood up for to read." Jesus
was still loyal to the religious traditions taught him by his
parents, and it was customary for Jesus to observe the Sabbath
Day. In other words, Jesus was acting as would any devout Jew of
the period. If Jesus had been present in his hometown synagogue
from age twelve to age thirty, his wisdom and fame (attested to
by Luke) would have been well-known to them as Jesus (even at age
twelve) was making no effort to conceal his spiritual maturity.
Yet verse 22 shows that the congregation "wondered at the
gracious words" of Jesus and said "Isn't this Joseph's son?" To
reiterate an earlier argument, the local congregation had not
experienced Jesus' power or wisdom during the intervening years,
and were struggling to identify him. Clearly, Jesus had not been
there in many years! If Jesus lived in Nazareth, one must also
believe that God's Spirit, which moved Jesus so powerfully at age
twelve, went completely dormant for eighteen years and suddenly
reawoke in him after a long hiatus. This author finds such a
viewpoint untenable. All scriptural examples show that once God's
Spirit is moving a person, it either waxes stronger or is
"quenched." It is not a commodity that can stagnate or go dormant
for almost two decades. Indeed, in the parable of the talents
(Matthew 25), Jesus regarded a servant who "went dormant" with
his gift to be worthy of punishment! It is impossible that Jesus
"went dormant" for eighteen years!
Jesus then read (and applied to himself) a passage from
Isaiah 61 which states: "the spirit of the Lord is upon me
because he [God] bath anointed me to preach the gospel..." Jesus
openly claimed to be the Messiah, the "anointed one" of God when
he stated: "this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."
In verse 23 Jesus tells them "Ye will surely say unto me
this proverb, Physician, heal thyself." Jesus is here speaking in
the future tense, indicating he already knew he would be mocked
during his eventual suffering on the cross.
Mark 6:4 parallels Luke's account, and quotes Jesus as
saying: "a prophet is not without honor, but [except] in his own
country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." This
speaks volumes. Jesus affirmed that he was a prophet, but
predicted that his own nation (the Jews), his own community and
his own relatives would not recognize him as the Messiah. There
is another implication of this statement which could easily be
missed. This statement also implies that while he would not be
honored in his own country as a prophet, he would be honored
outside his own country, community and family (he would not be
"without honor").
Jesus then ended his message to his home-town folk by
mentioning an account in which Elijah healed and saved a gentile
from Sidon rather than any of his own countrymen. This
foreshadows the historical fact that while being generally
rejected by his countrymen (the Jews), the benefits of Jesus'
ministry would be received by those outside of Judea. This
happened when Paul, the Apostles and others spread the message
that he was the Messiah to all lands while the Jews mostly
rejected him.
Jesus' message infuriated his listeners. They attempted to
kill him, and Jesus escaped this "lynch mob" by "passing through
the midst of them." The fact that those who sought to kill him
did not recognize him as he passed through the angry crowd
further illustrates two points. It confirms the contention that
he had been gone from his home-town a long time (otherwise they
would have recognized him easily), and it also shows that Jesus
was an averagelooking Jew who did not stand out in a crowd.
That Jesus was an average-looking Jew debunks a modern myth about
him. The average Jew of Jesus' day did not have "hippie"length
hair, as Jesus is depicted as having on modern pictures. If his
hair were inordinately long, he would have easily been recognized
in a crowd of Jews. Since Paul the Apostle observed in I
Corinthians 11:14 that it is a "shame" for a man to have long
hair, it is evident that Jesus could not have had long hair. Some
confusion on this matter may result from a misunderstanding of
the terms "Nazarite" and "Nazarene." A "Nazarite" was one who,
during the length of a vow, refrained from drinking alcohol or
cutting his hair (Numbers 6:2-5). Since growing long hair would
separate them from the rest of the male population, Nazarites
could easily be identified by their long hair. Jesus was a
"Nazarene" (indicating that he was from Nazareth), but he was no
Nazarite, since he drank alcohol (Matthew 11:19 shows that Jesus'
detractors called him a "winebibber" because they thought he
drank too much wine).
This episode is atypical of Jesus! It shows Jesus going to
the synagogue of his boyhood home and rebuking them so strongly
that even the "religious" people of the synagogue tried to murder
him! This would sound strange if it were not for several hints in
the text. The account of this episode in Mark 6:1-6 shows that
the while the locals voiced no ill feelings toward his mother and
siblings, verse 3 states that the townspeople "were offended" at
Jesus! Why?
There is a strong implication here that when Jesus left
Nazareth soon after age twelve, his memories of Nazareth were not
happy ones. Indeed, since Jesus had the Spirit of God from birth,
there are many ways in which Jesus would not have "fit in" with
the attitudes, actions and interests of the other children in the
area. Since Jesus lived a sinless life, he would have been
unwilling to participate in the usual trouble-making and mischief
that characterize young boys, making him a target of considerable
"hazing" by the other children. Also, since he could confound the
Temple elders at age twelve, Jesus was "light years" ahead of his
peers in maturity, and would have had almost nothing in common
with other boys his age. Also, the strange visit of foreign
dignitaries (the Magi) to lavish gifts on Jesus as a little child
would have made some townspeople jealous or suspicious of him. If
the Magi continued to send emissaries to him over the years (a
distinct possibility), this action would have further complicated
his life in a rural town of Galilee.
After the death of Joseph, his step-father, his mother Mary
may have thought it was best for Jesus to leave the area, and
become an "apprentice" to his great uncle and international
businessman, Joseph of Arimathea. When Jesus came back to his
home area after an eighteen year absence, many of the people in
that synagogue were likely the very ones who had hazed and
ostracized Jesus when he was a boy. When he claimed to be the
Messiah, their reaction was "Oh no, not him!" They were
"offended" when they learned that the marvelous new teacher was
the same Jesus they had hazed and taunted years ago. The above is
supported by Luke 4:15 which indicates that Jesus was "glorified"
in all other synagogues, and rejected only in his own hometown.
Another early act of Jesus was his selection of twelve men
to serve as the initial apostles of his church (John 1:35-51).
Since Jesus knew that each of these men would serve not only as a
contemporary spiritual leader, but also as future kings over the
tribes of Israel after his second coming (Matthew 19:28), he was
selecting people who would fit the distinct temperaments and
needs of each of the twelve tribes of Israel! Where had Jesus
gained a knowledge of the unique personalities of the various
tribes of Israel so he could select a suitable future king for
each of them? He obtained such knowledge during his visits to
them between ages twelve and thirty. Since only two of the tribes
of Israel were present in Judea at the time of Jesus (a fact
confirmed by Josephus), the only way he could have gained
personal knowledge of each tribe's needs was via international
travel!
Before proceeding further, it is worth recalling that
Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote soon after the death of
Jesus, did not doubt that Jesus was the Messiah. Josephus openly
stated of Jesus - "He was [the] Christ." 56 He also affirmed the
divine miracles of his life with the words "he was a doer of
wonderful works," and confirmed the resurrection of Jesus as a
historical fact with the words "for he [Jesus] appeared to them
[his followers] alive again the third day, as the divine prophets
had foretold..." 57
Josephus, a prominent Jewish leader and historian of that
time acknowledged that Jesus was the promised Messiah, and since
the Bible records that he was widely "glorified" among the
masses, it would seem that many Jews did perceive Jesus to be the
promised Messiah. Even some Jewish religious leaders accepted
Jesus as one sent by God.
John 3:1-3 states "there was a man of the Pharisees, named
Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews [who] came to Jesus by night, and
said unto him, Rabbi, We know that you are a teacher come from
God: for no man can do these miracles that you do, except God be
with him." Interestingly, Nicodemus came to Jesus "by night,"
implying that he was on a secretive mission. He was representing
Jewish rulers, because he spoke for a group in saying "we
know..." The leaders of the Jews were not ignorant men; they
could see from the Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah was
due in their time period, they could see that Jesus was doing
miracles that only someone with the power of God could do, and
they could see that Jesus was fulfilling Messianic prophecies.
The words of Nicodemus make that evident. Then why did they later
kill Jesus when they knew he was sent from God? There are two
plausible answers.
One possible answer has been offered by William Steuart
McBirnie, in his book The Search for the Twelve Apostles. He
states:
"As ... history's long judgment has since confirmed, the greatest
reason for his condemnation was the fact that Jesus had lanced
through the swollen hypocrisy of the Jewish political and
ceremonial religion and the religious bureaucracy of professional
priests, Pharisees and Sadducees. So all the main Jewish leaders,
including the official party of the Herodians ...consented to or
sought his death." 58
Josephus essentially agreed with the modern opinion of
Stuart McBirnie in stating:
"He [Jesus] was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of
the principal men among us had condemned him to the cross..." 59
This is a very candid statement by Josephus. After declaring
the righteousness of Christ and affirming the status of Jesus as
"the Christ" (the "anointed one"), Josephus acknowledges that the
"principal men among us" (the Jewish leadership) arranged for the
death of Christ. The Jewish religious leaders and their allies
held much power over the Jewish people in Judea. Their conduct
clearly showed that they were more interested in selfishly
clinging to their power than in serving the people by a fair
administration of the laws of God as given through Moses. Because
Jesus was exposing their hypocrisy and venality, the religious
leaders saw Jesus as the symbol of a "reform movement" which
could sweep them from power. The Bible records that Jesus was
generally "glorified" in the Jewish
..........
To be continued
The Missing 18 years of Jesus' Life #4Ministry and Death #2THE MISSING 18 YEARS OF JESUS' LIFE #4
by Steven Collins
Continued from previous page:
synagogues of the day (Luke 4:15), and was a popular figure with
the general Jewish population. Luke 5:15 records that the fame of
Jesus became such that "great multitudes came together to hear,
and to be healed by him." Josephus agreed with Luke that Jesus
was very popular in Judea by stating that Jesus "drew over to him
many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles." 60
The Pharisees were surely familiar with prophecies that the
Messiah would set up a kingdom of his own. Therefore, it was
clear to the Pharisees that if Jesus was the Messiah and was
destined to set up a kingdom, he would oust them from their
authority. Obsessed by their desire to cling to their temporal
power, they determined to slay Jesus to prevent the loss of their
power ... even if it meant killing the Messiah! In arranging the
execution of Jesus, they actually fulfilled the prophecies
pertaining to the Messiah's betrayal and death. Matthew 26:15
fulfilled Zechariah 11:12's prophecy about "thirty pieces of
silver," and Jesus' death to redeem mankind fulfilled the
prophecy of Daniel 9:26 that the Messiah would be "cut off, but
not for himself."
This first possible explanation suggests that the Jewish
leaders did not actually believe the Bible or fear God: that they
viewed religion as a means of perpetuating their power over the
nation. Matthew 27:1 states that "the chief priests and elders
took counsel against Jesus to put him to death." It does not say
the whole Jewish nation wanted to slay Jesus. Their
middle-of-the-night trial and condemnation of Jesus was designed
to thwart any opposition to their plan. from the masses who held
Jesus in high esteem.
There is also a second possible answer to the question of
why the Pharisees arranged the death of Jesus. Consider the life
of the Jews under the Roman yoke. They hated the loss of their
independence, and keenly resented being ruled by gentile Romans.
Many Jews could recall the relative freedom they had enjoyed a
few decades previously when the Parthians had briefly freed them
from Roman rule. Having had a taste of freedom, they hungered for
more of it! The Bible stresses the hatred the Jews felt for the
"publicans," the collectors of the Roman taxes, and Luke 13:1
refers to a violent confrontation in which the Romans executed a
number of Jews. Josephus confirms that this was a time of
tremendous discontent on the part of the Jews with their Roman
rulers, leading to both verbal and violent confrontations. 61
The Jewish leaders were expecting a Messiah who would free them
from Roman tyranny. No doubt many were familiar with such
Messianic prophecies as Zechariah 14 which promised that the
tribes of Israel would be exalted over the gentiles and that
Jerusalem would become a world capital. The Jews must have
thirsted for these prophecies to be fulfilled in their day and
for the Messiah to lead them in a great war against Rome.
As Jesus fulfilled many Messianic prophecies and confirmed his
Messiahship by manifesting divine powers, it is logical that the
Jews would expect Jesus to start using his divine power against
the hated Romans! This expectation must have grown like wildfire,
and Jesus' own disciples shared this expectation!
After all, Jesus had promised his twelve closest disciples
that they would each rule over one of the tribes of Israel when
he (Jesus) would "sit in the throne of his glory" (Matthew
19:28). Jesus consistently spoke of the coming "kingdom of
heaven" in many comments and parables. It was common knowledge
that Jesus was a direct descendant of King David and the ancient
Jewish kings (Luke 2:4). There are many instances cited in the
Gospel accounts of the common people addressing Jesus as the "son
of David." Also, in Matthew 10:34 Jesus proclaimed that he had
come "to bring a sword, not peace." The disciples even quarreled
about who would be the greatest in the kingdom which Jesus would
rule (Matthew 18:1, Mark 9:33-37). Small wonder there was a
widespread expectation that Jesus was about to establish the
"Messianic kingdom" in their day.
Little did the people know that the "deliverance" which the
prophesied Messiah would bring in their day would be a spiritual
deliverance from their sins, not a physical deliverance from
Rome. When Jesus had quoted Isaiah 61:1-2 in his rebuke to his
home synagogue, he omitted verses 3-11 (the prophecies about the
"conquering Messiah") when he told them "this day is this
scripture fulfilled in your ears." This deliberate omission
implied that Jesus would not fulfill those millennial prophecies
during his human ministry.
It is possible that some Jewish leaders of the day, not
realizing that Christ's first coming was to bring spiritual
salvation instead of physical salvation from Rome, felt they had
to "assist" or "push" Jesus into confronting Rome in order to
fulfill all the Messianic prophecies at that time. After all, did
not Ezekiel 37:15-28 prophecy that the House of Israel and House
of Judah would be united under "David" their King? Since Jesus
was a direct descendant of David, and was a relative of the
Parthian kings, and had already been worshipped by some of the
Parthian nobility that picked Parthian kings, the Jews could
easily assume that Jesus was poised to fulfill this prophecy by
uniting Parthia (the House of Israel) and the Jews (the House of
Judah) in a war against Rome! Those expecting (and wanting) such
a war must have been very frustrated and disgusted at what they
perceived to be a "cozy" relationship between Jesus and the
Romans.
Rome was a despotic empire which tightly controlled its
subjects. Yet the entire life of Jesus exhibited a lack of Roman
control over his activities. He could travel where he wanted,
when he wanted and with whom he wanted without the supervision or
permission of Roman authorities. This freedom was permitted by
the Romans in spite of the fact that Jesus was drawing huge
crowds and talking about a new "kingdom," a message that Rome
could easily have seen as encouraging a Jewish revolt. Why did
the Romans allow freedoms to Jesus that they regularly denied to
others? There are at least four reasons for Rome's permissive
attitude toward Jesus.
To begin with, it was discussed earlier in this chapter that
Jesus was related to the rulers of the Parthian Empire at a time
when Caesar wanted "detente" with the Parthians. The Roman rulers
of Judea risked Caesar's wrath if they provoked the Parthians
into a war Caesar didn't want! They were likely aware that Jesus
Christ was a relative of Parthia's emperor (an Arsacid) because
of the widespread knowledge that Jesus was of the royal seed of
David. The Romans may even have been aware of Jesus' special
relationship with the Parthian Magi, who elected Parthian
emperors from the male Arsacids. Rome had great interest in
matters which could affect the political relationships between
Rome and Parthia, so Rome's actions regarding Jesus could affect
Roman-Parthian relations.
Coupling Jesus' "special relationship" with the Parthians
with Caesar's decree that good relations with Parthia should not
be disturbed, Roman officials in Judea had to be very careful not
to antagonize the Parthians by mistreating Jesus Christ! There is
an historical legend that supports the contention that Parthia's
ruling class was closely watching the affairs of Jesus while he
was in Palestine (confirming Rome's need to handle matters
involving Jesus Christ with great caution).
This legend relates that a Parthian provincial ruler, King
Abgar of Edessa (a city of Northern Mesopotamia) carried on a
correspondence with Jesus during his ministry in Palestine.
William Steuart McBirnie relates the legend as follows:
'[the] legend has come down to us from Eusebius...This legend
tells of a correspondence between Jesus and Abgar, King of Edessa
(in what is now southern Russia) ...Eusebius claims to have seen
this correspondence in the archives of Edessa and to have
translated it himself from the Syriac language." 62
McBirnie misidentifies "Edessa" as a city in "southern
Russia" (apparently confusing it with "Odessa," a Russian city on
the Black Sea). King Abgar's "Edessa" was a city in the northern
Mesopotamian region of Parthia's Empire. It was located near the
Euphrates River, almost on the border where the Parthian and
Roman Empires met. Edessa was ruled by a series of kings named
"Abgar," who were vassals of the Parthian Emperor.
Eusebius was a famous Christian historian who lived from 260
A.D. until 340 A.D. The Encyclopaedia Britannica writes
concerning him:
"Eusebius was one of the most learned men of his age, and stood
high in favour with the emperor Constantine... Eusebius'
greatness rests upon his vast erudition and his sound judgement.
He is best known by his History of the Christian Church completed
in 324 or early in 325 A.D." 63
Eusebius was not a man given to wild claims. Let us examine
his own words about the exchange between King Abgar of Edessa and
Jesus Christ. Eusebius begins:
when King Abgar, the brilliantly successful monarch of the
peoples of Mesopotamia, who was dying from a terrible physical
disorder which no human power could heal, heard continual mention
of the name of Jesus and unanimous tribute to His miracles, he
sent a humble request to Him by a letter-carrier, begging relief
from his disease." 64
This record that news of Jesus' miracles was commonly heard
in Parthia's western provinces confirms that the trade routes
must have been full of news about Jesus' exploits. The following
excerpt from King Abgar's letter to Jesus is taken from Eusebius'
account:
"Abgar ... to Jesus, who has appeared as a gracious saviour in
the region of Jerusalem--greeting.
"I have heard about you and about the cures you perform...If the
report is true, you make the blind see again and the lame walk
about; you cleanse lepers ... and raise the dead ...I concluded
that ... either you are God and came down from heaven to do these
things, or you are God's Son doing them. Accordingly I am writing
you to beg you to come to me, whatever the inconvenience, and
cure the disorder from which I suffer. I may add that I
understand the Jews are treating you with contempt and desire to
injure you: my city is very small, but highly esteemed, adequate
for both of us." 65
The reports heard by Abgar closely parallel the narratives
in the Gospel accounts about the miracles of Jesus. King Abgar
professes his faith in Jesus, is desperate for Jesus to come, and
offers him refuge in Edessa from the risks faced by Jesus in
Jerusalem. It is remarkable that Eusebius preserved for us a
record that Jesus was given an official offer of sanctuary in
Parthian territory from the dangers he faced in Jerusalem.
According to Eusebius, the following reply was sent by Jesus
Christ himself to King Abgar by a courier named Ananias.
"happy are you who believed in me without having seen me! For it
is written of me that those who have seen me will not believe in
me, and those who have not seen me will believe and live. As to
your request that I should come to you, I must complete all that
I was sent to do here, and on completing it must at once be taken
up to the One who sent me. When I have been taken, up I will send
you one of my disciples to cure your disorder and bring life to
you and those with you." 66
This letter attributed to Jesus would have been about three
hundred years old when Eusebius read it in the Royal Records of
Edessa, and it reflects a doctrine and attitude entirely
compatible with that expressed by Jesus in the Gospel accounts.
Jesus' words give the impression that his crucifixion may have
been imminent. Significantly, while Jesus was reluctant to
perform a healing for a non-Israelite in Palestine (Matthew
15:21-28), he readily agreed to send someone to heal King Abgar.
This argues that King Abgar and his Parthian subjects were
Israelites from one of the ten tribes of Israel. If Jesus had
travelled in Parthia's empire during his missing eighteen years,
he would have known this to be true from personal experience and,
therefore, he exhibited no reluctance to heal King Abgar.
There is more to the story. According to Eusebius, the
archives of Edessa recorded that after Jesus' death and
resurrection, Thaddaeus (mentioned in Mark 3:18) was sent by the
Apostle Thomas to Edessa. Once there, he not only healed many of
King Abgar's subjects, but also laid hands on King Abgar himself
and healed the king. King Abgar ordered his subjects to assemble
and hear the preaching of Thaddaeus, and offered him silver and
gold (which Thaddaeus refused). King Abgar is quoted as stating
to Thaddaeus:
"I believed in Him (Jesus) so strongly that I wanted to take. an
army and destroy the Jews who crucified Him, if I had not been
prevented by the imperial power of Rome from doing so." 67
Remarkable! Here is a record of a Parthian vassal king
wishing to mount a military campaign to punish those responsible
for crucifying Jesus Christ! However, Abgar acknowledges that he
alone did not have the power to challenge the Roman army in Judea
(the Parthian Emperor would have to mass the armies of many of
his feudal kings, like Abgar, to fight the Romans). This account
confirms that Jesus had strong supporters within the Parthian
Empire, justifying Rome's reluctance to interfere with his life.
The second reason for amicable relations between Jesus and the
Romans is that Jesus was likely well-known to Roman officials who
had met him through contacts with Joseph of Arimathea's company.
If Joseph was a Roman "Decurio," a Roman mining official, who
travelled between Judea and Briton, people affiliated with
Joseph's company came in contact with Roman officials on a
constant basis. This would have occurred in Briton, the
Mediterranean region, and wherever the goods of Joseph's company
were shipped and transported within the Roman Empire. It is
likely that Jesus assisted in Joseph's business as he travelled
under Joseph's tutelage. At any rate, it would have been
well-known that Joseph was the mentor of Jesus. During those
years Jesus must have developed a personal rapport with a number
of Roman officials. Indeed, while most of the Jewish community
recoiled from personal contacts with Romans as "unclean
gentiles," Jesus had no reluctance in dealing with Romans. The
example of Jesus' willingness to use miraculous power to heal the
servant of a Roman centurion (Matthew 8) is such an example.
While this surely won for Jesus goodwill with the Romans, it must
have infuriated the Jewish leaders who wanted their Messiah to
fight the Romans, not heal them!
If Joseph of Arimathea was a Roman Decurio, he certainly
possessed Roman citizenship. Since Jesus was a blood relative and
youthful protege of Joseph of Arimathea, it is also very possible
that Jesus Christ obtained Roman citizenship during his "lost"
eighteen years! If Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus Christ possessed
Roman citizenship, it further explains why (A) Joseph was given
quick access to Pilate, the Roman governor, after Jesus was
crucified; and (B) why Jesus came and went as he pleased! If
Jesus was a Roman citizen, he had the right to travel as he
wished within the Roman Empire! It was not unusual for Jews of
that period to be Roman citizens. The apostle Paul (first named
Saul) was also a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37-38, 22:22-29).
A third reason that enabled Jesus to go wherever he wished
and do whatever he pleased was the fact that Jesus was wealthy!
The Parthian Magi had given Jesus costly gifts of "gold, myrrh,
and frankincense." We are not told how much gold and costly
spices were given to Jesus, but it was no doubt a substantial
amount. The Parthians regarded Jesus as royalty, and it was the
ancient custom to give a royal personage a truly worthy gift when
coming into his presence. Since the Parthian Magi were directed
to Jesus by an angel of God, their sense of awe likely resulted
in unusually large gifts being given to Jesus. This gold was
likely held in trust for him until he was older (first by his
physical father, and then by Joseph of Arimathea after his
father's death). When he reached legal adulthood, Jesus
controlled it. Also, since Jesus' mentor, Joseph of Arimathea,
was also wealthy, one can be sure Jesus shared in that wealth. In
all cultures and times, wealth can open a lot of doors.
Jesus' financial resources were confirmed by the fact that
he and his band of disciples travelled for years without any
visible means of support! In spite of their itinerant lifestyles
Jesus' band had monetary resources. (John 13:29 shows Judas
Iscariot was their treasurer in charge of disbursements.) John
12:3-6 reveals that people around Jesus could afford expensive
purchases and that Judas, the treasurer, was an embezzler. Judas
was, therefore, handling sums of money large enough for him to
think his embezzling would not be noticed. Judas' comment in John
12:5 also indicates that Jesus' group was in the habit of making
donations to the poor. The fact that Jesus and his group never
had to ask for donations from "the multitudes," but rather gave
money to the poor confirms that Jesus travelled with plenty of
financial resources to take care of his followers.
The fourth reason why Rome allowed Jesus to travel and speak
as he did is that Rome had reason to believe that part of his
message actually served Roman interests. The Roman rulers,
knowing about Jesus' connection to Parthian royalty and seeing
his divine powers, were likely quite relieved to hear Jesus
preaching a message which did not include inflammatory remarks
toward Rome.
For example, Matthew 22:15-22 records one attempt by Jewish
leaders to push Jesus into a confrontation with Rome. The
Pharisees wanted to entangle Jesus on the subject of the hated
Roman taxes, and they made sure the "Herodians" (Roman
sympathizers) were there to listen. They asked Jesus whether it
was lawful for the Jews to pay Roman taxes? They apparently
expected Jesus to answer "no," and wanted the Roman sympathizers
to hear his answer, hoping to bring Jesus and Rome into conflict.
However, Jesus declined the role of "tax protester," and said
"render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the
things that are God's." Hearing Jesus response, the Herodians
(and Romans) had to be pleased with his answer. The
non-confrontational relationship of Jesus and the Romans
continued to the chagrin of the Jewish leaders.
Indeed, when the Jewish leaders urged Pilate to crucify Jesus,
some of them may have seen it as a final attempt to make Jesus
use his divine powers against Rome to save himself. Since similar
desires for war existed among the disciples of Jesus, an alliance
between the Sanhedrin and one of Jesus' disciples (Judas) to
bring about this confrontation is understandable. They may have
assumed that if Jesus' own life were put at risk, he would use
his miraculous powers to save his life and fight the Romans.
Support for this possibility is found in the actions of Judas
after Jesus Christ allowed himself to be crucified. Judas was so
shocked at Jesus' death that he hanged himself (Matthew 27:3-5).
Clearly, Judas had not expected that the outcome of his actions
would be the death of Jesus. Perhaps Judas also assumed that
Jesus would, when pushed to the point of death, finally oppose
the Romans with his divine powers. If so, this hope was a result
of wishful thinking and flawed prophetic understanding. Daniel
9:26 had prophesied that the Messiah would be killed, and Jesus
had tried to prepare his followers for this event, telling them
he would be buried for three days and three nights (Matthew
12:40). Also, the angel who had announced the birth of Jesus to
Joseph in Matthew 1:21 had said only that "he shall save his
people from their sins" (the angel did not say "he shall save his
people from the Romans.") However, most Jews weren't interested
in being saved from their sins; they wanted a Messiah who would
save them from Rome!
Let us examine the political pressures on the participants
who were involved in the trial and execution of Jesus to learn
more about what really was happening.
Jesus was not only aware of his prophesied death, but also
seemed to realize the manner in which it would occur. He told his
listeners that his death would involve "a lifting up from the
earth" (John 12:32-33), which occurred when he was lifted up on a
cross. The Pharisees, not realizing (or not accepting) that the
Messiah had to die, became the instruments of fulfilling Daniel's
prophecy that the Messiah would be "cut off." It never occurred
to the Pharisees that the "conquering Messiah" prophecies would
have to wait for a second coming of the Messiah.
It should be pointed out that the Jewish race, as a whole,
is not collectively responsible for the death of Christ. As noted
earlier, Josephus confirmed that it was the Jewish leaders (not
the whole nation) who caused his death at the hands of the
Romans. Those Jews who cried out to Pilate "crucify him," and
"let his blood be upon us, and on our children" (Matthew
27:22-25) were an infinitesimally small fraction of the Jewish
race at the time. The Jews crying for the blood of Jesus to be
spilled and placed on their progeny were suborned agents of the
Sanhedrin in a plot to engineer the death of Christ. Even if God
placed a curse on the offspring of those who participated in this
"kangaroo court" (which is possible!), it excuses the 99.9+% of
the Jewish race who did not participate in the murder of Jesus
and did not even know about it until it was over. The vast
majority of the Jews living in Judea were not aware of Jesus'
crucifixion until well after the event. The many Jews living in
Parthian provinces were also oblivious to the crucifixion as it
occurred. One can hardly blame these multitudes of Jews (or their
descendants) for causing the death of Jesus Christ.
Consider now the extremely delicate position in which this
conspiracy against Jesus placed the Roman rulers of Palestine.
The first priority for Pontius Pilate and the Romans was to carry
out the will of Caesar. What pleased the native population was
secondary. Remember that the life of Christ occurred during a
period of stability between the empires of Rome and Parthia, a
stability which Caesar wanted to maintain. Therefore, it was a
top priority for Pilate to avoid incidents which could bring
about a confrontation with the Parthian Empire. Pilate also knew
that when Rome had provoked Parthia several decades prior to that
time, Parthia had driven the Romans out of Palestine and
controlled it for three years.
Rome likely had good intelligence about matters involving
the political activities of people in their provinces, and was
aware that Jesus Christ was a special favorite of high Parthian
officials. Rome was also likely aware that communications took
place between Jesus Christ and Parthian officials, including at
least one Parthian vassal (King Abgar). Rome surely knew that
Jesus Christ was a distant relative of the Parthian emperor (an
"Arsacid" via the "Phares" bloodline of King David), and had to
tread lightly where Jesus was concerned. Rome also favored the
non-revolutionary message of Jesus, and had no desire to execute
him. Since Jesus espoused the payment of Roman taxes, fomented no
revolts, and was popular with the masses, the Romans viewed him
as a counterweight to the revolutionary zealots among the Jews.
Jesus was also very likely a personal friend of some Roman
officials as a result of Jesus' relationship with Romans during
his association with Joseph of Arimathea's international
business. Additionally, Roman spies had undoubtedly witnessed
some of the miracles of Jesus and had reported these events to
Roman leaders. Since Jesus was close to the ruling elites of
Parthia and was likely seen as a stabilizing influence for Roman
interests in Palestine, Rome was disinclined to harm Jesus. In
view of his miraculous powers, the polytheistic Romans were
likely also averse to harming someone who was so "close to the
gods."
When the Jewish religious leaders demanded that Jesus be
crucified, Pilate was in a terrible quandary. He had compelling
political reasons for not harming Jesus, yet he also wanted to
handle the situation in a manner that did not precipitate a
Jewish rebellion. Another factor which must have concerned him
was whether he was being "set up" by the Jewish leaders to do
something which would precipitate a war not only with the Jews
but with Parthia. After all, there were many Parthians who served
the same God of the Jews, and they were present in large numbers
in Jerusalem during the annual Holy Days (Acts 2:9). Since Jesus
was crucified during the Passover season, Parthians were surely
present in Jerusalem at that time. Pilate could have wondered
whether the Jews were plotting with the Parthians to provoke an
incident (i.e. crucifying an Arsacid) which could precipitate a
Parthian-Jewish war versus Rome. This would anger Caesar, so
Pilate had to avoid that possibility at all costs.
Matthew 27:18 and Mark 15:10 record that Pilate knew the
Jewish leaders had "framed" Jesus. Pilate's behavior showed that
he did not want to crucify Jesus Christ, and he freely offered
Jesus an opportunity to defend himself (Matthew 27:11-14). Pilate
"marveled greatly" when Jesus took no action to avail himself of
Pilate's offer (ordinarily, anyone would do anything to avoid the
hideous fate of crucifixion!) The implication is that if Jesus
had made any effort whatsoever to defend himself, Pilate would
have released Jesus. Knowing this and knowing that his central
mission was to sacrifice himself for mankind, Jesus' silence
actually thwarted Pilate's effort to free him.
Pilate grew exasperated with Jesus' refusal to defend
himself, and said privately to Jesus: "You will not speak to me?
Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to
crucify you?" (John 19:10). In modern words, Pilate was saying to
Jesus: "C'mon, get with it Jesus, play ball with me, and I'll set
you free."
Even though Jesus refused to defend himself, Pilate was
still determined to keep Jesus alive. He next offered to free
Jesus as part of a Passover tradition, giving the public a choice
between Jesus and a prisoner named Barabbas (Matthew 27:15-23).
Pilate was likely again taken aback when the crowd requested
freedom for Barabbas instead of Jesus. Pilate did not realize
that the Sanhedrin had "stacked the deck" against Jesus by having
only their followers in the crowd (verse 20). Pilate's own wife
then pressured him not to harm Jesus, saying she was having
nightmares about the situation, and adding her view that Jesus
was a "just man" (Matthew 27:19).
Pilate tried a third ploy to keep Jesus alive by an outright
declaration of his innocence. Luke 23:4 quotes Pilate as telling
the Jewish leaders and their mob "I find no fault in this man."
When the mob called for the crucifixion of Jesus, Pilate publicly
defended Jesus, saying "Why, what evil has he done?" (Matthew
27:23). Pilate was relieved to hear that Jesus was a Galilean
because it gave him a fourth option for keeping Jesus alive: a
delaying tactic by giving the whole mess to Herod (who had
jurisdiction over Galilee). Herod, however, gave this "hot
potato" right back to Pilate (Luke 23:5-11).
Most people have failed to appreciate that Pilate, the Roman
governor, tried repeatedly to keep Jesus alive! When Romans
wanted to execute someone, they didn't worry about "due process,"
yet here we see Pilate pursuing several options to prevent or
stall the crucifixion of Jesus in spite of considerable pressure
to the contrary. Luke 23:20 openly declares that Pilate was
"willing to release Jesus."
Finally, Pilate realized he was out of options. As Matthew
27:24 puts it: "Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but
rather that a tumult was made..." The mob scene was ready to turn
into a riot. The Passover celebration was one of the biggest of
the year, and a violent riot at that time could develop into a
revolution. So, even though he knew Jesus was innocent, he
finally agreed to crucify Jesus to forestall the most immediate
threat to Roman interests. Even in condemning Jesus, Pilate
engaged in political posturing to keep this event from turning
into a confrontation with Parthia. Washing his hands before the
multitude, he proclaimed himself "innocent of the blood of this
just person (Matthew 27:24). In doing this, Pilate was
disassociating Rome from the killing of a celebrity who was
popular with powerful Parthians. Pilate wanted it publicly
obvious that the responsibility for this crucifixion lay with the
Jewish hierarchy, not with Rome.
In John 18:33-37, Pilate asked Jesus if he was really a king
(his asking about Jesus' royal status implies he knew about
Jesus' royal "Arsacid" bloodline). Jesus replied: "My kingdom is
not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants
would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews..."
Jesus added: "You say that I am a King, For this I was born, and
for this I have come into the world..." Jesus acknowledged that
he was born "a king," that his kingdom was "not of this world
(the first century A.D.)," but that he would become a king in the
future. Jesus also stated (verse 11): "You would have no power
over me unless it had been given you from above." Jesus meant
that unless Jesus' death was according to the will of God, no
temporal government could have had any power over him.
This is affirmed by a comment of Jesus Christ in Matthew
26:52-54. When one of his disciples tried to resist the taking of
Jesus by attempting to kill a would-be captor, Jesus told him not
to resist with the words:
"Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at
once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then
should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?"
His comment reveals that he was voluntarily refusing to use
divine power to save himself in order to fulfill scriptures (such
as Daniel 9:26). However, it is very sobering to realize that
Jesus affirmed that if he were but to ask, the Father would "at
once" send twelve legions of angels to rescue him. This statement
shows that while it was the Father's will to save mankind, the
final decision to "go through with it" belonged to Jesus, that if
he chose not to "go through with it," the Father would have
honored that choice and sent thousands of angels to slay all who
threatened him! If Jesus had made that choice, mankind would have
had no sacrifice, and the doorway of salvation would have been
closed. Jesus knew the stakes, and put mankind's long-term good
ahead of his short-term safety. Indeed, if Jesus had refused to
"go through with it," the whole plan of salvation (which required
a sinless, sacrificed savior for mankind's sins) would have been
cancelled. This brings up a sobering possibility.
If Jesus had "opted out" of being a sacrifice (terminating
the plan of salvation), the legions of angels might have
destroyed not just Jesus' tormentors but all mankind since the
very existence of mankind would have become moot. If there were
no savior to ransom mankind, there would have been no purpose in
a continued existence for mankind itself. Jesus may well have
seen legions of death angels poised in the spirit world to
terminate mankind if Jesus chose not to implement the plan of
salvation for mankind. If so, Jesus had a very stark choice set
before him that no human being could see. If Jesus called on the
Father to rescue him and stop the crucifixion, mankind would die,
but if Jesus chose to sacrifice himself, mankind would live. It
was up to Jesus.
Jesus knew that if he asked for angelic rescue, none of his
human friends could ever be saved. So he gave up his life, and
made salvation available for not only his beloved friends, but
all humanity. If the people at the crucifixion scene had realized
the awesome choice before Jesus, they would have all, fallen
trembling at his feet. Jesus chose to let mankind live even as it
tortured, mocked and reviled him (Matthew 27:39-44).
When Jesus died, many supernatural events occurred to confirm
that Jesus was the divine son of a very real God (the "Most
High") who had watched the entire episode from heaven. Matthew
27:51-54 records that:
"the veil of the temple was torn in two, from top to the bottom;
and the earth did quake, and the rocks were broken apart; And the
graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept
[were dead] arose, And came out of the graves ... and went into
the holy city and appeared to many."
The tearing of the curtain in the temple, which had sealed
off the Holy of Holies, signified that the death of Jesus Christ
meant that there were no longer any limitations on human access
to God, and the concurrent resurrections of many people both
testified that Jesus had triumphed over death and foreshadowed
that there would be a future resurrection as a result of Jesus
death.
The key question concerning the death of Jesus Christ is
"Did he really rise from the dead?" He foretold that he would
rise again after a period of three days (Matthew 12:40), and many
eyewitness accounts are included in the Bible that he fulfilled
his promise. Whether the reader believes his resurrection to be a
fact depends on: (A) the faith the reader places in the
eye-witness accounts in the Bible, (B) the credibility of the
Bible (based on fulfilled prophecies, the unity of the Bible with
the record of ancient history, etc.), and (C) the evidence of
answered prayer (offered in the name of Jesus) in the personal
experience of the reader. However, we also have the contemporary
affirmation of Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived shortly
after the time of Christ, that "he [Jesus] appeared to them alive
again the third day." 68
This chapter has provided information which permits the life
of Jesus Christ to be viewed in a much broader perspective than
was previously possible. It is clear from the evidence presented
in this chapter that Jesus Christ was not only a real historical
figure, but also a prominent personality of his time whose fame
extended far beyond the borders of Judea. The evidence is very
strong that he was the Son of God, and prophecies declare that
his second coming will see him crowned king over all nations
(Acts 1:9-11, Revelation 19:11-20:6).
Revelation 19:16 prophesies that when Jesus Christ returns,
he will bear the title "King of Kings." Modern society has lost
track of the real significance of this phrase. George Rawlinson,
in his epic history of Parthia entitled The Sixth Oriental
Monarchy, observed that Parthia's empire was organized as a
feudal system with many vassal kings owing their allegiance to
the overall Parthian emperor. In view of Parthia's feudal system,
he added:
"Parthian monarchs took the title of 'King of Kings,' so frequent
upon their coins... " 69
Rawlinson also recorded an incident that confirms this title
was used by Parthia's emperors during the time of Christ.
Discussing events which led to the Parthian-Roman "Summit
Conference" in 1 A.D., a few years after Jesus' birth, he
records:
"Phraataces [Parthia's emperor] .. responded to Augustus,
despatching to him a letter wherein he took to himself the
favourite Parthian title of 'king of kings,' and addressed the
Roman Emperor simply as 'Caesar'" 70
The book of Revelation's claim that Jesus will rule forever
as "King of Kings" now carries new meaning! Readers in the first
century A.D. could recognize that this prophecy predicted that
Jesus Christ would inherit the title of Parthia's Emperors at his
second coming. Jesus was routinely called the "son of David" in
his lifetime, and it was also prophesied before his birth that
Jesus would eventually inherit "the throne of his father David,
and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever" (Luke
1:32-33). Obviously, Jesus did not inherit such a throne in his
human lifetime, and no human throne could last "forever."
However, Jesus can rule "forever" on the earth after his
second coming as "King of Kings." He also will inherit "the
throne of his father David" when he inherits the title (and
throne) of the Parthian Emperors. This prophecy not only confirms
that Parthia's emperors literally sat "in David's throne," but it
also verifies that Jesus Christ was himself an Arsacid, a blood
relative of Parthia's ruling dynasty!
Also, the missions of the twelve apostles confirm that the
Scythians and Parthians were descendants of the ten tribes of
Israel. In Matthew 10:5-6, Jesus gave the twelve apostles this
mission:
"These twelve Jesus sent forth ... saying, Go not into the way of
the Gentiles ... But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel. " (Emphasis added.)
The ten tribes of Israel (the "house of Israel") were
spiritually, (not physically) "lost" at that time. The apostles
stayed with Jesus during his ministry, but they obeyed this
commandment of Jesus to go to the ten tribes of Israel after
Jesus died. Just before he rose into heaven, Jesus told his
apostles in Acts 1:8:
'You shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all
Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the
earth." (Emphasis added.)
Since Jesus had earlier sent them to the ten tribes of Israel,
and later said they would go "to the uttermost parts of the
earth," it is clear that at -that time at least some of the
descendants of the ten
314
The Life of Jesus Christ - The Untold Story
tribes of Israel lived "in the uttermost parts of the earth" (in
other words: "a very great distance from Judea").
The book of Acts names only a few of the apostles as being
present in Judea for very long after Jesus' ascension, indicating
many of them soon departed Judea to evangelize the ten tribes of
Israel. Many legends exist about the nations of the earth visited
by the apostles. We have already seen the account that Thaddaeus
was sent to northern Mesopotamia to heal the Parthian vassal
king, Abgar, and evangelize his people. Eusebius also recorded:
"Meanwhile, the holy apostles ... were scattered over the whole
world. Thomas, tradition tells us, was chosen for Parthia, Andrew
for Scythia, John for Asia ... 71
The Encyclopaedia Britannica writes concerning Thomas:
"According to the tradition, St. Thomas founded the Christian
churches in Malabar [India], and then crossed to Mylapur, now a
suburb of Madras, where the shrine of his martyrdom ... still
stands on Mt. St. Thomas, where a cross is shown with a Pahlavi
[Parthian] inscription." 72
Chapter eight documented that portions of the ten tribes
established "Saka" kingdoms in India (to the east of Parthia), so
Thomas' presence in India is consistent with Christ's charge that
they go to the ten tribes of Israel.
Peter wrote the epistle of I Peter while in Babylon (I Peter
5:13), which was then within the Parthian Empire. Some have
asserted that Peter's use of "Babylon" symbolized "Rome" but
there is nothing in the text to support that view. Peter
understood the difference between the cities of Babylon and Rome,
and he was a simple fisherman not given to literary or scholarly
devices. When Peter said "Babylon," he meant the city of Babylon.
Various legends state that the apostles Thaddeus, Matthias,
Andrew, Bartholomew, and Simon the Canaanite (or "Zealot") all
evangelized (or passed through) Armenia. 73 Armenia was settled
by portions of the ten tribes after the fall of Samaria (as noted
in chapter four), and was frequently a province of the Parthian
Empire (though often disputed with Rome). Armenia was a gateway
to Scythia via the Caucasus Mountains, so it is likely that other
apostles besides Andrew passed through Armenia on their way to
Scythia.
In the Commentary on the Whole Bible by Jamieson, Fausset
and Brown, the following observations are made in the
Introduction to I John:
"Augustine...says this epistle [I John] was written to the
Parthians. Bede...says that Athanasius attests the same. By the
Parthians may be meant the Christians living beyond the Euphrates
in the Parthian territory ... in John's prolonged life, we cannot
dogmatically assert that he did not visit the Parthian
Christians." 74
This commentary confirms how deeply Christianity had taken
hold in Parthia, indicating several apostles must have been
there. Also note that this commentary uses the same phrase as
Josephus (i.e. "beyond the Euphrates") in referring to Parthian
territory.
One account places Jude in northern Persia (within Parthia's
Empire). 75 Simon the Zealot is recorded as taking a missionary
journey through North Africa (including the old Punic cities near
Carthage), continuing on to the British Isles 76 where he
reportedly perished. Earlier, we examined the legend of
Viracocha, who "performed miracles and preached repentance" in
ancient America. Was "Viracocha" one of the apostles of Jesus
Christ who really did travel to the "uttermost parts of the
earth?"
There are many more legends about the lands visited by the
twelve apostles, but the above will suffice for this chapter. All
the regions and nations discussed earlier in this book as being
places inhabited by the ten tribes of Israel are also cited as
regions and nations visited by one or more of the twelve
apostles. Since Jesus had sent his apostles to the ten tribes of
Israel, these legends further confirm that "the lost sheep" of
the ten tribes of Israel were located in Parthia, Scythia,
Armenia, the North African Punic regions, the British Isles, the
Saka kingdoms of India and perhaps even the ancient Americas.
This chapter has illustrated how the life of Jesus Christ
involved relationships between the empires of Rome and Parthia.
To return to the theme of this book (the history of the ten
tribes of Israel), the next chapter will resume the narrative
where chapter eight concluded, examining the migrations of the
ten tribes of Israel after the Parthian Empire fell in the third
century A.D.
ENDNOTES: CHAPTER NINE
1. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, 111, 3
2. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, p.98
3. Ibid, 99-100
4. Ibid, p.49
5. Rawlinson, The Sixth Oriental Monarchy, pp.178-181
6. Josephus, Antiquities, XV, I, 2
7. Rawlinson, The Sixth Oriental Monarchy, pp.199-205
8. Rawlinson, The Sixth Oriental Monarchy, p.216
9. Ibid, p.210
10. Ibid, p.85
11. Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, see word "Wise,"
subhead 8, p.1060
12. Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII, IX, 1
13. Harper's Bible Dictionary, , "Herod," p.385
14. Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Asia," Vol. 2, p.512
15. Rawlinson, The Sixth Oriental Monarchy, pp.117-118
16. Ibid, pp.195-198
17. Ibid, pp.218-219
18. Ibid, pp.213-215
19. Capt, The Traditions of Glastonbury, p.19
20. Capt, Ibid, p 22
21. Capt, Ibid, p.22
22. Ibid, p.20
23. Ibid, p.10
24. McBirnie, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, p.230
25. Capt, pp.39-41
26. Ibid, p.41
27. Ibid, p.9
28. Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, see "Lord,"
subhead 3, pp.616-617
29. Capt, p.9
30. Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Hebrew Lexicon,
word "Yeshuah," p.55
31. Capt, The Traditions of Glastonbury, p.7
32. Frye, The Heritage of Persia, pp.200-201
33. Rawlinson, The Sixth Monarchy, p.425
34. Davies, Voyagers to the New World, pp.125-126
35. Ibid, p.131
36. Ibid, pp.126-127
37. Ibid, p.136
38. Boland, They All Discovered America, p.303
39. Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 26, "Toltec," p 829
40. Athy, "Foreign influences on the Priesthood and Nobility of
Pre-Columbian America," Epigraphic Society Occasional
Publications, Vol. 17, 1988, p.114
41. Ibid, p.114
42. Ibid, p.115 (Athy cites Book of the Gods and Rites and the
Ancient Calendar by Fray Diego Duran)
43. Ibid, p.115
44. Morris, Walter, Living Maya (as cited in Epigraphic Society
Occasional Publications, Vol. 17, 1988, p.196
45. Stender, "The Cross of the Inca," Epigraphic Society
Occasional Publications, Vol. 17, 1988, pp.179-181
46. Ibid, pp.181-183
47. Epigraphic Society Occasional Publications, Vol. 17, 1988,
pp.255-266
48. Ibid, p.261
49. Boland, pp.277-280
50. Casson, The Ancient Mariners, pp.174,215,235-236
51. Ibid, p.236
52. Boland, pp.54-78
53. Fell, Saga America, p.31-35, 124-132, 153
54. Ibid, p.168
55. Ibid, p.168
56. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, III, 3
57. Ibid, XVIII, III, 3
58. McBirnie, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, p.36
59. Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII, III, 3
60. Ibid, XVIII, III, 3
61. Ibid, XVIII,111, 1-2
62. McBirnie, p.203
63. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 8, "Eusebius of Caesarea,"
p.892
64. Eusebius, The History of the Church, I, 13
65. Ibid, I, 13
66. Ibid, I, 13
67. Ibid, I, 13
68. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, III, 3
69. Rawlinson, The Sixth Oriental Monarachy, p.88
70. Ibid, p.218
71. Eusesbius, The History of the Church, III, 1
72. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 22, "Thomas,St.", p.143
73. McBirnie, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, pp.199-202, 243
74. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible,
"Introduction to I John," p. 1495
75. Ibid, p.206
76. Ibid, pp.207-211
........................
Jesus - the SPIRIT!
After the Resurrection
JESUS - THE SPIRIT!
by
Keith Hunt
Some want to claim that the NT does NOT speak of Jesus,
after His resurrection as a "spirit being" - somehow, and for
some strange reason to me anyway, they just detest the thought
that Jesus is a "spirit being" now in His glorification.
They do not seem to be able to see that in eternity, in
immortality, spirit and matter as the same BUT only in different
forms.
Maybe they can see that water, and the atoms that form
water, can be in two other different form. They can be in VAPOR
and also in SOLID, as well as water itself, which is in LIQUID
form. They can admit this no doubt for it is a part of our life,
our dimension, here on earth as physical creatures.
But trying to get these people to see that Jesus' physical
body was resurrected to eternal immortality form and that, that
form can be in two forms - invisible (to the human eye) spirit
form (still having form and shape) and also if willed, be flesh
and bone, so human kind can see and touch and handle that
form.....well to try and get them to see this truth, as clearly
demonstrated by Jesus AFTER His resurrection, in being able to
vanish and disappear, and appear in front of people behind closed
doors (needing no door to be opened to walk through), as is
recorded in the last chapter or so of each Gospel, is pretty well
impossible. They just do not admit what the clear words of the
Gospel writers said on the subject.
And it seems they will not BELIEVE what Jesus said about God
Himself in John 4: 24, "God is A SPIRIT!"
It is clear from Jesus (then a lot of what Jesus said people
simply do NOT believe, and certainly they do not PRACTICE much of
what Jesus said to practice) that God is MAINLY in the FORM of
SPIRIT. God has a body, He has passions, He has a mind. All of
this I've proved in-depth in other studies. But God lives MAINLY
in a DIFFERENT DIMENSION from us physical humans. He lives in a
SPIRIT dimension. A world of creatures and "things" (such as a
heavenly Jerusalem, rivers, trees, etc.) that are made of eternal
SPIRIT.
God CAN if He wills it, transform His "spirit" material (I
use the word material for lack of a better word to convey the
thought I'm expressing to our human minds) INTO PHYSICAL MATTER.
He can make Himself FLESH AND BONE, and appear to mankind, as
such, letting mankind touch Him. He can eat meals with people, as
Jesus did after His resurrection, and as God did in the OT days
with various people.
God can take whatever it is that is called "spirit" in the
Bible and again for lack of better words, take those spirit atoms
and transform them into physical atoms and make Himself flesh and
bone as we know those physical atoms. But again the flesh and
bones atoms that God then is, are immortal atoms, not subject to
decay or corruption, or pain, or physical hurt, as our physical
atoms in mortal mankind are.
In spite of all this, some just will not admit that God (and
Jesus is God, the NT calls Him that, if you want to look it up in
a Concordance, such as Strong's) is SPIRIT, that is when not
appearing to humans as flesh and bone, He is made of SPIRIT. He
is a SPIRIT BEING if you want to put it in plain clear words.
But some, as I've said, just seem to HATE God being called by
anyone, a Spirit Being. They try to tell you that the NT never
describes God (and we include Jesus for He is also God) as SPIRIT
or as a Spirit Being.
We show them 1 Cor. 15 and verses 42 to 45. They maybe have
a way to get around such plain easy to understand words from the
inspired Paul. Maybe they have a fancy way to get around that
Jesus, the second Adam was made A QUICKENING SPIRIT! But I
maintain the words mean what they say and say what they mean.
Paul was saying what he meant and meant what he was saying, and
why not, for Jesus had said already that God was A SPIRIT!
Well I want you to mark in bold yellow the verses I'm going
to show you. Turn to Romans chapter 8. Read verse 26. Ah, don't
be too quick to think this is the Holy Spirit that Paul is
talking about by using the words "THE SPIRIT."
Notice the last part of the verse. The SPIRIT makes INTERCESSION
for us WITH GROANINGS WHICH CANNOT BE UTTERED (a heavenly voice
language).Then, before you jump off thinking this is the Holy
Spirit, notice verse 27. HE, the SPIRIT, makes INTERCESSION for
the saints!!!
Now, let the Bible interpret the Bible. Let Paul interpret
Paul. Turn to 2 Timothy chapter two and read verse FIVE!
There is according to Paul ONLY ONE INTERCESSOR for the saints,
between mankind and God....ONLY JESUS is the intercessor!
Then if you want CONTEXT proof, turn back to Romans 8 and
read verse 34. It is CHRIST that makes INTERCESSION FOR US!!
In verse 26 and 27, Christ, the intercessor for the
saints.....is called.....THE SPIRIT!!
And of course why not? Why should it seem practically like
blasphemy to SOME (who hold a strange one eyed, cockeyed,
theology about what Jesus was AFTER His resurrection), to think
or BELIEVE that Christ was SPIRIT after His resurrection, that
His physical body took on a CHANGE ( 1 Cor. 15 again) from mortal
to immortal, from human to divine, and that He once more became
GOD, as He was before, when WITH God (John chapter one).
Why should it be a strange thing to some to believe Jesus
was back into BEING Spirit once more, like God, for Jesus had
said that God was A SPIRIT! That is God is SPIRIT when NOT
willing Himself to be flesh and bone and to walk and talk, eat
meals with, and even let man touch Him.
Strange indeed is the working of the human mind that will
not read and believe ALL the Scripture. Then again, it is as
Jesus said, only those who are God's that will hear and believe
His words.
.............................
Written February 2003
Could Jesus have sinned?
The New Testament gives the answer
From the July/August 2004 "Acts" magazine
with a few added comments by
Keith Hunt
Could Jesus Sin? The New Testament authors had no qualms
about declaring that Jesus was truly human and telling us that
Jesus committed no sin. All evangelical scholars affirm that
Jesus did not sin. It is vital to our theology that Jesus was
sinless. For only if Jesus was sinless could His death have been
a vicarious substitution and fulfil God's redemptive plan for
man. If Jesus had not been sinless, then it would mean that He
died for His own sins and not those of mankind. Had Jesus died
for His own sins then His death could not have been accepted by
the Father as a vicarious substitution for the punishment and
judgment each of us are entitled to receive. Even though there is
no serious debate that Jesus was anything but sinless,
theologians have discussed the question of whether Jesus could
have sinned if He had wanted to. The problem centers on the
question of Christ's susceptibility to sin. This is called the
peccability of Christ. The opposing argument, impeccability,
being that even if He had wanted, Jesus could not have sinned
since He was God and God can not sin. Two Latin terms are used
to describe theologically the question of whether or not Jesus
could sin. "Posse non peccare" means able not to sin, and "non
posse peccare" means not able to sin. Simply speaking,
peccability refers to Jesus being liable to or prone to sin and
impeccability speaks of His being not liable to sin and being
incapable of sinning. Upon first consideration, one might view
this question as being trivial. However, there are some very
important and appropriate reasons for examining this issue.
One of the greatest tragedies in Christian thinking is that
the Jesus has not received the respect and exaltation due to Him
on account of His victory over sin through the development of a
perfect character. The widely held doctrine of the trinitarians
and binitarians makes Jesus into God Himself (not so for
binitarians - as they say Jesus was not God the Father - Keith
Hunt). Since God cannot be tempted and has no possibility of
sinning, it would mean that Jesus did not really have to battle
against sin. Considering this, His life on earth was therefore a
sham, living out the human experience, but with no real feeling
for the spiritual and physical dilemma of the human race, since
He was not personally affected by it.
There is another side to this issue dealing with whether or
not Jesus could sin. There are groups that fail to properly
appreciate the wonder of Jesus being the only begotten Son of
God. They make Him an angel or the natural son of Joseph.
Although Jesus did not have a human father, he was conceived
and born like us in all other ways. Many people cannot accept
that a man of our sinful nature could have a perfect character.
It is this fact which is an obstacle to a real faith in Christ.
Thus, we can see that the peccability or impeccability of
Jesus is more than simply an academic debate. The outcome of such
a debate could have far reaching implications on our view and
knowledge of God, our doctrine of the nature of Jesus, the
question of Biblical inerrancy and integrity and finally, our
view of Jesus' victory over temptation and sin.
THE PECCABILITY OF JESUS
As already stated, the peccability of Jesus holds to the
idea that it was entirely within the range of possibilities that
Jesus could have succumbed to temptation, and thus could have
stepped outside the will of His Father at any time between His
birth and His death on the cross. This means that during the
whole earthly ministry of Jesus the redemption of humankind was
hanging in the balance while Jesus faced the tempter. This was a
real battle between Satan and Jesus for the salvation of
humankind. The earthly sojourn of Jesus was a long, constant
struggle on His part to avoid yielding to the enticements of
Satan. The Son of God was on a constant alert to escape being
tricked by Satan into departing from the perfect will of His
Father. It was possible for Jesus to choose by His own volition
whether or not to suffer the death at the cross. "O my Father, if
it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I
will, but as thou wilt." (Matthew 26:39). This was possibly the
greatest temptation, not to lay down His life for a world that
hated Him.
To believe that Jesus was of our nature, but was sinless in
His character, always overcoming His temptations, is not easy. It
takes much reflection upon the gospel records of His perfect
life, coupled with the many Biblical passages which deny that He
was God (He was not God the Father for sure - Keith Hunt), to
come to a firm understanding and faith in the real Christ. It is
far easier to suppose that He was God Himself, and therefore
automatically perfect. Yet this view demeans the greatness of the
victory which Jesus won against sin and human nature. He had
human nature; He shared every one of our sinful tendencies, yet
he overcame them by His commitment to God's ways and seeking
God's Spirit to overcome sin. "For we have not an high priest
which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities: but
was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."
(Hebrews 4:15). This God willingly gave, to the extent that "God
was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself," through His
very own Son. (See 2 Corinthians 5:19).
The following is an examination of the question of the
peccability of Jesus. Three arguments will be given in support of
the peccability of Jesus. Since Jesus temptations were genuine,
He had to be peccable, since Jesus was truly human, He had to be
peccable, and since Jesus as the last Adam corresponds to the
first Adam, He had to be peccable.
THE TEMPTABILITY OF JESUS
The Scriptures make it clear that the Savior was indeed
tempted. "Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to
be tempted by the devil." (Matthew 4:5). On the basis of the
reality of His temptations, the logical conclusion is that for
the temptations to be genuine, He must have been capable of
sinning. If a person has no susceptibility to sin or if sin has
no appeal for Him, the temptation is a farce and not a temptation
at all.
Our first argument that Jesus was peccable, centers on the
question of the temptations of Jesus. Temptation in Jesus
indicated the possibility of sin. If it was impossible for Jesus
to sin, how could there have been any temptation? No one can be
tempted to do that which it is impossible for him to do; but
Jesus was tempted in "all points" like as we are tempted. The
emotional treatment of this subject by some who hold the contrary
view is represented by the following statement: "A peccable Jesus
would mean a peccable God"; but this logically is being the
equivalent to saying that a mortal Jesus is equivalent to a
mortal God. The problem with this circular thinking is that of
not understanding that Jesus is not God (not God the Father that
is - Keith Hunt) but the Son of God (by willfully giving up His
Godhead with the one who in the NT is known as God the Father -
Keith Hunt) which makes Him susceptible to human sin and death.
God can not be tempted, can not sin and can not die (unless of
course He becomes a literal flesh and blood human - Keith Hunt)
This will be discussed in greater length later.
To help us better understand the temptability of Jesus, we
must look at Jesus' wilderness temptations. The Spirit of God
dwelt without measure in the sinless Jesus. The Spirit led Him
into the wilderness for forty days to be tempted by the devil.
During this time He ate nothing and became very hungry. After the
forty days the devil came to Jesus and tempted Him. The proper
name for the devil is Satan. He must be understood, not as the
principle of evil, not as a personification of iniquity, but as a
malignant creator of the highest order, and one who is the
conscious enemy of God and man. Satan's malignant hatred of
humanity was first manifested in Eden, and has continued unabated
throughout history, his purpose as the destroyer having been
evidenced in every case in which the Bible has given any
knowledge of it. His strategy of opposing Jesus, the Son of God
was discernible throughout the whole life of the Savior. Satan
attempted to murder the Christ child, and finally, with God's
permission accomplished His death on Calvary. Satan has always
been the accuser of God, claiming that God's laws are untenable,
and at the same time accusing humankind as not worth saving
because of their disobedience. "And I heard a loud voice saying
in heaven, now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom
of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our
brethren is cast down which accused them before our God day and
night" (Revelation 12:10). It is evident from Revelation 12:17
what the devil was up to; "And the dragon was wroth with the
woman and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which
keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus
Christ." The devil will do whatever it takes to keep people from
having the faith or testimony of Jesus and keeping His
commandments.
These temptations in the wilderness were not to be the only
temptations. Temptation came again when the multitude tried to
crown Him king by force, and upon many other occasions. He was
tempted "in all points" (Hebrews 4:15). Some say that the words
rendered "every temptation" would have been more accurately
rendered "every kind of temptation." Nevertheless, the event
recorded in the three synoptic gospels was the decisive
battle between Christ and Satan.
These three temptations with their basic appeal to the lust
of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life,
repeated the pattern of the temptation of the first Adam, and in
essence, the sum of all temptations. "For all that is in the
world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the
pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." (1
John 2:16).
By His magnificent triumphs over Satan's confrontation
through out His life, Jesus made certain the final victory. When
Satan tested Jesus in the three basic areas of temptation, His
true character was fully revealed.
If one may hazard a conjecture as to the greatest temptation
of Jesus, it would likely be in the garden of Gethsemane. Jesus
had the handicap of human flesh as we do, even the blood of
harlots and Gentiles; and, as a man, Jesus certainly had the
capability of doing wrong if He had elected to do so; and
absolutely no logical refutation appears in any of the writings
seen on this subject that can explain how any person can be
tempted to do that which it is impossible for Him to do. In the
garden of Gethsemane, it was likely an impulse to call the whole
thing off, abort His mission of redemption, call for the legions
of angels, overwhelm His enemies with destruction and consign the
human race to oblivion, a fate fully deserved; and that just such
a temptation did occur is seen in Christ's mention of the twelve
legions of angels. "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my
Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions
of angels?" (Matthew 26:53). Only His great love for humankind
and His obedience to the Father enabled Jesus to forego such a
termination of His mission.
THE HUMANITY OF JESUS
There is a fine balance to be drawn between those passages
which emphasize the degree to which "God was in Christ," and
those which highlight His humanity. The latter group of passages
make it impossible to Biblically justify the idea that Jesus is
God Himself, "very God of very God," as the doctrine of the
Trinity wrongly states. This phrase "very God of very God" was
used at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., where the idea of God
being a Trinity was first promulgated; it was unknown to the
early Christians.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GOD AND JESUS
One of the clearest summaries of the relationship between
God and Jesus is found in 1 Timothy 2:5: "There is one God, and
one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There
being only one God, it is impossible that Jesus could be God; if
the Father is God and Jesus is also God, then there are two Gods.
"But to us there is but one God, the Father." (1 Corinthians
8:6). "God the Father" is therefore the only God (the Scripture
quoted - 1 Cor.8:6 clearly states there is only ONE God the
Father, but that does not mean there is not another who was part
of the Godhead, and hence could be called by the name of God, as
what we know with a "surname" - Keith Hunt). It is therefore
impossible that there can be a separate being called "God the
Son," as the false doctrine of the trinity states (while I do not
believe in the common teaching of "the Trinity" as taught by the
Trinitarians, the NT does indeed call Jesus by the name "God" - a
a look in Strong's Concordance will soon prove that to you -
Keith Hunt)....
In addition to this one God, there is the mediator, the man
Christ Jesus. Christ being the mediator means that He is a
go-between. A mediator between sinful man and sinless God cannot
be sinless God Himself. It had to be a sinless man, of sinful
human nature. "The man Christ Jesus" leaves us with no doubt as
to the correctness of this explanation. Even though he was
writing after the ascension of Jesus, Paul does not speak of "the
God Christ Jesus." (of course he does not in this specific verse
for he was showing the "humanity" of Jesus, that He had become a
human man, had given up what He had in the Godhead, and was human
as we are human, subject to temptations as we are, but not giving
in to them, and so could be a perfect "go-between" or mediator
for human kind and God the Father. But other verses and other
contexts show Jesus is called by the name "God" - but He is
clearly not, never was, and never will be, God the Father - Keith
Hunt)....
Christ was clearly "the son of man," as He is often called
in the New Testament. "the man Christ Jesus." He was "the Son of
the Highest" in Luke 1:32. God being the highest indicates that
only He has ultimate highness. Jesus being son of the highest
shows that He cannot be God Himself in person. The very language
of Father and Son which is used about God and Jesus, makes it
obvious that they are not the same. While a son may have certain
similarities to his father, he cannot be one and the same person.
(Yes, Jesus is NOT the FATHER, and the Father is NOT Jesus, they
are two separate beings with separate spirit bodies. All this I
have proved in other studies on this Website - Keith Hunt).
THE NATURE OF JESUS
Our second argument that Jesus was peccable, centers on the
question of the nature of Jesus. The word "nature" refers to what
we naturally, fundamentally are. The Bible speaks of only two
natures, that of God, and that of man. By His very nature, God
cannot die or be tempted. It is evident that Christ was not of
God's nature during His life. From our definition of the word
'nature' it should be evident that Jesus had a human nature. I am
by no means saying that the Spirit of God did not dwell in Jesus.
"For in him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead
bodily." (Colossians 2:9). In fact, it was the power of God's
Spirit that enabled Jesus not to sin. It is the same power we
have in our lives ...
To help us understand Jesus' human nature better, let's take
a look at Hebrews 2:1415. "Forasmuch then as the children are
partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part
of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the
power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them, who,
through fear of death, were all their life-time subject to
bondage. For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but
He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it
behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren; that He might be
a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God,
to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He
Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succour them
that are tempted."
This passage places extraordinary emphasis upon the fact
that Jesus had human nature. He partook "of the same" refers to
the flesh and blood nature (human nature) of the children (us).
Jesus did not have angels' nature, but was the nature of the seed
of Abraham. In every way he had "to be made like unto his
brethren" so that God could grant us forgiveness through Christ's
sacrifice. To say that Jesus was not of human nature is therefore
to be ignorant of the very basics of the good news of Jesus.
THE ADAMIC NATURE OF JESUS
The third argument to support the peccability of Jesus is
His correspondence with Adam's nature. The argument here is that
since Jesus was the last Adam, according to Paul, He corresponds
to the first Adam. and thus had to be peccable.
Adam was created perfect man, in full possession of all
human faculties, and with a God-consciousness which enabled him
to have spiritual communion with God. Initially innocent,
sinless, and holy, he was in a right relationship with God and
the world around him. The last Adam, Jesus, was a perfect man,
one with God, innocent, sinless, and holy. Many people mistakenly
refer to Jesus as the second Adam, a term not found in the Bible.
However, Scripture refers to Jesus as the second man. There have
been many men since Adam, but Jesus was only the second man to
ever be completely without sin.
Adam was created in holiness without the inward compulsion
toward sin that now characterizes his progeny and so Jesus came
in holiness without any taint of sin. Adam was given every
natural faculty which constituted him human as one reflecting the
image of the true God. Jesus possessed every natural faculty of
true humanity yet perfectly manifesting God Himself.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was placed in the
Garden of Eden as a test for Adam. Adam was free to choose to eat
of it or not. Jesus corresponding to the first Adam also had to
be free to choose between good and evil. If Jesus would have no
real choice, He would thereby no longer be a proper substitute
for man.
The first Adam failed the test, and in doing so involved all
humanity in his defeat, dragging the human race down with him.
"Wherefore as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have
sinned: ... Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even
over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not
as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the
offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the
gift by grace which by one, Jesus Christ, bath abounded unto
many" (Romans 5:12,14,15).
As a result, in Adam we all stand condemned, spiritually
bankrupt, enslaved to sin, and expelled from the promise land.
The last Adam, Jesus, was victorious over sin, the flesh, and the
devil. As a result, in Christ, believers stand justified and
redeemed, spiritually wealthy, liberated from sin, and included
in the kingdom of God. "For since by man came death, by man came
also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even
so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:21,22).
We are all connected with the first Adam as depraved and
guilty sinners, and so are included in the sentence of death
which God pronounced on him. However, all who are connected with
the last Adam, Jesus, through repentance and faith in His
redeeming work, are forgiven, have received the free gift of
righteousness and so have passed from death to life.
CONCLUSION
Could Jesus have sinned? When a child of God asks that
question, he can take comfort in the fact he has a Savior who can
empathize with him because Jesus went through the same kinds of
trials and tribulations that he has experienced. People may
exclaim. "How could Christ be tempted in all points, since He had
no child, did not grow old, never married, was not in business
and therefore did not pass through every situation that produces
temptation in humankind?" Such a question overlooks the fact that
the basic elements of temptation are actually very few in number.
All human temptations resolve into three basic principles,
the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye and the pride of life.
The root cause of these three temptations is self-centeredness.
The natural man without the Spirit of God within him is driven by
selfishness and pride.
There IS a difference between Jesus and humankind. Humankind
has developed a pattern of sin and self-centeredness from his
first breath. From the time of our birth, our parents, our piers,
our schools and yes, even our churches have taught us things that
are contrary to the word of God. Undisciplined human development
and bad habits become part of our life. It is difficult to break
with these appalling patterns we have developed during the key
learning periods of our lives. Every human born since Adam is
driven by their carnal nature. Without the Spirit of God within
them, they are nothing more than an intellectual animal driven by
animal instincts ... the Spirit of God comes into the believer's
heart and begins to write His laws on the believers heart and
brings discipline into the believers life. Because of all the
years of disregard and disobedience, there is a struggle between
the believers carnal nature (the natural man) and spiritual
nature (God's Spirit within the believer). This is the actual
struggle that Paul describes as having in his own life. "For we
know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
For that which I do, I allow not, for what I would, that do I not
but what I hate, that do I" (Romans 7:14,15). This is the
struggle that exists in every ... believer.
This is where Jesus was different from the rest of
humankind. At His conception, Jesus received the Spirit of God.
He did not spend years of His life being taught wrong things. He
was born with God-consciousness ... We are born without the
Spirit of God; He was born by the Spirit of God. His battle was
to keep from being self-centered. Our battle is to get rid of
self-centeredness. Jesus was attacked by His greatest adversary,
the devil, from the self-serving temptation that came from out
side Himself. Our battle is from within to break old bad habits,
and from without to defeat the selfish results of yielding to
temptation.
This is not our battle, for the battle is the Lord's if the
Spirit of God is in us. This is the promise of God; "Ye are of
God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is
he that is in you, than he that is in the world." (1John 4:4).
Yes, Jesus could have sinned, but by the power of God's
Spirit within Him, He was able to be sinless. We can have that
same power to overcome sin in our lives if we let God's Spirit
come into our hearts ... Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and
the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6).
.................
FROM THE JULY/AUGUST 2004 "ACTS" magazine, a publication of the
General Council of the Churches of God (7th Day), Meridian,
Idaho, USA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment