Tuesday, February 3, 2015

College Study #98: "the Incarnation"



‘Behold, the Lamb of God’

ide o amnos tou theou

College Study

98th teaching

2.2.2015

 

“the Incarnation”

 


          Turn to Luke 2:1-7.

          And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

          What we are looking at here is the completion of an age-long project. This is “the Incarnation” and we shall take that great and simple word as the title for our study tonight.

          This is the culmination of a carefully managed, carefully and even divinely guided masterpiece, the closing stanza of a song that has echoed from before time began, the finale of a miracle that all of human history had been painstakingly moving toward. This account, ladies and gentlemen, contained in these few short verses represents all the hope and anticipation of humanity fulfilled. This is, at long last, the birth of the fulfillment of promises, the fulfillment of all the longing of the Old Testament, this is the Seed of the Woman, this is the blessing through Abraham, this is the mystery of the prophets, the Child born unto us who’s name would be called Wonderful, Counselor, Almighty, God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of peace, this is the One like the Son of Man, the Dayspring, the long-awaited Messiah, the Savior, the Redeemer, the “Immanuel”. Everything that has come before this moment of the birth of this Child has been guided by the hand of God’s Providence to bring this one Child into the world.

          Recognize the unprecedented significance of what we’re looking at here. If this moment never happened, there could be no songs of freedom, no churches of God, no entrance into heaven, no peace with God, no friendship of believers, no Christianity, no comfort and no hope for our sinful souls. With the birth of this one Child, everything changes. This moment is the moment upon which all history opens and closes, swings like the hinge of a door.

          The word “Incarnation” comes to us from 12th century Latin incarnationem, a compound word from two words: in- which still meant “in” and carnis which meant “flesh”. So the word Incarnation is a unique word that means “in flesh”. Literally, it means the “embodiment of God in the person of Christ”. Incarnation is an action, it is the act of making flesh. It is infinity being focused into a finite form. It is a Mind more complex than the universe coming and dwelling in the gray tissue and liquid of one human skull. It is never-ending Life coming and living among humanity in the form of a Man. It is giving flesh to what was for eternity past flesh-less: the immaterial Spirit of God. The birth of this one Child is unspeakably wonderful. Not only did this birth change history—heck it changed the way we count the years with BC and AD—but this birth was unlike any other birth before.

          And yet it has come too late for Christmas.

          A while back, getting toward the end of last year, I was eye-balling the calendar and eye-balling the opening chapters of Luke’s gospel thinking to myself: “Self, wouldn’t it be great if you managed it just right so that you covered Luke chapter 2 verses 1 through 7 right before Christmas?” And you know, what that would’ve been great, but it didn’t happen that way. Here we are in February just barely cracking open the second chapter of Luke and getting into the “Christmas story”.

          But in retrospect, I’m glad it worked out this way. It’s better, perhaps, that we approach the subject of the Incarnation, God-made-flesh, without all of the dazzle and lights and traditions and long-overheard songs and hymns and carols and fuzzy-feelings and warm, well-meaning catch-phrases of the Christmas season and rather approach the subject as Luke himself, the writer, approached the subject: without hardly any pre-conceived notions, certainly without any long-running layers of tradition and religion, but just as a basic fact of history.

          Take all the images in your head of nativity scenes and throw them out. Take all the cheery pictures of the cute little baby nestled in that perfect crib of golden hay and throw that out. Since it is February, then, we have the rare chance of glimpsing the Christmas birth of Christ without all the baggage of Christmas as a holiday with all that that entails and simply looking at Luke’s very streamlined, historical account of the birth of Christ. February gives us a perfect chance to see only Christ in Christmas, to look beyond the hullaballoo of “the Christmas story” and get down to the heart of the matter beneath all of the carols and traditions and lights.

          Don’t be dumb enough to think I’m anti-Christmas. I’m not. But there’s a long of peripheral stuff, the “stuff” of religion, religious, liturgical and traditional “stuffs” that have built up around this story through the years. We get an opportunity now to look beneath all of that.

          Luke gives us the perfect account of it. Consider these seven verses from a distance before we get down into them. Looking at them, what do you see? This is the birth of Christ. We talked about it several weeks ago that the real miracle was not the Virgin Birth but more appropriately the Virgin Conception. In other words, the historical fact that a young Jewish girl named Mary somehow conceived this Child in her virgin womb, without any normal sexual contact, is the real miracle, and not the simple (or not so simple) passing of that Child at His birth.

          So what do we see then in Luke’s account of the birth of Christ? You’ve got two historical figures: Caesar Augustus and Quirinius the governor of Syria. You’ve got two ordinary human beings: Joseph and his betrothed wife Mary. You’ve got two real, historical cities that are still there today: Nazareth and Bethlehem. You’ve got a real, historical event: the census under Quirinius. You’ve got a human pregnancy coming to term in a normal time: “the days were completed for her to be delivered” would be senseless for Luke to write unless he meant that this is about 9 months after the miraculous conception.

          What are you left with? A clean, streamlined, sleek historical account without anything that could remotely be pointed to as “legend” or “mythology” or “embellishment” or “supernatural”. There are no angels there in that manger. There are no wise men, no Magi in Luke’s account (and Matthew mentions them only as coming to Christ later, after His birth). There’s no star to be followed. There’s no glowing light emanating from the Newborn God-child. There’s no immaculate chorus. There’s none of that. All the “stuff” of religion that has built up around Christmas over time is gone from the Lukan account and all you’re left with is just Christ Himself. Don’t miss the simplicity, the realism and the historicity of these verses. This is not a myth. This is a record.

          v.1, First question: “Who is Caesar Augustus”? Good question. Glad you asked.

          Turns out, Caesar Augustus is a better big name to name. He was a bigger name than Herod the great. He had such an effect upon history and the Romans that we still feel the effect of his life today, once a year. Care to guess how?

          Because the name of the eighth month on our calendar—August—gets its name from this man, Caesar Augustus. I don’t think we can underestimate the importance and the influence of this one leader.

          Born Gaius Octavius on the 23rd of September in 63 AD, he would become the heir of an emperor. When Julius Caesar (yeah, the Julius Caesar), the great-uncle of Octavius, was assassinated, Julius’ will named Octavius as his adopted son and heir. Octavius defeated the assassins of his uncle, destroyed his own rivals for power, including Mark Antony and Cleopatra, reorganized the Roman Republic and restored the laws of the state, built a network of roads that could link the cities of the empire, established the Praetorian guard, rebuilt the city of Rome, assumed supreme military command, called himself Princeps Civitatis (First Citizen of the State) and effectively ushered in the Pax Romana (the Roman Peace) a span of 206 that saw relative peace and stability for Rome. He had quite a resume.

          Eventually this man had risen to such power that he shed the name of his birth and adopted the name Augustus which can mean “illustrious one”, which according to historian Werner Eck was a title of religious authority rather than political authority. It was a title that put him above a mere man, that symbolized his authority over humanity and over nature beyond any constitutional definition of his status of power. He also transformed the word Caesar into a new family line with himself at its head. Thus he went from Gaius Octavius, the man, to Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus, a new name which loosely meant Victorious Conqueror Caesar Son of the Divine, the Illustrious One He literally adopted a name for himself that meant Son of God, since had become the adopted son of Julius Caesar, who had already been deified as a god himself.

          So I find it incredibly fascinating the kind of juxtaposition we’re getting here in Luke: a contrast between two human beings who claimed to be the son of God. They could not be more different, even though they made the same claim.

          Consider that Caesar Augustus, a world-famous ruler, called himself the son of God and kept that title for himself. Jesus Christ, an obscure and wandering teacher, called himself the son of God but gives the right to become children of God to those who believe in His name (John 1:12). Caesar Augustus rose to a position where he had many servants and people under him. Jesus Christ came into the world not to be served but to serve (Mark 10:45). Caesar Augustus dined with wealthy senators, politicians, military commanders, foreign leaders and dignitaries. Jesus Christ broke bread with sinners and prostitutes and the despised and the uneducated and the outcast. Caesar Augustus was born as Octavius into a wealthy and respected family of Roman Knights. Jesus Christ was born into a poor family from a little country-town, to a man who was a carpenter and a woman who probably bore the brunt of suspected infidelity for the rest of her life. Caesar Augustus accumulated great wealth and power. Jesus Christ had no place even to lay his own head at night and He gave His power to His disciples through the Holy Spirit. Caesar Augustus died at the age of 75, an old man, under suspicion of being poisoned by his wife Livia. Jesus Christ, died at the age of 33, a young man who gave laid His life down for the lives of humanity.

          This passage we’ve read begins and ends then with two possibilities for the “son of God” title: either the proud, wealthy, respected tyrant Caesar Augustus or the humble Shepherd-King, Jesus. In a sense, the system of the world put up its best candidate and God Himself put up His own best candidate for the title. You choose between the two.

          One more note on Augustus before we move on. Why would God allow a man like that to achieve so much power and prestige and wealth in the world? Why would God allow a man like Augustus, so proud, to have so much authority? Augustus was no saint. He was a self-worshiping warlord. So why put a man like that into authority, if indeed “there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (Romans 13:1) is true?

          Answer: Because God had a problem. Not an insurmountable problem. God doesn’t have those. But a problem that needed to be solved. The problem was this: the Messiah, the Savior, the Christ had to be born in Bethlehem. According to the prophet Micah, the city of Bethlehem would be the birthplace of the Messiah. Micah 5:2 says “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah [a word meaning Fruitfulness], though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting [literally: from the days of eternity].” The Messiah-Ruler, One who existed from eternity past, the King of the Jews (the inscription that hung over the cross), was to be a figure who would arise out of Bethlehem.

          Ah but Luke has already told us that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth in Galilee, almost 70 miles away from Bethlehem. So, God, how do you get the parents of your Messiah down to the right place at the right time to fulfill the prophecy? Now Since He is God, He’s got an endless amount of options to choose from. He could simply send another angel, maybe Gabriel again, to simply tell Joseph and Mary that they’ve got to be in Bethlehem and bring the hot water ‘cause the baby’s coming. Or he could have supernaturally transported, teleported them from Nazareth to Bethlehem like he did with the disciple Philip in Acts. Or he could set it up for them to meet up with family in Bethlehem. Or he could have come up with anything really.

          But notice the choice God makes to get Joe and Mary down to Bethlehem. God goes for the biggest, most elaborate and complex plan: cause a man named Gaius Octavius to be born in 63AD as the great-nephew of Julius Caesar, a man named Octavius who would be carried along by destiny and by his own pride to eventually become the most powerful man in the world: Caesar Augustus, who’s pride would decree at the exact timing that God needed the decree for a census of all the world: a counting of the citizens of the empire for a measurement of its vastness and glory, which at the same time would trigger massive Jewish revolts since a census was against Jewish law. In simpler terms, God put Augustus into authority (according to Romans 13:1) because just such a man in authority would indirectly accomplish the will of God and allow prophecy to be fulfilled. A proud Caesar was needed and God created just such a man who would have just such a pride, Caesar Augustus. There are so many other ways, simpler ways, God could have got those two down to Bethlehem, but he chose a vastly complex means to accomplish His goal.

          In our politically charged atmosphere of modern America, even in terms of our relations to foreign authorities, this stark and shocking biblical truth of God’s providence should bring us immense comfort. It is not a mistake, biblically speaking, that Barak Obama, Kim Jong-un, Benjamin Netanyahu or the king of Saudi Arabia are in power today, nor has it ever been a mistake, biblically speaking, for any ruler, tyrant or despot or benevolent leader, to be in power and authority, since all authority is appointed by God. That never means that God condones or causes everything that human authorities do. It does not mean that human authorities cannot make mistakes. They do make mistakes, but it is no mistake of God’s providence that they’re there to make those mistakes. It means that God is never surprised. He was not surprised when Obama was elected for a second term. He didn’t hold a pity-party because the Republicans didn’t win. Nor will He be surprised at the outcome of the next presidential election.

          Proverbs 21:1 says “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.” Psalm 2 describes the kings of the earth, human authorities, plotting and counseling with themselves against the LORD and it says that God shall simply laugh. All the big-shots calling the shots around the world today, God simply laughs at them, knowing that they are there ultimately to fulfill whatever final purpose God may have, if even through their own human wickedness that God might use what was meant for evil and turn it into good.

          v.2-3, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, also known to history as Cyrenius, was a Roman aristocrat who was later appointed governor of Syria, which included the province of Judea at the time.

          Luke is inadvertently giving us the date of his narrative here by linking his account of the birth of Christ to this real, historical event of the census under Quirinius. The Jewish historian, for example, describes the census as causing an uprising and the beginning of the Zealot movement which culminated in the First Jewish-Roman War. The current issue with this census and its timing is that a comparison of Luke and Matthew and other historical records raise some problems.

          This census under Quirinius would place the birth of Christ around the year 6 or 7, whereas the Gospel of Matthew does not mention the census but indicates Christ’s birth occurred in the days of Herod the king. But if that’s Herod the great, then he died in the year 4, before the census occurred. So either Luke or Matthew is wrong. Furthermore, it seems to be unusual in history for any census to occur which required the taxed to travel to their hometowns, nor are there any historical sources that mention a census of the entire Roman population.

          It’s problematic, even though it gives us a rough estimate of the date of the birth of Christ. Obviously, I don’t want to spend the rest of my time preaching on the technicalities of history, but here are a few possible suggestions to reconcile the situation.

a.    What if the Herod in Matthew’s gospel was not Herod the great, but his heir instead?

b.    What if historians don’t know about any general census of the entire Roman population because no record has been discovered yet, or all the records have been destroyed?

c.    What if this census in Luke is a unique census that did require the taxed, even if only in the land of Israel, to return to their hometowns? It’s unprecedented but not impossible.

d.    What if the decree and the census are two different events: the decree taking place in Herod’s days bringing Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem in the year 4 and then the actual census occurring some time later in the year 6 or 7?

          There are simply too many possibilities to outright dismiss this account as unhistorical.

          v.4-5, Joseph was a good man. We know that because when he found out about the conception of this Child within his betrothed wife, he was going to divorce her quietly rather than subject her to open shame until he found out that it was a miracle and not a case of adultery. We also know he was a good man because he was a law abiding citizen. He did not resist authority, even the authority of a wicked man like Caesar Augustus, but was subject to governing authorities a la Romans 13:1. Did he need to obey? Well, yes in order to fulfill the prophecy. But understand that as a man in those times there was uprising and revolt happening. The Jewish Zealots were assassins and fighters who wanted to kick Rome out of Judea by force. Joseph could have easily been swept up in the mad passion of resisting authority, even the wicked authority of Caesar, and inadvertently resist the very orchestrating hand of God setting up the fulfillment of prophecy.

          Joseph shows his mettle here. He demonstrates his character as civilly obedient and thereby obedient to the hand of God. Mary also demonstrates what kind of woman she is. Not one mention of her nagging Joseph on the way is to be found. But if any woman had the right to nag, it would be Mary on that day.

          Nazareth, again, is almost 70 miles north of Bethlehem. Pregnant women have a heck of a time just getting up and down the stairs, not to mention trekking across the country right before they give birth to their child. Yet in one man’s civil obedience and in one woman’s acceptance of her discomfort, the Child that would redeem the world was born.

          Imagine if Joseph had faltered politically and said “No, I’m not going all that distance” or if Mary had faltered relationally to her husband and said “No, I’m not going all that distance”. God is not looking for people who say “No” but for people who will say “Yes, I will go”.

          v.6-7, Again, cast as far from your mind as you can the images of the warm, clean mangers with the cuddly animals looking on at baby Jesus as He’s lying there glowing on the perfect bed of hay. Religious tradition has a way of “cleaning” up the reality of things. Reality: there would be blood. Everywhere. Reality: animals would be making noise and defecating and eating and smelling up everything. Everywhere. Mary’s head wouldn’t be glowing with a halo, it would be glistening with the sweat of exhaustion.

          This was a barn, it was filthy. Animals lived there. It wasn’t fit for humans. How could it possibly be fit for the birth of Christ, the Savior of the world? Yet what a profound statement of the “real” humanity that Christ came with. All these fuzzy-feeling images of nativity scenes somehow take away from the shocking humiliation of being born under such circumstances by glorifying the whole scene and at the same time distancing the Newborn Christ from the reality of His life of humiliation and humility. He did not come to be served or pampered, to be portrayed in images as glowing, to make the heart warm with the Christmas-feeling.

          Jesus Christ, of all people ever born, uniquely was born to die. The shadow of His cross stretched across time and touched His cradle. Note the similarities between His birth and His death: at His birth He was wrapped with swaddling cloths, at His death He was wrapped with strips of linen; at His birth, nobody was there except for a few shepherd; at His death, nobody was there except for a few faithful, His disciples had fled; at His birth, He was surrounded by animals; at His death, He was surrounded by men who acted like animals, thieves and torturers; at His birth, He was lain in a manger where animals ate their food, at His death, He wanted to be remembered by eating bread that represented His body; at His birth, He was lain where nobody else had lain in a manger, at His death, He was lain where nobody else had lain in a fresh tomb; at His birth, He was covered in blood; at His death, He was covered in blood; He was born in humiliation, He died in humiliation; and strikingly: He voluntarily chose to be born in such a way, and He voluntarily laid His own life down to die in such a way.

          My final question is this: Why were they there? Why had they come all this way and traveled to Bethlehem and ended up in a dirty manger. The text tells us “because there was no room for them in the inn”. But wait a minute, forget the inn!

          Wasn’t this Bethlehem? Aren’t we to suppose that they went there because that’s where Joseph and his family was from, “being of the house and lineage of David”? If that’s the case, have you ever asked yourself where was Joseph’s family? If they were from Bethlehem, then why stay in a barn or an inn, why not stay with relatives?

          Is it possible that Joseph’s line had died out and he had no relatives living any longer in Bethlehem? Were they away for Christmas vacation? Or is it more plausible that he had relatives there but that they told him there was no room with them, even as there was no room in the inn, because his betrothed wife Mary was with child under suspicion of adultery?

          If so, then it’s not only that there wasn’t any room in the inn, a commercial business that could indeed run out of rooms to rent out, but it’s also that Joseph’s own family turned him away because of the unborn Child in his wife’s womb, a Child that admittedly was not His own. There wasn’t any room in the inn, and there wasn’t any room in the hearts of Joseph’s family. And that’s why they ended up in that cold and dirty place for the birth of the Savior of the world, ostracized not only from society but from their own family. The most amazing thing had just occurred! Something the world had never seen before: the Incarnation! God in the flesh! But there was no room for the Maker in the world that He had made.

          Our world today has plenty of room for alternative worldviews: plenty of room for homosexuality, plenty of room for transgender expression, plenty of room for religious freedom and acceptance of Islam and Mormonism and tribalism and Hinduism and Shintoism, and the words of Buddha, Confucius, the Mahabharata and astrology, plenty of room for philosophies of all shapes and colors and sizes, plenty of room for the books of preachers and teachers and cultists and doctors and priests and scholars and monks, plenty of room for Satan, plenty of room for pleasure and wealth and the accumulation of both, and yes, even plenty of room of the warm-hearted fuzzy, feel-good pictures of Jesus Christ there born in that immaculate manger, plenty of room for the simple songs and the bright lights of Christmas. But there is no room for a dying Messiah, the Bearer of the cross, the One who puts His finger right on your sin and mine so heavily as to demonstrate the sincerity of His love by dying grotesquely crucified. There is no room for that kind of talk of us all being so desperately sinful that the only last and final hope was to send the very Son of God to be brutalized in our place. Oh there’s plenty of room for the cheery cradle and yes even the wise words of Jesus, but not for the dying Savior, not for the garish cross, not for the blood that says “You are so hopelessly wicked and evil that this is your only cure, this is your only salvation, faith in the shed blood of the crucified!”

          Ladies and gentlemen, it is as much a fact of history that He was born that He died. It’s already done. You can’t stop Him from dying. You can’t change that fact of history. The only thought we can have on His death is whether to accept it or not. The only thought we can bring to the table is whether we’re going to make any room for Jesus in our hearts, unlike society, unlike the inns of the world.

          Is there room in your heart for the Dayspring? Is there room in your life to serve Him? Is there room in your soul to worship Him? Is there room in your friendships to talk about Him? Is there room in your time to learn more about Him? Is there room in your aspirations to dream of being with Him?
Is there any room for Jesus?
He Who died on Calvary,
He Who standeth, knocking, waiting,
Pleading with you tenderly.
Room for Jesus, room for Jesus,
Let Him in your heart today,
Throwing every window open,
O receive Him while you may.
We have room for worldly pleasures,
Cares of life crowd every day,
And our hearts and minds are burdened
While the Lord is turned away.
Will you not make room for Jesus,
For the Christ, the Crucified?
Is there not some place to enter
In the soul for which He died?
Room and time and thought for Jesus,
Hasten to accept His grace
Ere the heart grows cold and careless,
And His pleading voice shall cease.



 

No comments:

Post a Comment