The Truth of the Nativity

fade_studybible

By John MacArthur

The story of the first Christmas is so beloved that singers and storytellers across the centuries have embellished and elaborated and mythologized the story in celebration. However, most people now don’t know which details are biblical and which are fabricated. People usually imagine the manger scene with snow, singing angels, many worshipers, and a little drummer boy. None of that is found in the biblical account.

Christmas has become the product of an odd mixture of pagan ideas, superstition, fanciful legends, and plain ignorance. Add to that the commercialization of Christmas by marketers and the politicization of Christmas in the culture wars, and you’re left with one big mess. Let’s try to sort it out. The place to begin is in God’s Word, the Bible. Here we find not only the source of the original account of Christmas, but also God’s commentary on it.

We can’t know Jesus if we don’t understand He is real. The story of His birth is no allegory. We dare not romanticize it or settle for a fanciful legend that renders the whole story meaningless. Mary and Joseph were real people. Their dilemma on finding no room at the inn surely was as frightening for them as it would be for you or me. The manger in which Mary laid Jesus must have reeked of animal smells. So did the shepherds, in all probability. That first Christmas was anything but picturesque.

But that makes it all the more wondrous. That baby in the manger is God! Immanuel!

That’s the heart and soul of the Christmas message. There weren’t many worshipers around the original manger-only a handful of shepherds. But one day every knee will bow before Him, and every tongue will confess He is Lord (Philippians 2:9-11). Those who doubt Him, those who are His enemies, those who merely ignore Him-all will one day bow, too, even if it be in judgment.

How much better to honor Him now with the worship He deserves! That’s what Christmas ought to inspire.

Unvarnished Truth

Luke 2:7 sets the scene: “[Mary] gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.”

That verse is explicitly concerned with a lonely birth. There were no midwives, no assistance to Mary at all. The Bible doesn’t even mention that Joseph was present. Perhaps he was, but if he was typical of first-time fathers, he would have been of little help to Mary. She was basically on her own.

Mary brought forth the child; she wrapped Him in swaddling cloths; and she laid Him in a manger. Where usually a midwife would clean the baby and wrap Him, there was no one. Mary did it herself. And where usually there would have been a cradle or basket for the baby, there was none. Mary had to put Him in an animal’s feeding trough.

When Christ entered the world, He came to a place that had some of the smelliest, filthiest, and most uncomfortable conditions. But that is part of the wonder of divine grace, isn’t it? When the Son of God came down from heaven, He came all the way down. He did not hang on to His equality with God; rather, He set it aside for a time and completely humbled Himself (Philippians 2:5-8).

Unlikely Testimony

Luke 2:8-20 describes the experience of the shepherds when Jesus was born. Think about that for a moment. Out of the whole of Jerusalem society, God picked a band of shepherds to hear the news of Jesus’ birth. That’s intriguing because shepherds were among the lowest and most despised social groups.

The very nature of shepherds’ work kept them from entering into the mainstream of Israel’s society. They couldn’t maintain the ceremonial washings and observe all the religious festivals and feasts, yet these shepherds, just a few miles from Jerusalem, were undoubtedly caring for sheep that someday would be used as sacrifices in the temple. How fitting it is that they were the first to know of the Lamb of God!

More significant, they came to see Him the night he was born. No one else did. Though the shepherds went back and told everyone what they had seen and heard, and though “all who heard it wondered at the things which were told them by the shepherds” (v. 18), not one other person came to see firsthand.

Scripture doesn’t describe how the shepherds’ search for the baby Jesus actually unfolded, but it’s not unreasonable to assume that they entered Bethlehem and asked questions: “Does anybody know about a baby being born here in town tonight?”

The shepherds might have knocked on several doors and seen other newborn babies before they found the special Child lying in the feeding trough. At that moment, those humble men knew for certain that the angels’ announcement was a word from God. After their encounter with Joseph and Mary and Jesus, the shepherds couldn’t help but tell others about what the angels had told them. They became, in effect, the first New Testament evangelists.

The shepherd’s story is a good illustration of the Christian life. You first hear the revelation of the gospel and believe it (Romans 10:9-10). Then you pursue and embrace Christ. And having become a witness to your glorious conversion, you begin to tell others about it (Luke 2:17).

May God grant you the life-changing spiritual experiences and the ongoing attitude of enthusiasm and responsiveness that causes you to tell others that you, too, have seen Christ the Lord.

New ‘Bible’: Heterosexuality Is Sin

‘There are many different versions; I don’t see why we can’t have one”

reading_the_kjv_bible1Posted: December 02, 2008

9:25 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A filmmaker who recently released an independent project about a formula that turns all heterosexuals into “gays” now has announced he’s working on “The Princess Diana Bible” in which “God” ordains homosexuality as the better lifestyle.

“There are many different versions of the Bible; I don’t see why we can’t have one,” stated Max Mitchell in a statement on a website for his new project.

The “gay Bible,” produced by the New Mexico-based Revision Studios, states God instructs “it is better to be gay than straight.”

Mitchell said he developed the idea for the “Bible” from his new movie project, called “Horror in the Wind,” in which an airborne substance “reverses the world’s sexual orientation.”

He said it’s named “The Princess Diana Bible” because of Diana’s “many good works.”

The website offers a preview of the project, which is forecast to be available in 2009.

In Mitchell’s version, Genesis talks about Aida and Eve:

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Aida, and she slept: and he took one of her ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from woman, made he another woman, and brought her unto the first. And Aida said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of me. Therefore shall a woman leave her mother, and shall cleave unto her wife: and they shall be one flesh.’ And they were both naked, the woman and her wife, and were not ashamed.”

Discover how immorality is being cleverly sold to Americans in David Kupelian’s controversial best seller, “The Marketing of Evil.”

The new version continues:

And Eve conceived, and bore Cain, and said, we have created a child in God’s image. And God said the male was different than the woman because he was fathered by the serpent. … And Eve again conceived with the serpent and bore Cain’s brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

According to one advocacy website, Mitchell has described his work as divinely inspired.

“Jesus was gay. In Biblical times homosexual relationships were so commonplace that no one gave it a second thought. It was heterosexuality that was considered sinful,” he said on the website.

On the website’s comment page, one participant said, “Aida and Eve are a breath of fresh air upon the face of repressed homosexulity (sic) in America. Finally, a version of the bible everyone can relate to.”

At Beliefnet.com, a commentator expressed opposition to the project.

“Every once in a while, art doesn’t transcend truth as much as it distorts it, and that’s where I draw the line. Hence my opposition to the upcoming ‘Princess Diana Bible.’

“This book is inspired by a political agenda and one person’s desire to contort not only the text but the very context of it to suit his own perspective. That, you may say, is what commentators do – and perhaps even translators – but this guy is making himself an ‘author,’ which makes it a book, not a Bible,” the commentator wrote.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.