Prophetic Geopolitics Crucial to Christ's Crucifixion

The Passover is less than a month away. On that date, we gather in order to remember the sacrifice made by Jesus Christ to redeem us from our sins.

At Passover, we are reminded of Christ’s body that was broken by scourging and His crucifixion which led to his death at the point of a Roman spear.

The question we might ask: What does the death of a Jewish man by crucifixion in a backwater Roman province have to do with geopolitics? The answer is that without the necessary geopolitical alignment Christ would never have been crucified.

Going back to the time of Alexander the Great and the generals who succeeded him, the land of Judea was a geopolitical football. Judea was a first dominated by the Ptolemies of Egypt. Next it came under the dominion of the Seleucid Empire. In the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, Judea gained some degree of independence.

In time a third power, the Romans, entered the power struggle for the land of Judea. In the time when Augustus Caesar was gaining control over the Roman Empire, a man we known historically as Herod the Great rose to power. He through his own financing and military prowess took possession of the province of Judea and was able to rule that territory as a client king from 37 BC to approximately 4 BC. During this time, Jewish law governed and death sentences were carried out according the Jewish regulations. If one were condemned to death, the sentence would not have been crucifixion.

With Herod’s death around 4 BC, he was succeeded by his son, Herod Archelaus. He was approved as ruler by the Romans, but they did not rule directly. They gave Archelaus the lion’s share of the Herod the Great’s territory. They gave him Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. They also allowed him to enjoy the title of ethnarch of Judea with the idea if he proved his capabilities and loyalty they would allow him to be called king of Judea later.

Unfortunately for Archelaus, he did not do well and the Romans removed him from power and exiled him to Lyon in what we know today as France.

With the removal of Archelaus the area that Archelaus had ruled became a Roman province. It was known as the Roman province of Judea. The only part of Herod the Great’s territory that came under Roman rule was the part ruled by Archelaus.

This change in the political situation was crucial. It was crucial because the change was necessary to fulfill prophecy. Without Archelaus losing control of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea, prophecy could not have been fulfilled. Judea remained a Roman province from 6 AD to 41 AD

We might ask, “Why is it important that Judea was a Roman province between 6 AD and 41 AD? In what way did it pave the way for prophecy to be fulfilled?”

If Archelaus had been an independent ruler of Judea, then Christ would not have been crucified. He would have died in some other way: either by stoning, beheading, or some other fashion favored by the Jews. The most likely form of execution would have been stoning.

What’s the problem with stoning? Stoning would have violated the prophetic word found in Psalms 34:20, “He guards all his bones; not one of them is broken.” The Apostle John refers to Psalm 34 to buttress the fact that Jesus was the Messiah in John 19:35-36, “And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe. For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, "Not one of His bones shall be broken."

If Judea had been under rule by any of the descendants of Herod, he would have been most probably executed by stoning. The problem with stoning is that during the execution Christ would have suffered multiple broken bones. If executed by decapitation, bones would have been broken.

It was necessary to fulfill prophecy for Jesus to be crucified. A crucifixion would only have taken place if Judea had been a Roman province at the time of the Messiah’s death.

Geopolitical events insured that at the time when the death of the Messiah became necessary he would die by the uniquely Roman form of execution, crucifixion.

We can rejoice that Christ died on our behalf and we can be reassured that Christ’s crucifixion fulfilled the prophetic word.

Have a most enjoyable Sabbath.

Gary Smith

Christmas Gifts: Kingly Present or Ancient Eastern Custom?

It is the 26th of December and Christmas is past. Yesterday in many parts of the world Christmas was observed. Families gathered, gifts were exchanged.

On what scriptural basis do people in the Christian world exchange gifts? The scriptural support for gift giving is found in Matthew 2:11,

“And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.”

Does this quote support exchanging gifts in observance of Christmas? Although giving gifts based upon Matthew 2:11 indicates a misinterpretation of what is happening in the verse. First, let us look at the historic origin of trading gifts back and forth, then see exactly what the Bible does say about it.

From the Bibliotheca Sacra, volume 12, pages 153-155, we quote, "The interchange of presents between friends is alike characteristic of Christmas and the Saturnalia, and must have been adopted by Christians from the Pagans, as the admonition of Tertullian plainly shows."

The fact is, this custom of exchanging gifts with friends and relatives at the Christmas season has not a single trace of Christianity about it, strange though that may seem. This does not celebrate Christ's birthday or honor it or Him! Suppose someone you love has a birthday. You want to honor that person on his or her birthday. Would you lavishly buy gifts for everyone else, trading gifts back and forth with all your other friends and loved ones, but ignore completely any gift for the one whose birthday you are honoring? It would seem rather absurd, when viewed in that light.

Yet this is exactly what people the world over do. They honor a day that is not Christ's birthday by spending significant amounts of money to buy presents to trade back and forth among friends and relatives.

Now consider what the Bible says about giving gifts when Christ was born in Matthew 2. Let’s examine the passage:

“Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him."” (Matt 2:1-2)

• Note they were seeking a king they would worship.

“When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.” (Matt 2:3-4)

• The arrival of these men from the east upset Herod because he saw this king as threatening his rule in Judea and apparently the men’s search for a king stirred Jerusalem as well.
• An inquiry was made to determine where the Christ was born.
• Matthew 2:5-6 tells us that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem.
• Matthew 2:7-8 informs us that Herod wanted to know when the men began their journey and asks that when they find this king they are to report back to him.
• How long was the journey of these men from the east? Matthew 2:16 tells us that Herod set about killing all infants aged two years and younger. Herod had determined from the inquiries of the men from the east that their journey began approximately two years earlier. Since the men did not return to tell Herod of the location of this king, he killed all that fit into that time frame with the hope of eliminating his supposed rival.
• Note Matthew 2:10 tells us that the child was not in a manger in Bethlehem since about two years had passed. Christ, was no longer a newborn, but was possibly as old as two. He was living in all probability in his home town of Nazareth.

Now back to the verse we addressed at the outset,

“And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.” (Matt 2:11)

Notice, they inquired for the child Jesus, who was born King of the Jews! Now why did they present gifts to Him? Because it was His birthday? Not at all, because it was some time after the date of His birth! Was it to set an example for us, today, to trade gifts back and forth among ourselves? No, notice carefully! They did not exchange gifts among themselves, but "they presented unto Him gifts." They gave their gifts to Christ, not to their friends, relatives, or one another!

Why did they give gifts to the child? Let me quote from the Adam Clarke on Matthew 2:11, “The people of the east never approach the presence of kings and great personages, without a present in their hands. This custom is often noticed in the Old Testament, and still prevails in the east, and in some of the newly discovered South Sea Islands.” (From Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

They were not instituting a new Christian custom of exchanging gifts with friends to honor Christ's birthday. They were following an old and ancient eastern custom of presenting gifts to a king when they come into his presence. They were approaching Him, born King of the Jews, in person. Therefore custom required they present gifts—even as the Queen of Sheba brought gifts to Solomon—even as many people today take a gift along when they visit the White House for an appointment with the President.

The custom of trading gifts back and forth does not stem from this scriptural incident at all, but rather, as quoted from history above, it is the continuance of an ancient pagan custom.

Have a most pleasant Sabbath,

Gary Smith