There he sat, bare forearms outstretched, revealing a pair of tattoos covering his flesh from wrist to elbow. Ironically, the markings were in Hebrew. Had that been all there was, had the “faith leader’s” post simply announced new body art, I would have kept scrolling. Unfortunately, there was more.

Bold font declared, “Legalism is alive and well!” Line after line seemed intent on publicly belittling an older saint who raised a question about the minister’s tattoos. Tragically, scores of professing believers, some of them ministers, piled on diminishing the senior, whose only failure seemed to be that they had asked a question. At first, it seemed, those in the thread forgot congregants, even seniors, have social media, Then, I wondered, was that was the point? Was I looking at a lesson, intended to quite the uncompliant?

As promised, this post is really not about tattoos. Still, there are some facts, which must be established, before real discussion on the issue can begin. For example:

Researchers from the Department of Public Health and the Department of Clinical Research at the University of Southern Denmark (SDU), together with the University of Helsinki investigated whether tattoos come with significant health risks ¹For lymphoma, the rate is nearly three times higher for the group of individuals with large tattoos compared to those without tattoos. This rate (more specifically, ‘hazard rate’) accounts for age, the timing of the tattoo, and how long the individuals have been followed in the study. This suggests that the bigger the tattoo and the longer it has been there, the more ink accumulates in the lymph nodes.

Another study found:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), raised other questions about the safety of tattoos. One of the key findings is that tattoo ink not only remains in the skin but also accumulates in the immune system, where it stays associated with its cells for years. Moreover, the ink induces cell death and triggers a chronic inflammatory reaction that disrupts the normal function of the body’s defense system.

A recent John’s Hopkins demonstrated tattoos trigger or worsen inflammatory diseases.

And of course there is scripture.

Leviticus 19: 18, 28-32.

“You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your

people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.”

“You shall not make cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the

Lord. Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, lest the land fall into

prostitution and the land become full of depravity. You shall keep my Sabbaths and

reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord. Do not turn to mediums or necromancers;

do not seek them out and so make yourselves unclean by them. I am the Lord your

God. You shall stand before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and

you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.

Scripture calls us to reasons together. Wrestling with texts and differing opinions is good and healthy. This used to be a normal part of learning and applying God’s Word. Then, we quit talking. Although we may have disagreed about how texts should be applied, until recently almost no professing believer would have responded to black and white scripture with shouts of legalism. Now, the declaration has become almost Pavlovian anytime someone dares to stick their head up and ask, “Should we really be doing this?” As a result, real discussions about trends, changing times, and cultural issues have almost disappeared. If someone could be offended or upset, we roll our eyes and have our thoughts, but we don’t speak up anymore unless it is to shout “LEAGALISM!” when biblical guardrails are referenced.

Because the freedom to ask real questions has faded, few realize the Bible ever mentions tattoos. Almost no one is aware of the growing mountain of research, which should at least raise some concerns about the practice. Still, If medical studies merit more consideration than the God breathed Word, in today’s church, we are in serious trouble.

“That’s Old Testament!” Who hasn’t heard the response to questions about mandates and prohibitions from the first half of the cannon? Too many forget this was the exact argument LGBT groups used to gain ground in the church. It’s also dangerously close to ideas, which got Marcion excommunicated from the second century church. Not everything is salvific, but if 2 Timothy 3:16 means anything every word in the Bible matters and needs to be addressed.

When Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” (Matthew 22:29 and Mark 12:31), He was quoting Leviticus 19, the center of the moral law. By referencing the text, Jesus does more than point to a single line or phrase. It is intended to point to the larger context. How do we love our neighbor? We do not look like the world or act like the world. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told us not even the tiniest marks or dots in the Law would pass away. The Ceremonial Law was fulfilled; the moral law stands.

Since cultural trends, including the popularity of tattoos, have pressured many to avoid teaching Leviticus 19, other important things are missed. Should we ignore the passage’s prohibitions against trafficking our daughters or engaging in necromancy? Jesus did not explicitly repeat those in the New Testament. Will the church accept Tarot cards as they become mainstream? Here’s where things get hard. We don’t get to pick and choose which verses we like or make sense to us culturally.

By now, someone is almost certainly yelling at the screen, “What about blended fabrics?” Time for more hard truth. If everyone ignores a biblical command, that doesn’t mean the command is illegitimate. Not understanding a passage doesn’t give us permission to pretend it doesn’t matter. That said I’ve never violated the passage about blended fabric and neither have you. Almost no one has. The Leviticus 19 verse is an allusion to Deuteronomy 22:11, a specific prohibition against blending linen and wool, the only commercial fabrics available at the time.

There are at least a couple legitimate ways to understand the verse. Some claim it has to do with the person who did wear linen and wool together , the high priest. Advocates for this view claim the verse is about not seizing authority, which is not our own. Others believe the text mirrors the meaning of the old and new wine skins. Because linen and wool have different shrink rates, purposes, and are for different seasons blending the fabrics would result in the destruction of both. Those promoting this view believe it is about thoughtfulness and stewardship.

Maybe the God who made us understands what is bad for us. If you have been to doctors, who deal with autoimmune issues, one of the first questions you were likely asked is, “Do you have any tattoos?” If you say no, they will almost certainly say, “Good don’t get any.” If you say yes, it’s very possible you could be urged to have them removed.

If someone enters a tattoo shop without first visiting an oncologist, rheumatologist, or immunologist, it is unlikely they are aware these conversations even take place. Because the American church tends to recoil from any discussion, which might cause discomfort, believers frequently fail to receive thoughtful direction on a variety of cultural issues, including tattoos. As a result, at least in the case of tattoos, many will get sick. Statistically some will die.

Often, the silence is encouraged as way to show love. Does love really remain hushed in the face of danger? Aren’t we called to be watchmen, Isaiah 62: 6-12? If the body is a temple, shouldn’t we at least consider the ethical issue of Christian leaders encouraging people towards behavior, which appears to triple the odds that their temple could be seriously damaged or destroyed? Shouldn’t congregants at least be made aware verses on the subject exist? Is the avoidance of all discussion on sensitive or controversial topics really just a way for us to avoid an uncomfortable lunch?

We can disagree on “body art” and many other non-salvific issues. That’s fine. What we cannot do is effectively mark some scriptures as off limits. We cannot pretend important information doesn’t exist. We cannot bully dissenting views into silence, because we are unwilling or unprepared to thoughtfully engage with scripture and unpopular facts. Maybe it is time to acknowledge, the same passage, forbidding trafficking our daughters, fortune telling and communication with the dead, requires honoring the elderly, and it doesn’t make exceptions for the ones who ask difficult questions. That’s Worth Remembering.

Subscribe now

Buy Me A Coffee

“During his journey, Moses went from needing a mouthpiece, to addressing Pharaoh directly, and finally ignoring the demands of a tyrant. Pharaoh was a broken man reigning in a devastated kingdom. He was no god. He no longer held any power. One who listened to the voice of God had no need to submit to the despot’s demands.”

—Exiting Egypt

As trembling hands gripped the staff, the echo of God’s voice still ringing in Moses’ ears, palace doors swung open. No longer hiding behind Aaron’s words, Moses stood eye to eye with power, unflinching. Not fear, but obedience shaped his spine and transformed a man’s stick into the staff of God. To the ancients, a staff conveyed authority. Moses understood he was not walking in his own. In time, Pharaoh understood too.

In the shadow of empire, God’s people must not cower or clamor for control. Instead, our hearts tune to a higher command, one that refuses to bow to fear or the idols of any age. Watch Moses. Be like him. Once hesitant, eventually, the shepherd prince stood before Pharaoh, unwavering, not to seize power, but to obey a voice greater than any throne. Obedience, not ambition, drove him into the halls of authority.

Unfortunately, today, when believers bring their faith into the public square, accusations of “Christian nationalism” rise quickly. Many object to the involvement of “big eva” ignoring the fact that it was evangelical abolitionists and suffragists who freed the slaves, fought for women to vote, and brought huge social reforms. Curiously, those who wave more colorful flags or champion their own causes, who “resist” and strive to shape policy from their own deeply held beliefs, rarely face the same charge. Why is faith suspect only when it flows from Scripture or the one side of the aisle?

Perhaps the real question isn’t whether faith belongs in politics, but whose faith is allowed to shape it. Even his own people misunderstood Moses, but his courage wasn’t nationalism. It was submission to God’s pattern. That pattern that still calls us to speak, stand, and trust the One who sends us, not the throne that threatens us. That is Worth Remembering.

Subscribe now

Buy me a coffee

Subscribe now

Remember; the command is woven through the fabric of faith all the way back to Genesis. As we move further from Easter, new memories fade along with the lilies. As exciting as it can be for our families and communities to discover or rediscover new ways to honor and celebrate what Christ has done for us, there is one way every believer is commanded to remember what the Lord has done for us. “On the night He was betrayed…” (1 Corinthians 11:23–26), that is how communion services began where I grew up. For some of us, the passage is so familiar we automatically continue the text in our minds.

“This is my body…This is my blood,” the words are so jarring they cannot help but steal the show when this portion of scripture is referenced. Twice in the brief section of scripture, we are told this, Lord’s supper, is a celebration of remembrance. Rather than passive daydreaming about old times.

“Anamnesis,” the Greek word for remembrance used in the verse, is an active self-prompted reliving. It is a call to intentional focus, but what is the object of that attention?

The answer is right there. It tends to be glossed over without much thought, but it is there just the same. What happens when we eat the bread and drink the cup? We “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes…” Think about that. It doesn’t say we assert the belief in some philosophy or moral code. Surprisingly, we are not told the sacrament announces His resurrection. No, the words are we “proclaim the Lord’s death…” Why should death be at the heart of our remembrance?

We are not told to remember the resurrection, though it is the hinge of history. We are told to remember the death, because it is the place where every false god is unmasked, every idol is exposed, and every chain is broken. The cross is where deliverance is accomplished, once and for all. To remember the death is to remember the cost of freedom, and to proclaim that the powers of this world have been defeated by love.

On the last night before crucifixion, Jesus commemorated the last night Hebrew slaves spent in captivity, with a Passover seder. Before following the LORD out of bondage and into freedom Jacob’s descendants (Exodus 12:1–14) sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lambs in Egypt that day.

As the livestock was offered, Moses likely knew, lambs would never be enough. Ultimate redemption could only be secured someday when the Messiah arrived. That night in the upper room the Lord announced He was about to accomplish the salvation which the blood of countless animals could not.

Just as we are to view ourselves as slaves set free from the bondage of Egypt, we must also be willing to see ourselves at the foot of the cross. Christ, though fully God, was an actual person, who died a torturous death, for us. That is the miracle. Let’s be clear; the horror of the cross isn’t simply the death that was died, but the one who did the dying. That death was not an accident or an afterthought. It was the plan. No government or man took the Lord’s life from Him. He laid it down willingly, so that we could be free.

The one who could not be contained by the spells of ancient of Egypt could not be held in a Jerusalem tomb. How could a stone be expected to contain the One who formed it? The same God who freed the Hebrew slaves offers freedom to you! The God of Israel is not like the gods of this world. Jesus is the Messiah. He is our living God and eternal king. He cannot be contained. Yes, we must proclaim, “He is risen, just as He said!”, but we cannot skip past, “Jesus suffered and died, so you don’t have to.” That is Worth Remembering.

Buy Me a Coffee

There is an unfortunate myth that nothing significant happened between the cross and the resurrection. To say “nothing happened” on Easter Saturday is to overlook the quiet faithfulness that shaped the first disciples. After Jesus’ crucifixion, Luke records, “On the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56). As children, the disciples would have been taught, “The Sabbath is equal to all the other commandments. He who observes the Sabbath, it is as if he had observed the whole Torah,” (Exodus Rabbah 25:13). In the shadow of the cross, with reasons for hope seemingly as buried as their Lord, the disciples did not scatter in despair or rush to action. Instead, they did what they could. They honored the Sabbath, gathering, waiting, and worshipping as generations before them had done since the wilderness.

Scholars note that this act, the decision to gather, to rest, to worship, was not mere ritual, but a profound obedience. In the midst of their devastation, their actions announced, “It wasn’t for nothing; it all still matters.” N.T. Wright observes that the Sabbath between Good Friday and Easter the last Sabbath of the old creation,” a hinge between sorrow and resurrection. In their waiting, the disciples enacted a trust that God was still at work, even when all seemed silent.

Easter Saturday was not empty. On that day, faith, stripped of sight, became worship. The disciples’ Sabbath rest was not passive. It was a life-threatening declaration by wanted men that God’s promises endure, even in the silence. In our own seasons of waiting, we are invited to do the same: to gather, to worship, and to trust that resurrection is already stirring beneath the surface. Faith, real faith, trusts Him, remembering before the stone is rolled away the Rock is still there. That is Worth Remembering.

Buy Me A Coffee

As crowds bustled preparing for Passover, the road into Jerusalem that first Palm Sunday was paved with more than palm branches. It was layered with centuries of longing, ritual, and memory. The crowds who lined the path were not simply welcoming a miracle-worker; they were rehearsing the Exodus. In first-century Jerusalem, Passover was not a quiet commemoration but a national drama, a retelling of the night God broke the yoke of Egypt. Every pilgrim who entered the city was, in a sense, stepping into the sandals of their ancestors, reliving the journey from bondage to freedom.

Incredibly, Jesus’s procession subverted the script. Where Israel’s Exodus was marked by the blood of lambs on doorposts and the hurried flight from oppression, Jesus entered not as a conqueror but as the Lamb Himself, choosing the path of vulnerability. The palm branches, so often associated with victory and the Feast of Tabernacles, became a paradox: symbols of triumph laid before a King who would win by walking in surrender.

In writing Exiting Egypt, I realized, we are a people shaped by departure. God’s glory is not simply displayed in our leaving the familiar, but in His. Transformation experienced, as we let go of what we have known stepping into obedience, in some ways echoes the Savior’s stepping away from Heaven and draping Himself in our skin. Wilderness is not a detour; it is the crucible where our faith is forged. Sometimes, it is the point of the entire path.

Palm Sunday, then, is not simply a prelude to victory but an invitation to rediscover freedom. The journey with Jesus is not a shortcut to glory but a descent into the heart of suffering, where the true Exodus unfolds, not simply from Pharaoh, but from the tyranny of self-reliance, the illusion of control, and anything which holds us captive.

The drama of Palm Sunday asks us: what if real miracles are not limited to the parting of the seas, but the willingness to part from what we have known, to walk into uncertainty, trusting that God’s presence is enough to celebrate and carry us through? Palm Sunday is not just a story we remember. It is a pattern we are called to embody, again and again, following the Lamb who leads us through every wilderness, until freedom is not just a destination, but a way of life. That is Worth Remembering

Subscribe now

buy me a coffee

As days dragged into years, which crawled into generations and centuries, Hebrew slaves quit watching the clock. Most quit checking the calendar, but the LORD never quit counting the minutes. The One, who created every grain of sand in Egypt, kept track of every second spent there. He counted every tear and stood witness to every drop of blood Egypt cruelly shed. He still counts tears. He still knows His people and sees our suffering.

According to the Midrash, an ancient Jewish commentary, Nachshon had been enslaved long enough. As most of Israel stood paralyzed on the shore of the Red Sea, while the Egyptians rushed forward, Nachshon plunged into the waters, (Shemot Rabbah 21:6). Redemption, the rabbis say, begins not when the waters move, but when faith moves us. The Messiah, too, leapt into our chaos first, entering death itself so that resurrection might part the waters for us all.

Despite the heroic battle waged to win our freedom, too many of us still live like slaves: slaves to sin, John 8:34 and slaves to fear, Romans 8:15. But we don’t need to wait in bondage any longer. We are called to be free, to live as slaves to righteousness alone, Romans 6:17-18. Easter is coming. Maybe it’s time to embrace the freedom offered by the One who divided the grave as He opened the sea. That’s Worth Remembering.

Subscribe now

Buy Me a Coffee

Unpopular Truth- Avoiding the temptation to force theology through a modern western lens is challenging. If you want to know how pervasive it has become consider this; the term “unconditional love” was coined by Fromm, an atheist, in the 1930’s. Its use was not popularized until the mid to late 20th century.

In some small part, Fromm’s efforts may have intended to mock the notion of a deity who alone is deserving adoration just because He exists. From his worldview, that praise belongs to man. There is a real danger we are missing.

Unconditional positive regard does not call us to be better or transform. In some ways, the phrase has become a tool for evil. If unconditional love is the standard, can a woman leave her abuser or the spouse refuse to tolerate the serial adulterer? How can boundaries exist if love is not permitted to have standards or conditions?

Many assume the term is biblical. It’s not. God’s love is deep and wide and reliable, and enduring, and amazing and so much more, but scripture never describes it as “unconditional”. Because AI draws so much theological information from unreliable sources, ChatGPT may cite “agape” as the unconditional love of God. It’s wrong. Because of widespread misunderstanding, many sites try to differentiate between secular and religious use, but that doesn’t work either. Modern understanding did not develop until much later. Clinging to the current view does real damage to the Biblical texts.

In case you doubt the increasingly popular use is deeply problematic, understand the Septuagint describes the incestuous rape of Tamar as “agape”. Incredibly, I’ve even heard a sermon attempt to justify this as a demonstration of the love of God. There’s more. In John 3:19, agapao describes the people’s feeling towards darkness. According to 2 Peter 2:15 the term expresses Balaam’s love for evil gain. Reading 2 Timothy 4:10, in the Greek, reveals agapeo for the present world as the reason Demas turned back. Even when Jesus used the word, He embraced it as a description of conditions. Consider John 14:15; ‘If you love (agapeo) me, keep my commands. This is not unconditional. None of the examples typify the love of God. They address mankind

Unfortunately, a more appropriate understanding of “agape” as “to prefer above all else” a will almost compelling action has almost been forgotten. Despite what some believe the word was not an ecclesiastical term. When Homer, used agape, it was in the context of Odysseus’s return and the lack of appropriate greeting he received. It was not connected to religious practice at all. Aristotle and Plutarch used the word in the same way.

We can debate whether God’s love is unconditional. That is a fair theological discussion. We can discuss modern versus ancient understandings of words. What we cannot do is take a word and pour meaning into it, the early church did not have, because it fits the image of Jesus we want. If we do, aside from disrespecting God’s word, we create stumbling blocks, which are not supposed to be there. That’s Worth Remembering.

Subscribe now

Buy me a coffee

P.S. Here is a definition that unfortunately because of modern misuse now includes the word secular.

“Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute,” (Proverbs 31:8). God’s people speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. This biblical ethic of life and justice is so foundational to Scripture’s that entire cities were set aside as a prohibition against shedding innocent blood, (Deuteronomy 19:10). We live in an age when blood is shed without people noticing. Far too many churches fail to speak out on the issue of abortion fearing it is too political. Condemnation and pat answers are not enough to address big questions and real woundedness.

What few understand is, some of the earliest rabbinic literature, (Talmud 57:b) and one of the earliest biblical texts, clearly address the issue of abortion. (Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, Genesis 9:6.) Addressing the passage, ancient rabbis explained the blood, which was shed in the text, was not limited to warring adults. In the original language, the text was understood to forbid spilling “the blood within them” (dam shebetocho). Because a fetus contains its own blood, to the ancients and today, the prohibition clearly includes abortion. Out of the 613 commands, from the Old Testament, Judaism teaches, the need to defend life has always been acknowledged to supersede nearly every other. How could we believe the One, who instructs His people to defend life, the Author of Life, is ambivalent towards or even in favor of the destruction of lives He created?

Influenced by scripture and Jewish tradition, early church doctrine openly condemned abortion. In the Didache, (pronounced di-DAH-kay) a Christian manual from the late 1^st or early 2^nd century, it clearly states “You shall not murder a child by abortion or kill that which has already been born,” Didache 2:2. The sanctity of human life is not a modern political issue, but a foundational teaching, which set ancient Judaism and early Christianity apart from the views of the Roman world.

Jeremiah was known by God and set apart for a purpose, even when he was in the womb, (Jeremiah 1:5). Psalms confirms every person ever conceived has been viewed in a similar way by the Lord, (Psalm 139:13-16). As powerful as those passages are they are just the beginning in a long list of verses clearly opposing abortion. Consider Proverbs 24:11-12, “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, ‘Behold, we did not know this,’ does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?”

When the church fails to truthfully and compassionately have real discussions addressing abortion and issues like it, women are harmed and society is damaged. Physical, emotional and spiritual trauma are realities for many, who have endured abortion. Quippy, one-liner, bumper sticker theology does nothing to heal or help start big conversations Personal testimonies and studies confirm lasting injury, grief and regret caused by the experience. Despite what abortion advocates argue, there is no instance when deliberately ending the life of an unborn baby is safer than attempting to deliver that baby.

When the lives of the most vulnerable in a society are devalued and left unprotected, all lives within the culture are diminished. If a low regard for life is accepted, violence increases, compassion fades, injustice is tolerated and women are treated as commodities. With the advent of online abortifacients, not only are are women experiencing a major medical procedure at home often alone, they are left without the ability to properly dispose of their fetus, which clinics would deem “medical waste”. This normalization has so eroded the society, everything from tap water to trafficking has changed as a result. If the church will not speak on behalf of the weakest and most innocent among us, when will we speak? If we are going to speak, shouldn’t we do it compassionately and well?

Subscribe now

Buy Me a Coffee

Darkness thick enough to touch…three days when Egypt could not see, could not move, could not even rise from where they sat. Yet, in the homes of the Israelites, light remained (Exodus 10:23). Not just a flicker like candlelight, but a presence, a promise: God’s people would not be swallowed by the same shadows that paralyzed their oppressors.

Transformation rarely begins in the sunlight. Sometimes, it starts when the familiar world dims and the old certainties fail, when we can no longer look to familiar faces for direction. In the agony of that darkness, Egypt’s bonds of idolatry and self-sufficiency began to crumble. Pinned down by darkness, there was no reason to believe the sun would rise again, no reason to trust in Egypt’s gods. If not in their great empire’s deities, where could even a glimmer of hope be found? Rabbis have often warned the pain filled darkness should not be considered a plague. It should be treasured as a gift.

Because the Hebrews would leave the land a “mixed multitude’, in these moments of despair, for at least a few a gift of repentance must have crawled through their pain filled midnight to be embraced. Watching from the daylight, Hebrew slaves learned to comprehend both the terror, which grows from sin, and the unfathomable mercy of a God, who could offer such a treasure, a window of repentance, even to those on the verge of destruction. Transformational repentance was not a New Testament notion.

“Great is repentance, for it brings healing to the world… The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Open for Me a gate of repentance as small as a needle’s eye, and I will open for you gates wide enough for wagons and carriages.” Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yoma 86b

In addition, Maimonides (Rambam), the great Jewish sage teaches:

“Repentance is always appropriate. Even if a person has sinned his whole life and repents on the day of his death, all his sins are forgiven… Repentance is a gift from God.” Mishneh Torah, Laws of Repentance 7:5

Transformation, then, is not the absence of darkness, but in the discovery of Light that endures and overcomes it. No matter how deep and heavy your darkness, the Light is still there, able to overcome the darkness, and that is Worth Remembering.

“When I sit in darkness, the Lord will be a light to me. I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against Him, until He pleads my cause and executes judgement for me. He will bring me out to the light; I shall look upon His vindication.” Micah 7:8-9

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” John 8:12

Subscribe now

Buy Me a Coffee

“Her name is Kilo.” the man offered with a chuckle waving his weathered hand towards a huge white ball of fur.

“OK,” I responded.

Then, he continued. “Man, I love her. She’s the reason I get out of bed in the morning. Facing life without her, well, that would be just about impossible for me.” Pausing thoughtfully, he went on, “ Ya know if something happened, if she went missing, and I asked people to help me find my dog, no one would help me. So, I had to be sure to come up with a name that would get everybody out in the streets searching. I figured nothing would do that faster than telling them my white kilo disappeared” He chuckled, but I was certain, he meant every word he said. He wasn’t alone.

“You know I thought he was cheating on me,” the young mom announced ironically leaning on a picnic table and adjusting her scrubs. “I knew something was off. Like… he was keeping secrets. Our remodel just gradually stopped. Of course, he was too exhausted to do anything like finish the baseboards. I thought it was another woman. He’s known for a while. I just found out this week. How could I not figure out it was cancer?”

In another corner, regulars passed a sympathy card for a friend whose dog had just been put down. Understanding her pain, a few of the ladies made that last trip to the vet with her. Around the park, clusters of virtual strangers took the first steps the journey towards relationship, sharing tidbits of themselves. “Once a weekers” seldom speak up. It’s the regulars, those who show up at least two or three times a week, who share simple beautiful scenes. In these moments, the space transforms, feeling more like a church than the corner of a public park. Incredibly important things happen in ordinary spaces. Dr. Gary Sweeten more accurately describes these interactions as “koinonia” or fellowship. Maybe, this longing for deep fellowship is a part of the reason the park is packed on Sunday mornings.

Fellowship is more than a soup super or a potluck. It is where real evangelism, discipleship, missions, and charity begin. Koinonia is where spiritual transformation is born. For all of the programs and tools developed through the years, as helpful and anointed as they may be, they will never take the place of people, who because of the love of Jesus in them genuinely listen and care.

I wish every church had the honesty, community, joy, and comradery of my dog park. (Granted it’s a really great dog park.) It’s not hard. We’ve got a thing we’re all passionate about. When we come in contact, we can’t help but talk about the challenges, delights and hopes related to that thing we all love. That opens the door to discussions about everything else. Isn’t that what people are craving, connection, intimacy, fellowship? Better props or programs won’t meet this need. A chance to listen and be heard, to discover truth and share their story, to love others and feel valued, that is what hearts crave. Every time a church removes gatherings from the calendar, which provide opportunity for these interactions, likely because “nothing important happens there”, another opportunity for koinonia is lost. And maybe a few more people show up at the dog park. A church without community is like sitting in a dog park alone. But, the park’s already packed on Sundays.

Subscribe now

Buy Me A Coffee

Their shoulders are stooped. Their steps have slowed. Their hands and voices may tremble. For decades, these saints have poured out their lives. Sacrifice piled upon sacrifice, as they offered all to Jesus with no guarantees or elaborate benefits packages. They worked other jobs, prayed by our hospital beds, and brought the Word three times a week. If nothing else, they’ve earned our persistent patience and unrelenting respect. Tragically, those who are due honor don’t always receive it. Suddenly, these spiritual mothers and fathers are less than celebrated at ministry conferences for fellowships, their blood, sweat, and dollars built. In fact, their numbers are openly discussed as a problem.

Increasingly, attending a church leadership event means hearing discussions on the “problem of the aging clergy”. As the words hang in the air, some nod enthusiastically as if they are being avenged and faithfulness itself has become a curse. Unfortunately, few realize this language is not only a false dilemma, it is an ungrateful, unbiblical, bigoted, logical fallacy, and a lie from the pit of Hell. Let’s be clear, if suddenly, church leaders began living to 150, the clergy would be aging, (living longer and serving longer), and that would not a problem. To say it is, is to reject the fulfillment of covenant promises. Long life to those who honor the previous generation, that is the first command with a promise.

Have we forgotten Proverbs 16 depicts grey hair as a crown? What about 1 Timothy 5, which cautions us to be careful about how we speak to elders. If Jeremiah 6 warns us not to remove the boundary stones placed by our forefathers, how could it be acceptable to approve of brushing those same people away or labeling their presence even their existence a problem? After all, if aging is a problem, what is their alternative? In a not so subtle way, the language wishes them dead, and they feel it.

Failing to acknowledge the blessing of the Lord, when the He brought the nation back from exile, young Israelites complained the land was too crowded and they wanted a space of their own, Isaiah 49:20. Aren’t we doing the same thing by decrying aging clergy as a crisis which must be addressed? Isn’t it profoundly unthankful to gaze at evidence of God’s goodness and label it an impending disaster?

By now, some are certainly complaining that is not what they mean and no harm is meant by discussing the issues with increasingly aging ministers. They forget; words have meanings. Try replacing the word “aging” with another demographic. Imagine the outrage if words like Hispanic, Asian, Black, or even young were used instead. Ironically, the verbiage fails to identify the correct problem. If there is a lack of young ministry leaders or difficulty retaining those ministers, talk about that.

Self-identified “experts” who introduced the language do not even seem to grasp the logical fallacy they created. The increasing average age of ministers, often in correlation with increasing life expectancy, in no way speaks to a potential shortage of church leaders in the future. Historically, periods of older clergy are not unprecedented, especially following revivals and population booms, but the church has always navigated these transitions. Do we really believe the issues facing the church today are unique in church history?

Although a dire future without leaders is predicted by those who speculate on such things, increasingly, revivals are transforming Gen Z. Will no Wilberforce, Carmichael, or Grahams rise from their numbers? Currently, this rising generation is the most likely to attend church. As beautiful it is to see pulpits and pews filled with young people, it cannot come at the cost of driving spiritual mentors away. Just as Timothy needed Paul and Joshua needed Moses, those guiding the church into the future need the wisdom of those who have led in the past. So, we should probably stop speaking about our spiritual mothers and fathers as if they are the problem, and start giving honor to those who are due, Romans 13:7.

Buy Me a Coffee

Subscribe now

A rope, that’s what the Midrash, a collection of ancient Jewish commentaries, teaches our relationship with God is like. As I explain in “Exiting Egypt, each commandment is represented as a strand, strengthening the bond between us and our Creator (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 31). Moving deeper towards the center of the rope, the threads and the laws they represent grow weightier. Sin frays that rope. Fine exterior strands are worn just by life in this world. Relationship with the Lord, as the sages explain, is a constant mending of the rope. Like any cord, ongoing neglect will eventually cause that line to snap. Willful sin, the rabbis say, is like taking an ax to the rope itself, severing connection, not just weakening it. Although repentance can re-tie what’s been cut, the rope will bear the scars

This image echoes the Jewish understanding of Deuteronomy 32:9: “For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.” That word for portion can be translated cord. It indicates connection. The relationship is mutual, living, and vulnerable if severed. Sages declared that a rope’s strength is found in its connection to both ends. Although man could do nothing to generate that “cord”, submission to the commands of God actually strengthens it. This was a common understanding for eons.

Centuries before printing presses made personal Bible study a possibility, it was understood that faith required daily interaction. At a time when cliches about religion being relationship abound, it is stunning how many assert that the sum total of their spiritual destiny is likened not to a rope with hundreds of threads and interactions, but a single point on a timeline.

The idea that a single trip to an alter, or dip under water guarantees salvation, no matter what follows sits uneasily both with the biblical witness and contemporary experience. Consider Philip Yancey or Michael Tait. Both have spent decades engaging in sin, which not long ago would have shocked saint and sinner alike.

Long before Yancey began the affair, which has recently filled the headlines, he abandoned biblical truth celebrating what he described as wonderful homosexual believers, and in doing so led others astray, (Matthew 18:6, Luke 17:2). Unlike Yancey, it is entirely possible that the allegations confronting Michael Tait,(allegedly drugging, raping, and otherwise abusing a variety of individuals for decades) could lead him to a court room or a jail cell. Stunningly, the response to both has ranged from a celebration of what some consider grace, declarations that decades of willful sin could “just happen” to anyone, and insistence that none of the transgressions should disqualify either from public ministry. Apparently, they had forgotten the warning from 1 Corinthians 9:27, “lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified”.

Perhaps, that is the intrinsic danger of viewing eternal destinies as a single point on a timeline rather than a connection with hundreds of threads. Holding the view forces us to either proclaim, “Nothing we do after that moment matters; we’re safe,” or “It was all a lie from the beginning!” Ironically, if a walk down an aisle, a dunk in some water, or the repetition of a prayer, rather than Holy Spirit transformation could guarantee spiritual safety for eternity, wouldn’t that be the ultimate works based salvation? In contrast, Hebrews cautions, “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12).

Grace does not simply overlook sin. Grace, (charis), which Paul links as a poetic parallel to power (dunamis), wasn’t understood by the Romans as gentle, feminine, or even merciful. It was the favor of God(s) to be empowered and transformed. Grace is not about by the Lord being willing to overlook sin. It is about being enabled by the Spirit to overcome sin, by being transformed to be more like Jesus.

If grace and mercy, means Michael Tait must be permitted to continue to perform at Christian events, where is the grace and mercy for his victims? If despite his long standing rejection of biblical truth and a nearly decade long affair we must accept Yancey, and for that matter Tait, as faithful ministers in right standing with Jesus, then we must be prepared to say scripture lies when it promises we will know them by their fruit. Since we cannot do that, can we finally acknowledge sometimes, despite public pronouncements, there are wolves among the sheep and faith is a rope we must tend?

Matthew 7:15-20

¹⁵ “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. ¹⁶ You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? ¹⁷ Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. ¹⁸ A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. ¹⁹ Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰ Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Subscribe now

Buy Me a Coffee

In the ancient world, memory was not a private act. It was public, weighty, and often marked by something you could touch. When God delivered Israel from Egypt, He didn’t just command a feast, He commanded a memorial. “This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations, as a statute forever…” (Exodus 12:14). Understand, the memorial was not just a date on the calendar. It was a physical act: blood on the doorposts, unleavened bread, a meal eaten in haste. Later, as they crossed the Jordan, God told Joshua to have each tribe take a stone from the riverbed and set it up as a sign. “When your children ask in time to come, ‘What do those stones mean to you?’ then you shall tell them…” (Joshua 4:6–7).

In his teaching on biblical memorials, Dr. Wave Nunnally, points out that God Himself sets up reminders—not because He forgets, but because we do. The rainbow after the flood, the blood on the lintel, the stones from the river: each is a tangible interruption in the flow of ordinary days, a call to remember what God has done when the world wants us to forget (Remembering: Memorials in the Bible). Maybe this call to remember, through monuments, is why so many find the renaming of long standing churches deeply unsettling.

In this time, perhaps more than any before, we are left with what feels like a landscape without landmarks. Routines, which once marked our days, weeks, and years have shifted. Services intended to anchor our theology and our year have disappeared. “Old normals” have faded. New ones have not yet settled. In such a season, the call to remember is not nostalgia, it is survival. On some level, young people drawn to “retro” and roaming must sense this. God’s people have always been wanderers, and our faith is not sustained by the comfort of familiar roads, but by the weight of what God has already done.

The Israelites were told, “Remember this day in which you came out from Egypt, out of the house of slavery, for by a strong hand the Lord brought you out from this place” (Exodus 13:3). The act of remembering was not passive; it was embodied, repeated, and shared. It was the difference between wandering aimlessly and journeying with purpose. As you step into this new year, consider: What stones will you set down? What acts, what words, what moments will you mark, not just for yourself, but for those who come after you? The world may erase our familiar signposts, but the God who parted the sea and set the rainbow still calls us to remember.

Buy Me a Coffee

God Bless & Merry Christmas!

Julie

https://buy.bookfunnel.com/hzgnpf4j0r

.

In Exiting Egypt, I wrote,

“Wilderness is not the absence of God, but the place where His presence becomes unmistakable, where every step forward is a miracle of trust.”

I return to that line each December, as the world hushes for Christmas. The wilderness, so often a symbol of loss, becomes, in God’s hands, the birthplace of hope. The Israelites, hemmed in by sand and silence, learned to recognize God not by what they possessed, but by the daily bread He provided. Their journey was not just escape, but encounter.

Scholars have noted a striking parallel: in ancient Jewish tradition, the wilderness was called “the place of betrothal,” where God wooed Israel as His beloved (see Jeremiah 2:2). In the first-century world, betrothal was not a private affair but a public declaration of belonging and promise. When Jesus is born in Bethlehem, on the edge of empire, in the margins of comfort, He is not just God’s answer to exile, but God’s proposal of covenant love. The incarnation is a new betrothal in the wilderness, a God who comes not only to rescue, but to wed Himself to humanity.

This is the hidden depth of Christmas:

The manger is not merely a cradle, but an altar. The child is not only deliverer, but bridegroom. In every wilderness, God is present. He is drawing near, offering Himself, making the impossible journey from heaven to earth so that we might know, even in our exile, no matter how unworthy, we are loved. Whatever our wilderness, and especially at Christmas, the announcement of His presence is our invitation to take that first miraculous step home. That is Worth Remembering.

Subscribe now

But Me a Coffee

We love to imagine Christmas as a night of gentle welcome, a glowing stable, a warm inn, a world ready to receive its Savior. Perhaps unfortunately, the real story, the one the Gospels whisper between the lines, is a story of doors closed, hearts guarded, and a holy family turned away by their own.

Joseph Did Not Fail

Joseph was not a slacker, who failed to plan. He was a son of David, returning to Bethlehem, the city of his ancestors, for the census (Luke 2:4). In a culture where hospitality was sacred, where kinship meant open doors, it should have been unthinkable for Joseph and Mary to be left outside. Yet, Luke tells us, “there was no room for them in the kataluma” (καταλύμα, Luke 2:7). This not an inn, but the guest room, the upper chamber where family would have gathered. This is the room described in Luke 22, and Mark 14, where Jesus celebrated His final Passover, with His disciples.

Bethlehem was a village, within eye-shot of Jerusalem. Being just five or six miles from the glorious city, which housed the Temple, weary travelers would have looked past the dusty little town driven to end their journeys in the city where David once ruled. Actual inns could not have survived in the community sustained by farmers and shepherds. Instead, like holiday guests today, visitors stayed with family. As a place of honor, the kataluma was reserved for relatives and important guests. As family gathered, Joseph and Mary, heavy with scandal and child, were not welcomed. In the eyes of their kin, Jesus was a mamzer (ממזר), a child of questionable birth (see Deuteronomy 23:2). The shadow of shame was enough to close even a family’s door.

The Welcome They Did Not Get

Rejection is not just a locked door; it is the ache of being known and still unwelcome. Joseph did not arrive late. He did not fail his family. He bore the weight of their suspicion and their unwillingness to risk the ritual uncleanness that a new birth would bring. In Jewish law, the birth of a son required forty days of purification for the mother (Leviticus 12:2–4). Had Jesus been a girl, the time for purification would have been twice as long. Anyone who touched Mary, during this time, would have been rendered unclean.

According to the Law of Moses, anyone who was ritually unclean, was prohibited from entering the Temple, offering sacrifices, conducting business, even touching others were all forbidden, (Leviticus 12:1-8, Leviticus 15:31, Numbers 19:20. Numbers 15:19-27,Numbers 5:2-3, Leviticus 7:20-21). To welcome Mary was to accept isolation, to bear her burden. Few were willing.

A Cave of Stone and Mercy

So, they found shelter not in a wooden barn, but in a cave. In Bethlehem, homes were often built over caves, cool and carved from stone. Stone, unlike wood, could not be made unclean by blood. It was a place where the mess of birth would not defile the living space of the family gathering above. Early Christian writers, like Justin Martyr, remembered the cave as the place of Christ’s birth, a detail that echoes the practical mercy of God, who makes room for us in places others overlook. Even the manger, the feeding trough, which became the cradle of the King, was hewn from stone, which repelled the transfer of man’s unclean isolated state.

The Star That Did Not Lead

The world’s rejection became God’s invitation. Far away, wise men studied the sky and saw that invitation. Despite what many have been told, it was not pagans whose rituals centered on astrology which triggered the journey. Do we truly believe those among the first to worship our Lord would be those with no regard for Him or His Word? Would they leave His presence unrepentant and unconverted?

Although often understood as magician or sorcerer, early understanding of the word magi (μάγοι) was rooted in the idea of “those who know.” Seemingly, the travelers understood the prophetic words to Balaam, from Numbers 24:17,

I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near:
a star shall come out of Jacob,
and a scepter shall rise out of Israel

Given their understanding of scripture, it seems likely that these magi were seekers, not sorcerers, and certainly not pagans. Add to that their description as men of wisdom coming from the east, it seems more likely Jews from Babylon, descendants of those who never returned from exile, who studied their Talmud, keeping watch for the fulfillment of prophecies and the hope of a coming King more closely resembles the caravan, who came bearing gifts.

The star they followed did not function as a divine GPS, guiding them step by step. When they arrived in Jerusalem, so close to Bethlehem, they had to ask Herod, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?” (Matthew 2:2). Only after consulting the Scriptures did they find their way. Then, and only then, did the star “come to rest over the place where the child was” (Matthew 2:9). Faith, obedience, and knowledge of the word were required for their trek.

By the time wisemen arrived, the young family was no longer living with livestock. In Luke 2:12, 16: “You will find a baby (brephos) wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” The word for “baby” in the passage is translated from the Greek word βρέφος (brephos), which means “infant” or “newborn”. The word for toddler or young child is translated from the Greek word παιδίον (paidion), which means “little child” and is linked to the idea of someone learning to walk. This is the word used in Matthew 2:8, 9,11,13,14,20,21: “They saw the young child (paidion) with his mother Mary.” By the time they found Jesus, He was a toddler, living in a house (Matthew 2:11). After all, Herod’s murderous decree, targeting boys “two years old and under” (Matthew 2:16), was based on the time the magi first saw the star. Besides, how many new mothers, married to carpenters, would spend months or years sharing space with sheep?

The Donkey They Did Not Ride

As the young family moved on, it is unlikely they took a donkey with them. Although it is almost always included in images of the nativity, there is no mention of a donkey in the Gospels. When Mary and Joseph presented Jesus at the Temple, their offering was a pair of turtledoves or pigeons (Luke 2:24). That was the sacrifice of the poor, those who could not afford a lamb, let alone a beast of burden. Wealthy men owned donkeys. Outcast couples from Nazareth did not. Instead, the two journeyed nearly ninety miles to Bethlehem, (Micah 5:2 Luke 2:4-6), over rugged terrain, on foot.

God With Us, Even the Rejected

There was no donkey, no inn, no stable, no family welcome, no place of honor. Only a cave, a stone manger, and the quiet company of those wise and willing enough to bear the cost of love. After conveying these truths to students in Bethlehem, Dr. Wave Nunnally listened as one student, frustrated that few of her childhood images of Christmas held up to scrutiny, wondered, “Well, what’s left?”

As the words hung in the darkness of the ancient chapel, a voice from somewhere in the back offered the most power and honest answer possible, “Jesus”.

Christmas, the real Christmas, is not the stuff of Hallmark movies or the story of a perfect welcome, but of a Savior who understands our rejection. He comes to the places we are most unwelcome, the rooms we are denied, the simple shelters where few are willing to venture. He was there with the misunderstood, the shamed, and the outcast, and remains there today. Somehow, those dark corners, which house this world’s rejection, become the birthplace of redemption, just as they did 2,000 years ago. Merry Christmas. That is Worth Remembering.

Subscribe now

Buy Me a Coffee

References for Further Study

· Luke 2:1-24, Matthew 2:1-16

· Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho

· Dr. Wave Nunnally, The Bible in Its World

· Sefaria :Jewish Background on Purity and Birth

· Bible Engagement Project

If you’d like to order a copy of my book “Exiting Egypt” for yourself of someone else, links to the updated version are below. Hope you enjoy it. If you do, please spread the word.

Merry Christmas,

Julie West

https://books.by/books-by-julie-west

https://bookshop.org/p/books/exiting-egypt-lessons-from-the-life-of-an-exile-julie-renee-west/38ee6eea1c31d8ca

Blessings & we hope you like it.

Julie & Desiree

The magi arrived with a question. “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?” Hearing the inquiry, Herod and an entire city were troubled. Why? And, Why does it matter today?

Knowing their king would bring reason to celebrate, the Jewish people endured under oppression watching and waiting for the promise, their king, Zechariah 9:9. Herod brought no rejoicing. Still, he claimed the title, “King of the Jews” and played the part.

Having a “complicated” lineage, Herod could simply not qualify as the fulfillment of prophecy, Jeremiah 23:5. On his mother’s side, which is what mattered in ancient genealogies, Herod was Arabic. Descending, on his father’s side from both Idumeans, (heirs of Edom), and Israel, any claim to a Jewish throne was a stretch.

Lifestyle created other problems for the king. He would dress the part. He would play around the edges of what he imagined it was to own the role he coveted. He could not be what the position required and would not submit to what the law demanded. One of Herod’s first acts, after ascending the throne, was to replace rightful priests who challenged his assertions, with families more likely to be loyal to himself. He cancelled those who objected to his claims. This explains a great deal about the state of temple life when Jesus arrived.

Determined to prove everyone wrong, Herod the Great clung to his self professed status. Emphasizing his connections to Judaism, Herod married Mariamne, a Jewish princess. Eventually, jealous rage and paranoia would drive him to murder their sons out of fear they would take his crown. Herod’s Jewish bride would not fair any better. Blood flowed in the streets as the tyrant clung to his identity.

Then, wisemen appeared. A question was asked. A city was troubled. Words they had waited for filled them with fear. Announcing the realization of prophecy exposed the truth. Herod was not born to be king of the Jews. Suddenly, everyone was in danger. As Herod despised the reality challenging his delusion, violent rage seized the king. It culminated in the death of innocents.

Herod was not alone. Antiochus self identified as “Epiphanes” meaning god incarnate. The pharaohs made the same claim. Even Adam and Eve attempted to redefine themselves as gods. Today, students attempt to step into the shoes of God, as they re-imagine themselves as more than a different gender or species. These wounded souls assert themselves as the authority over the one who created them and knew who they truly were before they were born, Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 193:13. There is nothing new under the sun. The pattern exists. When the Lord offers peace and freedom, the enemy inspires people to reject who God created them to be.

Thankfully, there is one who was born King of the Jews, Matthew 2:2. The Prince of Peace was born in Bethlehem, Isaiah 9:6-7. God, who made us, came to be with us,

Matthew 1:22-23, Isaiah 7:14. He became flesh and dwelt among us, John 1:14. Unlike Herod, who shed the blood of all who questioned him, Jesus, the one born King of the Jews, shed His blood for everyone who has ever who questioned him, Romans 5:8, Ephesians 1:7, 2:13. That is the real Christmas story and that is Worth Remembering

Buy Me a Coffee

A new version of the Birth Narrative of Jesus has become popular, especially since 2012. This version envisions priests near Bethlehem who are shepherding special flocks whose lambs are destined for sacrifice in the temple. These lambs are immediately swaddled in worn-out priestly garments so they do not become injured and thus disqualified for use as sacrificial animals. All this is said to prefigure Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem and ultimate sacrifice in the temple as a spotless lamb.

Those who promote this new version of Jesus’ birth claim that their additions are based on ancient Jewish sources. In their opinion, neither the shepherds in the original story nor we as modern readers can really understand the Gospel narrative without having these points of Jewish background in mind.

This version seems to grow in popularity with every passing Christmas. It is promoted in scores of sermons on YouTube, is being shopped around again this Christmas season in Facebook and email forwards, recently has been made into the movie Christmas with “The Chosen”: The Messengers, and is even making it into academic works.

This article documents the origins of the myth. It critiques the misuse of early Jewish sources that are used in attempts to support this tendentious historical reconstruction. Logical and historical inconsistencies in the New Birth Narrative are exposed with mitigating evidence introduced. Lastly, the practical and theological problems that the new reconstruction raises are addressed.

Introduction

At Christmastime 2021, when the “The Chosen” franchise released the Christmas movie “Christmas with the Chosen: The Messengers,” a very different spin was placed on the 2000 year-old story of the birth of Jesus. The newly released 2023 installment of the movie series entitled “Christmas With The Chosen: Holy Night” includes the same additions to the biblical narrative of Jesus’ birth. This is not a new phenomenon: every culture and every time period has overlaid its own additions to this momentous event. What makes this version unique, however, is the sweeping and fantastic claims being made, and even more importantly, the questions it raises about the sufficiency of the original story and the Bible as a whole. Its presence on the “big screen” and the fact that it was produced and promoted by the very popular “The Chosen” franchise is a clear indicator as to how popular and pervasive this “New Birth Narrative” (henceforth, NBN) has become, so the time has come to give it a proper assessment.

Near the beginning of the movie, as Joseph and Mary arrive in Bethlehem, he says to her, “They [the inn-keeper and his wife] promised us…even lambs’ cloths for the baby” [emphasis added]. The meaning of this addition to the story becomes clear only toward the end of the video. At the 31 minute-mark, a conversation is taking place between Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene. Jesus’ mother asks Mary Magdalene to write down a part of the story of Jesus’ birth. There, the script reads as follows:

Mary the mother of Jesus to Mary Magdalene: [Luke has] been gathering his records of the stories and we spoke, but I didn’t tell him everything…..people must know…people must know…..There’s something else I want you to tell Luke. I want you to tell him about the swaddling cloths.

Mary Magdalene: You want him to write about it?

Mary the Mother of Jesus: People must know. I want to honor the help we received from the inn-keeper, but I also think it’s lovely that we used the same cloths they use to wrap newborn lambs. I wonder if God gave us that as a sign [emphasis added].

At the end of the conversation, Mary Magdalene says, “I will get this to Luke right away.” Next, there is a scene change, and Mary Magdalene is now in Rome and speaking to Luke. She asks, “You’ve been recording an account of Jesus’s [sic] birth, yes?” Luke answers, “Ah, yes…I have completed my writing of her [Jesus’ mother’s] account. Did she have something to add?” At this point, the video ends with a closeup of Mary Magdalene holding the scroll she had created in her hands in preparation to give it to Luke.

Tracing the Addition to Its Origin

This short, apparently benign addition (“…we used the same cloths they use to wrap newborn lambs. I wonder if God gave us that as a sign”) actually points to a larger, more problematic narrative that has existed for at least a century and a half in Christian circles. In fact, these few words reflect a much longer and detailed narrative that to this day, continues to grow every time it is told. The popularity that it has achieved at this point (a movie, a popular book, and an academic book), however, requires that the phenomenon receive a careful assessment.

In actuality, the NBN is not “new” at all. It does not derive from ancient times, from the Land of Israel, from Mary Magdalene’s notes, or from the lips of Mary, mother of Jesus. Instead, the original point of inspiration dates at least back to the mind of a Jewish Christian in England by the name of Alfred Edersheim, who in 1883 published a book entitled The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Because of Edersheim’s Jewish heritage, because there was considerably little written from that perspective at the time, and because of its affordability, it has found its way into most pastors’ libraries. Today it still enjoys considerable influence as an authority on the Jewish backgrounds of the life of Jesus and the Gospels. Often, Edersheim is right on the money on subjects he tackles. At other times, not so much so—and the current issue is a case in point.

Since not everyone has a copy of Edersheim lying around, the following is a collection of quotes from The Life and Times that are relevant to our subject. These are provided so that everyone has equal access to the origin of the current teaching and can assess the assertions/additions of the NBN. My brief comments appear alongside the quotes of Edersheim, although a more extensive discussion of his use of early Rabbinic Literature will follow in the next section.

In describing Luke’s original narrative, Edersheim speaks of its “…scantiness, or rather absence, of details…essential features, alike of legend and tradition…are otherwise wanting” (Edersheim, The Life and Times, 1:186). However, immediately following this statement about Luke’s bare-bones account of Jesus’ birth, Edersheim begins to describe “…the sacred gloom of the cave…its sky all aglow with starry brightness” (1:186). Already the embellishment has begun. It seems that Luke’s “wanting” account is simply not enough. It’s just too tantalizing to not embellish Luke’s stripped-down, straightforward account!

Next, Edersheim states that “…the manner of it [Jesus’ birth] would seem strangely incongruous to Jewish thinking” (1:186). He doesn’t explain why or provide references to ancient Jewish literature that would corroborate this assertion. This approach will mark his entire treatment of the birth narrative.

He continues, “And yet Jewish tradition may here prove both illustrative and helpful. That the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, was a settled conviction” (1:186). At this point, it would have been helpful to most readers for him to cite Micah 5:2 and its quote in Matthew 2:6. But this would likely have undercut his next assertion,

Equally so was the belief, that He was to be revealed from Migdal Eder, ‘the tower of the flock’” (1:186, emphasis added).

At this point, he cites as evidence Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 35:21. Although Edersheim doesn’t bother to cite the words of this ancient Aramaic paraphrase of the biblical account of Jacob’s return from Aram, it reads,

And Jacob spread his tent beyond the tower of Eder, the place from whence, it is to be, the King Messiah will be revealed at the end of days” (emphasis added).

It is possible that Edersheim failed to reproduce the text of the Targum here because the appearance of this final phrase would have rendered this passage completely irrelevant to any discussion of the birth of Jesus. A fuller discussion of the problems with the use of this text to reconstruct the details of Jesus’ birth can be found at the beginning of the next section.

Edersheim continues,

This Migdal Eder was not the watchtower for the ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheep-ground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah [a note in his margin references Mishnah Shekalim 7:4, which will be addressed in full in the next section] leads to the conclusion that the flocks which pastured there, were destined for Temple-sacrifices, and accordingly, that the shepherds, who watched over them, were not ordinary shepherds (1:186-187).

A footnote on the same page adds the following comment, “…the only flocks otherwise kept, would be those for the Temple-services (Baba K. 80a)” (1:186, footnote 2). Here, Edersheim is suggesting that there are passages in early Rabbinic Literature that tell us that 1) shepherding was not common in this area; 2) these flocks were an exception to the rule and therefore had to be intended for use as sacrifices in the temple; and 3) the shepherds tending these special flocks had to be specially selected as well. In the next section, all three of the passages from Rabbinic Literature to which Edersheim appeals will be given full treatment. For those who do not want that degree of detail, suffice it to say that none of the passages to which Edersheim appeals come even close to establishing any of his three major assertions.

These quotes from Edersheim’s The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah demonstrate that the current version of the NBN is neither new nor especially creative. These quotes clearly demonstrate that the origin of this “new” version of the Birth Narrative that is making the rounds today is at least a century and a half old. Yet the quotes above leave little question that Edersheim is indeed the original source of inspiration for the modern mythical revision.

In Edersheim’s final comment on the Birth Narrative, he makes what could almost be understood as a prediction of the new emphasis that we are seeing today, “Thus, Jewish tradition in some dim manner apprehended the first revelation of the Messiah from that Migdal Eder, where shepherds watched the Temple-flocks all year round. Of the deep symbolic significance of such a coincidence, it is needless to speak” (1:187). Based on current emphasis, it is safe to say that what Edersheim chose to leave unstated is now being further developed and shouted from the rooftops.

A Closer Look at Edersheim’s Use of Ancient Jewish Sources

Before addressing current developments, it is important to engage in an in-depth analysis of the “early Jewish” evidence that Edersheim provides to support his version of the story of Jesus’ birth. Because all of the modern versions of the NBN are based on the observations of Edersheim, it is important to assess the evidence he cites in support of his statements. If significant problems are found with Edersheim’s evidence, the entire edifice built upon his reconstruction of the events of Jesus’ birth must be held in suspicion as well.

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 35:21

There a number of serious problems with this first ancient text that Edersheim invokes. First, it is unlikely that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan been composed in Jesus’ day. Most scholars locate the origins of the Targumim between the second and seventh centuries AD. Therefore, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan would not have existed in the first century to inform anyone’s attitudes or opinions about the coming Messiah.

Second, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s interpretation of Genesis 35:21 is attested nowhere else in early Rabbinic Literature. Therefore, contrary to Edersheim’s assertion, this was not a broadly-held opinion or frequently-taught position. Consequently, it is unlikely that it was known among Hebrew-speaking Jews in the Land of Israel in the first century AD.

Third, this ancient Aramaic paraphrase of the original Hebrew of Genesis 35:21 is likely simply clarifying for Jews who were not intimately familiar with the location of Migdal Eder that its location was somewhere near Bethlehem, a connection that the biblical author had already made in verse 19. In other words, the author of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is simply clarifying for his readers that the Migdal Eder of the biblical account was in the vicinity of Bethlehem, the Bethlehem from which the Messiah was prophesied to come (Mic. 5:2).

To be clear, despite Edersheim’s insinuation, neither the original Genesis account nor the Targum is claiming that Bethlehem is synonymous with Migdal Eder, since both describe Bethlehem as being spatially separated from Migdal Eder (i.e., “beyond Migdal Eder,” 35:21). Further, it is unthinkable that the pious author of the Targum would have intentionally contradicted the divinely-inspired prediction of the biblical prophet Micah in order to suggest a place other than Bethlehem, the City of David the forefather of the King Messiah, as the location of the birth of the Messiah. Luke is equally geographically specific with respect to the location of the birth. He declares unequivocally that the birth of Jesus took place inside the city of Bethlehem (“in the city of David,” 2:11). Further, the shepherds go “to Bethlehem” (2:15), not somewhere else near it, and there find the newborn Messiah.

Word choice matters, whether that word choice is by the author of the Book of Genesis, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, or the Gospel of Luke. In this case, it is all three! None can be read in such a way that Migdal Eder is Bethlehem and that the Messiah was therefore born in the “Tower of the Flock” (better-translated, “A Tower of a Goat-Herd”).

Lastly, the final phrase of this section of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (on Gen. 35:21) provides us with the specific time-frame of the author’s point of reference. There, he uses the phraseבסוף יומייא (b’sof yomaiya), which is the Aramaic equivalent of the phrase b’acharit ha-yamim (literally, “at the end of the days,” but more dynamically, “at the end of time/human history”) that is used in biblical prophecy. In this Aramaic text, the phrase is a reference to the appearance of the Messiah at the cataclysmic, eschatological conclusion of human history at the end of time (cf. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Renggren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, “סוף”. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999, 10:188-190, which speaks of the “eschatological formulaic quality within an apocalyptic framework,” p. 189).

The same phrase is used in eschatological biblical texts such as Daniel 6:26 and 7:26, both of which fortunately for us, happen to appear in Aramaic—the same language of the Targum! It also appears in the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, where it is used exclusively in eschatological contexts (1QH 18:30; 4QpPs37 1:6; 2:7, etc.). Therefore, the broader literary context of the Targum’s comments are in reference not to the birth of the Messiah, but rather to His appearance at the End of Time. Said another way, this text has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of Jesus as described in the second chapter of Luke.

Mishnah Shekalim 7:4 (also discussed at BT Shekalim 20a and Kiddushin 55a)

A second text from ancient Jewish literature to which Edersheim appeals in two different places (The Life and Times 1:186 text and marginal note “b”; and 187) does indeed include major components of his narrative. Mishnah Shekalim chapter 7 contains the language of “animals”, “Passover offerings,” “temple”, “Migdal Eder,” etc. Therefore, a careful look at this text is in order. The text of Mishnah Shekalim 7:4 (which Edersheim never fully reproduces) reads:

If cattle which were found in Jerusalem as far as Migdal Eder or within the like distance in any direction, males must be deemed to be whole burnt offerings and females to be peace-offerings. R. Judah says: If fitted to be Passover offerings, they must be deemed Passover offerings [if they are found during the] thirty days before the Feast.

A few observations are in order:

• The Hebrew b’hemah (“cattle”) includes cattle, oxen, and goats. It also includes both male and female animals.

• The word “found” that appears in this text and again in 7:5 very obviously means that the animals under discussion were lost—they weren’t being shepherded by anyone, much less temple shepherds, priestly shepherds, or levitical shepherds. They were lost and therefore, unclaimed property. In fact, this is the issue that this entire section of the Mishnah is addressing. As such, this passage actually provides excellent background by which to better understand Jesus’ statement in Luke 15:4, 6 (cf. Ezekiel 34:4, 16).

• In other words, Edersheim has completely misconstrued the entire Mishnah passage. From the text itself, it is self-evident that the rabbis of the Mishnah are discussing what is to be done with animals that are lost and whose owners are not certain. They do not have in view specially-trained, specially-appointed shepherds who are intentionally shepherding flocks of sheep that have been pre-designated for temple sacrifice! In fact, no shepherds of any kind are ever mentioned in this text!

• A quick glance at the text as quoted above makes no reference whatsoever to Temple/Priestly/Levitical shepherds who were shepherding flocks destined for use in the sacrificial system and who were permanently stationed at Migdal Eder. The entire modern story is a literary creation that was started by Edersheim and then embellished by highly questionable internet sources, preachers, and even scholars.

• “Migdal Eder” appears in this Mishnah text only as a distance marker meaning “within six or so miles from Jerusalem.” This is made clear by the language of the Mishnah itself: “or within the like distance in any direction.” Therefore, this text is saying, “All lost and unclaimed animals within a six-mile radius of Jerusalem by default belong to the Temple.”

• The references to “whole burnt offerings” and “peace offerings” rule out the idea that there were entire flocks of lambs being shepherded exclusively as “Passover lambs” (a supplement to Edersheim’s work that appears in many of the more recent iterations of the NBN).

• The Mishnah text appealed to here specifically stipulates here that the animals involved include “females”. So it is legitimate to ask the advocates of the NBN if, in their minds, Jesus would have been just as accurately prefigured by a cow or a nanny goat. Of course, the idea is as patently absurd as the use of this text is to attempt to support the NBN.

To conclude this assessment of the treatment of Mishnah Shekalim 7:4 by Edersheim and those who follow him, it is necessary to point out that it is not a difficult text to interpret. The context is perfectly clear. Edersheim and anyone who bothered to look up his references could have easily arrived at this conclusion because the Mishnah text is SO straightforward!

BT Bava Kama 80a

A third and final appeal Edersheim makes to ancient Jewish literature is to a passage in the Babylonian Talmud (henceforth, ‘BT”). The relevant section of this text reads as follows:

“…the Sages said that one may not raise small domesticated animals [in the Land of Israel]” (BT Bava Kama 80a).

On the basis of this text, Edersheim asserts,

In fact the Mishnah (Baba K. vii. 7) expressly forbids the keeping of flocks throughout the land of Israel…and the only flocks otherwise kept, would be those for the Temple-services (Baba K. 80a) [The Life and Times 1:186 footnote 2].…and, accordingly…the shepherds, who watched over them, were not ordinary shepherds [1:186-187].

As with his use of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, however, there are manifold problems. First, BT Bava Kama 80a is actually citing the earlier Mishnah at Bava Kama 7:7,

One may not raise small domesticated animals in the Land of Israel. But one may raise them in Syria…and in the wildernesses [here and below, the plural of the translation reflects the original Hebrew] of the Land of Israel emphasis added].

Evidently, the “ban of Rabbinism” (1:187) was not as absolute as Edersheim has led us to believe. In fact, on the same page of the Babylonian Talmud from which his citation derives, the rabbis admit,

His students asked Rabban Gamaliel, “What is the halachah with regard to the raising of small domesticated animals in the Land of Israel?” Rabban Gamaliel said to them, ‘It is permitted’” (BT Bava Kama 80a, emphasis added).

In addition, on the previous page (where the discussion begins that continues on page 80a), the rabbis say,

One may not raise small domesticated animals in the Land of Israel…But one may raise them…in the wildernesses of the Land of Israel (BT Bava Kama 79b, emphasis added; clearly this part of the BT is a quote from Mishnah Bava Kama 7:7).

Again, on the same page,

The Sages taught in a baraita: “One may not raise small domesticated animals in the Land of Israel. But one may raise them in the forests of the Land of Israel…” (BT Bava Kama 79b, emphasis added).

Yet again, also on the same page,

One may not raise small domesticated animals in the Land of Israel. But one may raise them in the wilderness that is in Judah and in the wilderness that is on the border near Akko (BT Bava Kama 79b, emphasis added).

From the quotes above, it almost goes without saying that Edersheim selected a snip of an ancient text to prove his points—that shepherding ordinary sheep had been banned, so Luke’s narrative must have been referring to special sheep that were being shepherded by special shepherds.

However, as can be seen from the other parts of the larger discussion, it becomes clear that not all early authorities agreed with this ruling (e.g., Gamaliel). Sheep bones from young to very old sheep found by archeologist Moti Aviam in first-century towns like Yodfat/Jotapata demonstrate that this halachah was never implemented even in densely populated areas. Further, built into the stricter version of the Halachah were exceptions such as forested areas and midbarot (wildernesses, deserts, steppe-like land, intentionally pluralized in the ancient text in order to demonstrate that there were numerous locations which fell into this category) areas. This is especially significant to our study because Bethlehem is situated directly adjacent to the Wilderness of Judah—an area specifically mentioned as an exception to this Halachah. Lastly, there are many people mentioned in Rabbinic Literature who kept small animals, from unnamed shepherds (e.g., BT Avodah Zarah 26a; Bava Kama 79b, etc.) to prominent rabbis like Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa (BT Ta’anit 25a). This reality, by the way, corresponds perfectly to the teachings of Jesus, where the shepherding of sheep and goats appears to be widespread and quite familiar to His audiences (Matt. 9:36; 10:6, 16; 12:11-12; 15:24; 18:12; 25:32-33; 26:31; Luke 15:4, 6; 17:7; John 10:1-16; 21:16-17, etc.).

Therefore, the assertion by Edersheim (and a plethora of others who follow him) on the basis of BT Bava Kama 80a, that the sheep being kept by the shepherds of Bethlehem/Migdal Eder had to have been a special herd destined for the temple has to be rejected. The evidence introduced above demands it. The popularity of the NBN, the persuasiveness of the presentation of its advocates, the warm feeling experienced by those who embrace it, and the sense of greater importance that comes with having insider knowledge—NONE of these are worth the abandonment of our belief in absolute truth based on evidence.

More Recent Developments

Over the past several years more and more videos have appeared on YouTube promoting one version of the NBN or another. A good question to ask is, “After this story had remained dormant for almost a century and a half, how did it become so popular now?” At least one reason is a 2012 publication entitled Jesus: a Theography. While never citing the work of Edersheim directly, his influence is clearly discernable. In order to illustrate the ongoing process of development for those who do not own this volume, some direct quotes are in order:

But what is less widely known and what connects with the Arabic translation of “Bethlehem” as “house of meat” is this: the kind of sheep cared for by Bethlehem shepherds was a special kind that made the name “Bethlehem” synonymous with fields full of lambs ripe for slaughter. Bethlehem carried another brand identity alongside “house of bread”: “house of meat.” (Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola, Jesus: a Theography. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012, p. 65).

Bethlehem shepherds were not just any shepherds tending sheep. They were descendants of David, tending “David’s flock”—sheep destined for the temple (another possible translation of “Beth” besides “house of” is “temple”). Jerusalem was only a short two miles from those Bethlehem slopes. You may even think of Bethlehem shepherds as outsourced employees of the temple, royal shepherds (Sweet/Viola, pp. 65-66).

But before they were slaughtered, each lamb was required to be a pet in the family for at least four days. So the day after the final Sabbath before Passover, shepherds from the Bethlehem hills drove thousands of lambs into Jerusalem, where they were taken in by Jewish families for at least two days and treated as members of the family. Before sacrificing the lamb, the Jewish priest would ask, “Do you love this lamb?” If the family didn’t love the lamb, there would be no sacrifice (Sweet/Viola, p. 66).

Bethlehem’s priestly shepherds had to learn and follow special techniques and rituals during the lambing season. Bethlehem lambs born for slaughter were special lambs. To prevent harm and self-injury from thrashing about after birth on their spindly legs, newborn lambs were wrapped in swaddling cloths. Then they were placed in a manger or feeding trough, where they could calm down out of harm’s way (Sweet/Viola, p. 67).

In a video from 2020 by the same author, he takes the NBN to another level.

Because of the popular medium of video, his words are echoed in countless other videos posted by pastors who preach this material from their pulpits at Christmas and Easter,

…all these lambs had to be what? Without blemish or spot. And so the temple kind of helped…these shepherds to raise lambs without blemish or spot because one of the things they did is when these priestly undergarments got used to the point where they had frayed and they couldn’t be worn anymore you just don’t throw them away so they recycled them and they gave them to these Bethlehem shepherds and they also used some of them for burial cloths but these cloths were given to shepherds so that…when is the most dangerous time when a lamb was born? So that it would break its leg or do something bad that would damage it or blemish it. Well, right after it was born. So these Bethlehem shepherds would take these cloths and as soon as the lamb was born, they would swaddle that lamb, wrap it up tightly, so it wouldn’t hurt itself and stumble while it was trying to walk. And lambing season is chaotic and everything is going on at once, so a lot of trampling can take place. And that’s why they also not just swaddled it tightly, but they would put it in mangers and feeding troughs. Hence, hence, “And this will be a sign for you…” [Luke 2:12, emphasis in the original]…..They had just done this to temple lambs …..they would see what they had done many times themselves and seen before” (“‘Do you Love Your Lamb?’ The Procession of the Lambs” (

).

These representative quotes are reproduced to enable the reader to see the points of dependence upon the work of Edersheim and at the same time, to see the growth of the legend to epic proportions. To provide a thorough critique of this version of the NBN would literally require an entire book. However, such prolific creativity demands at least some brief comments:

• In a book that postures itself as an academic work, it is astonishing that not one of these fantastic claims is supported by any documentation whatsoever. None.

• All of the critiques above of Edersheim’s conclusions should be applied to these later works that are clearly dependent upon Edersheim.

• It makes no difference what the Arabic means. Arabic was not a spoken language in the area of Bethlehem until 1,600 years after King David and 600 years after Jesus. The meaning of any Arabic word in terms of reconstructing the Jewish backgrounds of the New Testament is therefore pointless.

• If you type “How far apart are Jerusalem and Bethlehem?” into a Google search, you get plenty of search results that fall between six and seven miles, not two. While this might seem trivial and mundane, if authors can’t be trusted to get correct something this simple, they probably shouldn’t be trusted for sermon material that fundamentally reworks the Birth Narrative of the Messiah.

• “Do you Love Your Lamb?” and “The Procession of the Lambs”: there is no place in all of Rabbinic Literature or any other ancient Jewish literature that corroborates either of these mythical events. No evidence is offered by the authors in support because there is none. These and all the other incredibly detailed additions to the story of Jesus’ birth that are floating around today would be great if they were true, but they are simply the products of the fertile imaginations of modern-day midrashists. Our response to all who would abridge, edit, or add to the Word of God as written, or overthrow hundreds of years of interpretation must be “Show us your evidence and then we will evaluate it for ourselves!” If nothing more than conjecture, ramblings from unaccountable authors on non-peer-reviewed websites, and a titillating feel-good story are all they have to offer, they are rightly to be ignored.

• There were no priestly shepherds, no special lambs, and no special techniques that anyone had to learn to protect them. If there was evidence for this in ancient literature, this would have been produced by those who make such claims.

• To be clear, there is never a place ANYWHERE in ancient Jewish literature of ANY kind, whether in the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the intertestamental Apocrypha, the intertestamental Pseudepigrapha, Philo of Alexandria, Josephus Flavius, or ANYWHERE in the voluminous Rabbinic Literature that suggests that any lambs anywhere were ever swaddled. Again, this is why no source is ever cited by promoters of the NBN when making this point. Further, both Palestinian and Jewish shepherds in Israel will tell you that this is madness—within hours, a newborn lamb that was swaddled and laid in a manger would be dead. While teaching in Israel, I spoke to shepherds in the area of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. When asked if they were aware of an instance in which it would be beneficial to swaddle newborn lambs, without exception, their response was, “What? They’d starve in two hours!” The story as being told today is not only never documented by reference to ancient literature; it is also patently absurd on the practical level, life experience, and common sense.

Further, following the rationale of the myth-makers of the NBN, if Jesus was found by these Temple-shepherds already swaddled, then the swaddling cloths that would have been recognized by the shepherds could not have been given to Joseph and Mary by those same shepherds. Where then did the earthly parents of Jesus get these worn-out priestly garments? NBNers must think that Joseph and Mary had received their swaddling cloths from the same priests who supplied swaddling cloths to the Temple-shepherds. So were there priests running around all over Judea handing out worn-out priestly garments to every expectant mother and shepherd that they could find? If so, how then would the shepherds have ever viewed “a baby, wrapped in swaddling cloths” as being unique in any meaningful way? How could these “swaddling cloths” have served in any real way as a “sign” that they would easily recognize as reflecting their own practice of swaddling their newborn lambs? Also, if the practice was as widespread as NBNers suggests, why is it not documented in ANY ancient source?

• Priestly garments by their very nature were considered kadosh—“holy”, used only for a specific, sacred purpose. Consequently, they were used only in association with service in the temple. There is only one use mentioned of these garments in Rabbinic Literature that is outside their normal use as clothing. When they were completely worn out, what was left of them would be twisted together and used to make wicks for olive oil lamps in the temple (Mishnah Sukkot 5:3; Shekalim 5:1; BT Sukkah 51a). To suggest that these sacred garments could be used not only outside the temple, but also for common purposes like swaddling lambs, newborn babies, and even as burial cloths (thus contracting corpse-uncleanness, the highest level of ritual impurity) is not merely an instance of creativity run wild. It is a demonstration of ignorance of Judaism and its literatures surrounding the biblical periods. This, in turn, should disqualify those who engage in such antics from being taken seriously when discussing the Jewish backgrounds of biblical texts.

Even more recently, much of the NBN was repeated in The Rock, the Road, and the Rabbi, by Kathie Lee Gifford with Jason Sobel (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2018). This book has had an impact on people within the Church who are interested in the Land of Israel and the Jewish backgrounds of the Bible.

Within the first few pages of the book, the authors promise readers that they will be provided “…the secret of the biblical story [of Christmas]” (p. 4; unfortunately, the allure of “insider”, “gnostic” knowledge seems to be ever-present within the Body of Christ.) Their version of the NBN begins shortly thereafter and continues for five pages. This particular section was written by messianic rabbi Jason Sobel, who also participated as an advisor in the development of “The Chosen” video series (see above).

Of all the possible signs that could have been given to these shepherds, why did the Lord choose a baby lying in a manger and wrapped in swaddling clothes? Why was this so significant? To answer this question, we need to dig deeper and explore the Jewish context in which the New Testament was written…..The first question we need to ask is: Who are these shepherds? Is there anything unique about them? I believe these were no ordinary shepherds. They were Levitical shepherds, trained and tasked with the responsibility of tending and guarding the flocks used for sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem. Next we must ask, What was so significant about the location in which they found Jesus? When it was time for one of the flock to give birth, the shepherds would bring the sheep into one of the caves surrounding Bethlehem that were used for this purpose. These birthing caves were kept in a state of ritual purity since these lambs were destined to be used as sacrifices in the temple. In fact, many of the male lambs born around Bethlehem would be used for the Passover [his footnote here is to Mishnah Shekalim 7:4, p. 203; see this text reproduced and discussed above]…..[Jesus] was born in one of the many caves used for birthing these sacrificial lambs, because He Himself would be the ultimate sacrificial lamb. Not only would the location of Jesus’ birth be significant to these shepherds, but so would the fact that Jesus was swaddled in cloths. These shepherds were responsible for making sure that the newborn lambs did not contract defects, for only animals without spot or blemish could be used as a sacrifice in the temple. Baby lambs are very clumsy when they are born, so many scholars believe that these shepherds would swaddle their newborn lambs in order to prevent these future sacrificial lambs from becoming blemished by injuring themselves on jagged parts of the cave…..I believe the actual garments in which the baby Jesus was swaddled were meant to be a sign to them as well….. Any priestly garment[s] that…w[ere] no longer acceptable to be worn during priestly service…..were not destroyed; instead, they were cut up. And the fabric was used for another holy purpose…..This is speculation, but I believe Jesus’ swaddling clothes could have been made from the torn priestly garments…..So the shepherd priests, who encountered angels, went to a place where the lambs used for the sacrifices were born and swaddled. There, they saw the baby Jesus swaddled like a sacrificial Passover lamb in priestly garments…..Now it should make more sense as to why a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger could be such a significant sign to these shepherds, for it pointed to Jesus being both the Lamb of God and the Light of the World (p. 35-39).

This section will only address aspects of the NBN that have not already received comment.

• This version of the NBN contains most of the same problems of priestly shepherds, flocks intended for sacrifice in the temple, a special location for birthing that somehow connects to the location of Jesus’ birth, swaddling the lamb to protect it from contracting a blemish, etc. It has in common with the other versions of the NBN missing as well as misunderstood documentation from ancient Jewish sources.

• Jesus could NOT have been “born in one of the many caves used for birthing these sacrificial lambs.” This is because the Bible clearly states, “And in the same region there were shepherds staying out in the fields, and keeping watch over their flock by night….. ¹¹ for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord….. ¹⁵ And…the shepherds begansaying to one another, “Let us go straight to Bethlehem…” (Luke 2:8, 11, 15). The shepherds were in the wilderness, left that wilderness, went into the city, and there found the holy family in a residential area inside the city. The biblical Birth Narrative describes a change of location, from an area being used to shepherd sheep to a residential area. These two different locations cannot be seen as one and the same because the divinely inspired details in Luke’s narrative will not allow it. The reader is therefore forced to choose between Luke’s Birth Narrative and the NBN because they are mutually contradictory.

If the reader (and the Church as a whole) is hungry for Jewish backgrounds material, we should be looking more closely at the word “inn”. This traditional translation in itself should be enough to distinguish the original location of the shepherds in an agrarian context from their eventual destination within the city of Bethlehem proper. However, the original language of this divine revelation creates an even clearer contrast. The Greek word traditionally translated “inn” is kataluma (Luke 2:7). This is the same word that appears in Mark 14:14, where it is correctly translated “guest room”. Luke actually uses this same word elsewhere with this very nuance (22:11). This is to be compared with Luke 10:34, where he uses the word pandoxeion, a true place of lodging for travelers, which was run by a pandoxeus (10:35), an “innkeeper” (who by the way, is absent in Luke’s Birth Narrative in chapter 2). Therefore, original language and in-context study informs us that the birth of Jesus took place not in a place of business or its barn/stable, but rather in a utility/overflow/multi-purpose area, probably a cave-fashioned-into-a-basement of a private home. Such features have been discovered all over Israel—in Judea (where Bethlehem is located), Samaria, and Galilee. Some of these cave basements, such as those found in excavations in Nazareth, have been found with ovens and storage jars right alongside mangers and places for tethering small animals—clear indications of humans and animals occupying shared space! This kind of study is actual, legitimate, evidence-based New Testament background study.

• “These birthing caves were kept in a state of ritual purity since these lambs were destined to be used as sacrifices in the temple.” This is yet another example of an attempt to create “Jewish backgrounds” without evidence and even in contradiction to evidence that actually exists. By its very nature, childbirth automatically renders ritually impure the location where the birth occurred (cf. Lev. 12:1-8). However, we are not dealing with human childbirth here. The scene as created (out of whole cloth) by the author envisions the birth of an animal, not a human being, and ritual purity is not associated with the birth of an animal.

• Ezekiel 16:4 sees swaddling as standard treatment for a newborn. Job 38:9 suggests universal familiarity because of the way it is used metaphorically to refer to God setting boundaries for the ocean. Closer to the time of Jesus, in the late-second or early first-century BC, the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon 7:1-6 describes “swaddling” as a common occurrence for all newborn children of that time, “I…am…like all men, a descendent of the first-formed child of the earth; and in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh, within the period of 10 months, compacted with blood, from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage. And when I was born, I began to breathe the common air, and fell upon the kindred earth, and my first sound was a cry, like that of all. I was nursed with care in swaddling clothes…for there is for mankind one entrance into life, and a common departure.” Within the early rabbinic community, it was evidently practiced so commonly that the rabbis suspended the normal prohibition of work and permitted it to be done even on the Sabbath (BT Shabbat 129b).

• “Now it should make more sense as to why a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger could be such a significant sign to these shepherds.” Rather than greater clarity, however, we have actually witnessed a descent into speculation, zero evidence, and an entirely implausible historical reconstruction. Based on NO evidence, this version of the NBN envisions the shepherds as able to recognize the infant Jesus because he was swaddled with worn-out priestly garments. In reality, Bethlehem was so small and the circumstances as described by Luke were so unusual (born that day and laid in a manger, Luke 2:11-12) that the shepherds were able to make a positive identification quite easily. This reading may not be as exciting, sell a lot of books, or make anyone famous, but it is faithful to Scripture as written.

What Can We Expect Next?

Given the degree of added details supplied by current versions of the NBN, it is difficult to imagine the next developmental level of this new mythology, but it will surely come. In fact, those who deal in undocumented myth-making are surely already at work creating what will be the NBN 2.0. If the current trend continues, the claims will be even more detailed and fantastic than what has been produced up to this point. Like current versions, it will either misinterpret the ancient sources or (more likely) will not attempt to support their assertions at all.

Concerns and Challenges

At this point, it should be obvious that the Church and its leadership has been bamboozled—again. It seems that all it takes is a great storyline, the right packaging, and a convincing speaker and almost anything is accepted. In fact, it appears that the stage is already set for greater and greater deception. Is there any hope? There is!

For starters, instead of falling hook, line, and sinker for yet another quick thrill, we have to learn from our mistakes! The Body of Christ and its leaders should have hit the brakes long enough to ask the question: If this version of the story is so helpful, enlightening, and powerful, why has it taken so long to surface? Why are we just now hearing about these exciting insights into the Christmas Story 2000 years after the actual event?

Here are some more hard questions we should have asked, and need to learn to ask of such teachings in the future: Isn’t the biblical account “good” enough? Isn’t the Word of God as written sufficient? Aren’t a virgin birth, angelic revelations, etc., exciting and “Jewish” enough as is? Why do we have to add to, sensationalize, and mysticize it? Why aren’t the explanations and connections that the Bible itself makes sufficient to explain the significance of various aspects of the story? Where is the ancient evidence to support such fantastic claims?

As we move forward, here are some more difficult questions to ponder. When non-Christians find out about the fallacy of the new-and-improved version of the Birth Narrative, won’t this make the entirety of the biblical account less believable? Does this pre-condition the Body of Christ to accept other, more dangerous “truths” without any evidence? Will this further deaden our exercise of biblical “discernment” that’s already on life-support? Will we ever get back to a time where things that are preached and taught to the Body of Christ are required to be grounded in reality and evidence? Will we ever get back to the point where we compare everything we see and hear to the unchanging, authoritative standard of the Word of God?

Here are some questions for scholars and other serious students of the Word. What will happen to the legitimate search for the Jewish backgrounds of Jesus, the NT, and early Christianity when such hoaxes are exposed? When will we ever get to a place where historical reconstruction and Bible interpretation are based on EVIDENCE rather than how something makes people feel?

The kind of revisionist history and supplementation of the biblical account engaged in by promoters of the NBN have to be challenged by those in authority who know better. We all have to strengthen our spiritual discernment and our resolve to stick to the Scriptures as written. We have to insist on “rightly dividing the Word of Truth.”

Further, believers have to be taught and leaders have to role-model for the Church the absolute necessity of demanding evidence when any author, teacher, preacher—even a YouTube or TikTok video—makes such fantastic claims, claims that only serve to exalt the interpreter and undercut the Sufficiency of Scripture. People who regularly generate modern midrash/apocrypha should be called out or at least ignored, and if their myth-making becomes a pattern, they should be marginalized.

Christians who still maintain that truth is knowable, objective, and established by appeal to evidence are urged to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3, emphasis added). The constant command to “add not unto His Word” (Prov. 30:6; cf. also Deut. 4:2; 12:32; 1 Cor. 4:6; Rev. 22:18) must be obeyed. No amount of excitement or “feel-good” is worth what happens when we choose the wide and easy way of revising, updating, and supplementing the written Word of God. The ancient Gnostics would have loved the final words in the movie “The Messengers”: “People must know.” May these words be replaced by the command to “not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6)!

Subscribe now