The literal act of littering is not directly and expressly addressed in the Bible, but neither are such areas as smoking, vaccinations and other matters. But there are many principles that show that we can learn from God’s Word even if a specific area cannot be found in Scripture.

 We will find out in this Q&A that littering is something that we must take seriously. There may be those who see this question and think that it is so obvious that it need not be addressed in the Church of God. But it does because we can all fall short in this area even though it may be considered a little thing.  After all, Christ said: “He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much” (Luke 16:10).  As a spin-off to littering, we will also address neatness and tidiness.

Life is made up of many small things, and we do need to take those small things seriously.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines litter as: “trash, wastepaper, or garbage lying scattered about; an untidy accumulation of objects.”

Let us bring to mind how big a problem this can be.  It was reported in July 2019 that the “Glastonbury (music) Festival has been left with a sea of litter left to be cleaned up – just hours after Sir David Attenborough appeared on the Pyramid stage to praise the festival’s anti-plastic campaign. But some were left asking about Glastonbury’s ‘Plastic free’ mantra as photos showed the devastating mess left in the wake of the world’s most famous festival.

“Around 1,300 volunteers are taking on the gargantuan task, using bin bags from recycled plastic to hand sort debris left on the ground and across the festival site’s 15,000 bins.  The clean-up of the festival takes an estimated six-weeks to complete.”

Mr Armstrong, the late human leader of the now defunct Worldwide Church of God, used to comment on the yearly Rose Parade in Pasadena as one of the most beautiful things this world was able to offer, but also bemoaned the terrible amount of trash and litter being left behind after the event, saying that in this world, even the most beautiful things are being polluted and defiled.

There was a series of programmes on British television in 2021 about the workings of Chatsworth House showing all that goes on behind the scenes as well as the facilities that are available. The Church held the annual Feast of Tabernacles at this site for 10 years between 1999-2009 in what is a truly millennial setting.  However, one day that it was opened to the public during different lockdowns during 2020, an area was designated for use by those wishing to have a picnic.   The amount of waste left was staggering with many staff taking hours just to clean up the area.

We read on the website trashhero.org the following: “Litter is what we call trash when it ends up outside a bin or landfill.  Litter is bad for animals and people. Plastic waste suffocates, disables and kills thousands of animals each year. Litter is dirty and spoils our environment.

“Turtles, seals, birds and dolphins often mistake plastic waste for food. Plastic bags floating in the water can look like jellyfish, for example. After animals eat plastic, their intestines get blocked and their normal food can’t be digested properly. If they eat too much plastic, their stomachs always feel full, so they don’t eat anything else. Eventually they can starve to death. Plastic also contains lots of nasty chemicals that can poison animals and cause internal injuries.

“Animals often get entangled in plastic bags. This means they can suffocate, starve or drown. It also makes it easier for predators to catch them. Plastic bags constrict an animal’s movement which means they can get exhausted, or sometimes develop an infection from wounds caused by material wrapped around them. Plastic packaging can sink to the ocean floor, get wrapped around and smother coral reefs. Inland, plastic blocks drains, allowing mosquitoes to breed and spread dengue fever. Litter makes the beach look dirty. Sharp objects like broken glass can cut your feet. Because of this, there may be fewer visitors and local people will have less income from tourism.”

We should be able to see that litter is a real problem which so many seem to treat with disdain or contempt.

In an article by the Los Angeles Times, dated April 14, 2022, the following was stated:

“The Los Angeles City Council passed two motions… to address illegal dumping on the streets and in vacant lots of trash and junk like appliances, furniture, tires and other waste… ‘We live in a very trashy city,’ [Councilmember Kevin] de León said… ‘In terms of a large metropolitan city, we are the trashiest largest city in America.’ The city controller’s office reported last year that illegal dumping of trash, debris and hazardous items in public areas increased 450% between 2016 and 2020.”

Let us review a few Scriptures which reflect the Way of God.

In Genesis 2:15, right at beginning of civilization, we read: “Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.”

In bibleref.com, we read: “One of the most important lessons which jumps out from this verse is that immediately after he was created, the first man had a God-given purpose. God placed him into the paradise of the garden of Eden with a job to do. God had created a world which included work needing to be done; He created man with a mission to do that work. Logically, God didn’t need to structure the world in this way. He could have created a world that was fully self-sustaining. He could have made human beings to simply live in luxury and enjoy all of God’s creation without ever having to contribute anything. That, however, was not God’s design. Even before [human] sin entered the world, human beings were meant to work, to help to accomplish God’s purpose. That is built into us.”

We should note what the angels say to God about those who pollute and destroy the environment: “We give You thanks, O LORD God Almighty… Your wrath has come, And the time… that you… should destroy those who destroy the earth” (Revelation 11:17-18).

Likewise, today we are not to dismiss looking after our gardens, if we have one.  To keep it neat, tidy and functional is the way that we are expected to deal with this.

In Matthew 7:12, we read about how we should treat others: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”  Those who leave litter on someone else’s grounds would probably not appreciate others littering their own place. Therefore, we should treat other people’s property with the respect that we would ourselves expect to receive.

There is a graphic example in Mark 6:38-44 with Jesus and the loaves and fishes as we read: ^“But He said to them, ‘How many loaves do you have? Go and see.’  And when they found out they said, ‘Five, and two fish.’ Then He commanded them to make them all sit down in groups on the green grass.   So they sat down in ranks, in hundreds and in fifties.   And when He had taken the five loaves and the two fish, He looked up to heaven, blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to His disciples to set before them; and the two fish He divided among them all.   So they all ate and were filled.   And they took up twelve baskets full of fragments and of the fish.  Now those who had eaten the loaves were about five thousand men.”

They didn’t leave all the fragments for others to clear up as would probably happen today, but they cleared up after the event. Of course, Christ made clear that He wanted the fragments to be gathered up “so that nothing is lost” (John 6:12). In addition, picking up food from the ground might not have been very hygienic.   Perhaps showing the magnitude of the miracle that 5,000 men plus women and children had been fed with five loaves and two fish was astonishing only to be compounded even further by the amount of fragments that had been left.   It also showed that littering was not the way it should be and they would have left the area in the same way that they had found it. It is a good principle not to leave a place dirtier than how we found it.

We see the aspect of service that is not in evidence when serving others is not shown.  In Galatians 5:13 we read: “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.”   Loving and serving others is not manifested by selfishly leaving a pile of litter for others to dispose of.

Looking after the interests of others is clearly shown in Philippians 2:3-4: “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better [higher] than himself.  Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.”

Do we as the people of God engage in littering of any kind?   Have we ever carelessly discarded a food wrapper or an empty drink can?  If there are no bins for depositing such rubbish, then we are obliged to take these home or to another place where they may be disposed of in the right way.  Have we ever thrown a discarded item out of our car window?

Have we ever engaged in some form of fly-tipping which is the illegal dumping of liquid or solid waste on land or in water?  The waste is usually dumped to avoid disposal costs and such a mess  that is created by such selfishness, has to be dealt with by others.

Do we always pick up after our dog once it has done its “business” on the front yard of somebody else’s property? After all, it isn’t exactly the most enjoyable chore we’ll ever engage in. It can be tempting to skip this task, but doing so may even be illegal in many places.

Part of rebellious mankind’s modus operandi is that man thinks that he can do exactly as he pleases without regard to planet Earth or any of his fellow human beings.   It is an attitude that is ugly and uncaring, and we must ensure that we don’t slip into doing the same thing, perhaps even thoughtlessly.

The above examples are a part of being neat and tidy.   Are our homes untidy, maybe even scruffy?   Of course, for some who have illness or disability problems, this can be a difficult area to keep control of.   We know that where there is dirt and litter, vermin can be attracted to such areas, and so it is vital that we eliminate any possibility of this happening in our own homes.   And home is where we spend the majority of our time, and so, why shouldn’t it be a delightful place to dwell?

A good question to ask is, are we always prepared for any visitors to enter our home or do we have to specifically prepare well in advance?   For those who are always clean, neat and tidy and keep their home that way, there is no such concern for any unexpected visit. Of course, we understand that there might be and oftentimes are valid exceptions, but we are speaking in general terms.

One website wrote about “Messy Home, Messy Life, Messy Saint” and observed: “And, your yard. What do you announce to the neighborhood about yourself if there is trash all around? Hoses wind around like green spaghetti. The flower pots still have desiccated geraniums in them that were killed last fall by freezing weather. Clean it up, and throw away the stupid stuff which you once thought you might use. And, if much of the junk is your kids’ stuff, make them help you. If your kids are too mean spirited to clean up their own trash, you are not raising them– they are raising YOU.”   Very straightforward advice but true to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Let us think about heaven, God’s abode.   Of course, it is spiritual and not physical, and we really can only wonder about the spiritual realm but would the One who created the universe and everything we see, be dirty, untidy and uncaring about presentation?   We should all know the answer to that question and, as we are to be growing in grace and knowledge to become more like God, we would surely want to follow Him in all His ways.

God would surely disapprove of anyone leaving His creation in an untidy mess with trash and general litter marring the beauty that is our planet and it makes unnecessary work for others to do when we should be doing this ourselves.  Anything that reduces or inhibits the proper enjoyment and full use of our God-given environment will not be met with God’s approval. Leaving rubbish for others to clear up is selfish and unthinking.

What sort of message does it send out to the young people growing up today when their parents and family just throw rubbish anywhere they want?   And when they take little or no interest in keeping their home, clean, tidy and litter-free?

It is interesting that the Singapore project has produced amazing results showing that attacking the littering problem can be very advantageous.  We read the following in an article by the BBC::

“Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, there were campaigns that urged Singaporeans to keep toilets, factories and bus stops clean. The 1976 Use Your Hands campaign had students, parents, teachers, principals and civil servants cleaning up schools at the weekend. There were also numerous tree planting initiatives. The aim wasn’t just to make the city more pleasant. A cleaner city, Lee Kuan Yew reasoned, would create a stronger economy. ‘These standards will keep morale high, sickness rate low, and so create the necessary social conditions for higher economic growth in industry and in tourism. This will contribute to the public good, and in the end to everyone’s personal benefit,’ he said.

“On all of these counts, Singapore has done well. Life expectancy has grown from 66 to 83 (which is third best globally). In 1967, tourist arrivals were a little over 200,000 compared to a just shy of 10 million for the first three quarters of 2018. Inward foreign direct investment ballooned from US$93m in 1970 to US$39bn in 2010. It’s now the fifth largest recipient of, foreign direct investment receiving $66bn in 2017.”

Doing the right thing will always produce good results, as we see in the above example.   For anyone visiting Singapore, they will see a litter-free environment as littering is very heavily punished.  People have been “trained” not to litter and to keep things neat and tidy, and it is a joy to see this actually working, which is in great contrast to the many nations of the world who have little or no control on such matters.

There is no specific command in the Bible not to litter but if there was, it would probably be ignored by most people like all of the other Commandments of God are.  We shouldn’t litter because it is not the Way of God, nor is it helpful to man as we have seen.   Let us be the best example we can be to all people and do that which is pleasing in His sight.

If you have read this and feel that you have not been guilty or are totally on top of this matter, then congratulations to you.   Most will surely be able to identify with being slack in this area at times, and if that is so, then maybe this presentation may be just the nudge that you need!

Let us make ourselves a committee of one to ensure that we are not part of this problem and that we always set the best possible example!

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)

Following our two-part series, entitled: “Was Jesus Really Born in Jerusalem?”, we will in this Q&A answer the question as to whether Mary was a virgin.   We had touched upon this question in our last Q&A, under “(1) Mary was a virgin,’ but we will address this issue here in more detail.

For example, one writer penned the following:

“The virginity of Mary, as Matthew claims, depends on an incorrect reading of a prophetic text (Isaiah 7:14). The original Hebrew reads ‘a young woman shall conceive’, but Matthew has chosen an inexact Greek translation which renders it ‘a virgin shall conceive’. At this point, Matthew agrees with Luke; yet he is the only one amongst all the other biblical writers who knows anything of Mary’s alleged virginity.”

Wikipedia has this to say on the matter:

“Isaiah 7:14 is a verse in the seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah in which the prophet Isaiah, addressing king Ahaz of Judah, promises that God will destroy the king’s enemies before a child born to an almah (young woman) is weaned.  Scholars agree that the word ‘almah’ has nothing to do with virginity, but the 2nd century BCE Greek Septuagint translated it as ‘parthenos’, meaning virgin, thereby allowing the author of the gospel of Matthew to use the verse as a prediction of the virgin birth of Jesus.”

They then claim that a literal translation would read as follows: “…therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: the maiden is with child and she will bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel.”

They go on to say: “A sign, in this context, means a special event which confirms the prophet’s words. Ahaz’s sign is to be the birth of a son to an almah, who will name him Immanuel, ‘God is with us’; the significance of the sign is not the identity of the child or his mother (scholars agree that ‘almah’ refers to a woman of childbearing age and has nothing to do with virginity) but the meaning of his name (‘God is with us’) and the role it plays in identifying the length of time before God will destroy the Ephraimite-Syrian coalition (before the child learns right from wrong).”

As we will see, Wikipedia and others questioning the virgin birth are wrong for a multitude of reasons. At this point, we just want to point out that the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 was not even meant foremost for the time of Isaiah, but for a future time, and ultimately, for the very end time. The Child to be born would have the name “Immanuel”—clearly a description of Jesus Christ and not of an ordinary person. In addition, we read in verse 18 that the destruction of Israel through the Assyrians would come to pass “in that day”—a reference to the very end time and the very last days.

We also need to point out that when the Hebrew uses the word which some say means young woman, rather than virgin, this objection fails for the additional reason that the young woman of childbearing age was in fact assumed to be a virgin.  If it were otherwise and if the young woman was no longer a virgin, then Scriptures would clearly state this.

It is the case that most translations use the phrase “virgin.” The Bible Gateway list of different translations shows that there are 40 who do so.  However, there are a number of translations that use the phrase “young woman” , for example,  Amplified Bible Classic Edition (AMPC), Common English Bible (CEB), Complete Jewish Bible (CJB), Easy to Read Version (ERV), Good News Bible Translation (GNT), New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE), New English Translation (NET), New International Version (NSV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and The Voice Translation.

Wikipedia further observes: “When the Revised Standard Version translators rendered ‘almah’ as ‘young woman’ in 1952 it immediately became a center of controversy for conservative Christians, who believed that this passage predicted the virgin birth of Jesus.  The RSV quickly replaced the KJV in many churches across America, but fundamentalist American Christians argued that nowhere in the Old Testament was an almah anything other than a young unmarried girl, and one pastor publicly burned a copy of the RSV.  Isaiah 7:14 became a litmus test of orthodoxy among conservatives, but most modern Bible translations use ‘young woman’.

“On his blog, New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman has argued that the original meaning of the word parthenos in the Septuagint (i.e., the Hebrew Bible translated by Hellenistic Jews in Koine Greek) is ‘young woman’, not ‘virgin’, but the word changed meaning over the centuries; thus the authors of Matthew and Luke believed instead that Isaiah had predicted a virgin birth for the coming Messiah, using the common understanding of the term in their time.”

It is interesting that many German translations use the word “virgin” or “young woman,” but remark in either case that the words are interchangeable, for the obvious reason as explained above; that a young woman was supposed to be a virgin. Compare revidierte Lutherbibel 2017; neue Lutherbibel 2009; Elberfelder Bibel; Hoffnung für Alle; Schlachterbibel; Menge Bibel; and many others.

The Schlachterbibel includes the following annotation:

“The Hebrew word describes an unmarried woman and means indeed ‘virgin.’… That is why the birth of Isaiah’s own son could not be the total fulfillment of this prophecy.”

Similarly the Ryrie Study Bible:

“The Hebrew word that is here translated ‘virgin’ is found elsewhere in the O.T. in Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8: Psalm 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song of Sol. 1:3;6:8, and in these instances refers only to a chaste maiden who is unmarried.”

But surely it is quite simple when other Scriptures are read.  For example, let us review Matthew 1:20 which reads: “But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”

Note that Joseph, when he discovered that Mary was pregnant, was willing to leave her (Matthew 1:19), because being her betrothed husband and knowing that they did not have any sexual relationship together, he assumed that Mary must have committed fornication or adultery with someone else.

Denying the virgin birth, as some theologians do, must lead to the inevitable conclusion that he had a human father i.e. Joseph or someone else.   If that was the case, Jesus could not possibly be the Son of God whom the Father sent to the earth, and Scripture would be unreliable.   Anyone who rejects the virgin birth must also by extension, reject the veracity of the Word of God.

It is interesting that many did not believe in the virgin birth at the time of Jesus, accusing Him of having been born in fornication (John 8:41).

Looking at different translations of Matthew 1:25, we read:

“… and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS”  (NKJV).

“… but he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus” (NIV).

“But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus” (New Living Translation).

“And he did not know her sexually until she delivered her firstborn son, and she called his name Yeshua” (Aramaic Bible in Plain English).

Therefore, if Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus, Mary would have been a virgin.

Luke 1:26-35 is a revealing passage of Scripture where the subheading is “Christ’s Birth Announced to Mary”:

“Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,  to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.  And having come in, the angel said to her, ‘Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!’ But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.’ Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’ And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.’”

In verse 34, Mary said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?,” clearly indicating that she was a virgin. In addition, Luke identifies her clearly as a virgin in verse 27: “…the virgin’s name was Mary.”

We know that the Catholic Church believes that Mary was a virgin all her life and denies that she had other children.  This is another error as we point out in our Q&A entitled “The international press recently reported that Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestants believe that Mary was a virgin throughout her life. It is claimed that those called ‘Jesus’ brothers’ in the Bible were in fact His cousins (Zenit, May 15, 2003).  Is this also your understanding? Please see https://www.eternalgod.org/q-a-3799/ In addition, please read our free booklets, “Jesus Christ—a Great Mystery” and “Do You Know the Jesus of the Bible?” 

We know that the meaning of words can change over a period of time; e.g. “wicked” used to mean “morally wrong,” but today has been used by many as meaning “great” or ‘wonderful.”   Whether the term used for Mary is virgin or young woman, we can certainly see that she was a virgin until after the birth of Jesus. Later on, she would have several other children with Joseph.

It is, once again, an example of the Bible interpreting the Bible, which is the divine Word of God and infallible in its original writing.

Lead Writers: Brian Gale (United Kingdom) and Norbert Link

In the first part of this series, we looked at the proposition that some theologians believe that the four accounts about Christ’s birth contradict each other. We showed that the Bible does not contain errors, and that the gospel accounts complement, rather than contradict each other.

While different scholars may have their own, and varied views, on the matter about Jesus’ birth, the Church of God, historically, has explained that the Bible interprets the Bible in all matters!

And so, let us look at the two different writings in Matthew and Luke and see where they have the same information and are in complete agreement.

1. Mary was a virgin

Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin, as we read in Matthew 1:18, 23 and 25:

 ^“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit… Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name “Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”’… [Joseph] did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.”

The word “virgin” is only mentioned in verse 23, but the other two verses, quoted above, contain the phrases: “Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together” and that Joseph “did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.”

In Luke 1:26-27, we read: “Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.”

We will discuss the biblical claim of the “Virgin Birth” in more detail in the next Q&A.

2. Nazareth was the city where Joseph and Mary lived

 As mentioned above in Luke 1:26-27, we read that Nazareth was where Mary and Joseph lived.

Also, in Luke 2:39, as referenced in subheading No. 4 below, we read that “they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.”  See also Matthew 2:23.

3. Jesus was born in Bethlehem

 In the book of Matthew 2:1, we read a clear statement of fact: “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem.”

We further read in Luke 2:4-7: “Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child.  So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.”

Both accounts agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Also, the prophecy of Micah confirms this fact, where we read in Micah 5:2: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.”

4. They returned to Nazareth after Jesus’ Birth

Matthew 2:23 says: “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’”

Luke 2:39 says: “So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.”

In passing, much confusion exists about the statement in Matthew that Jesus was called a Nazarene. In our Q&A, titled “Is the Shroud of Turin Authentic?,” we wrote:

“… we are told that a man is not to wear ‘long hair,’ and that even nature teaches us that wearing long hair is a ‘dishonor’ to a man…

“…  the Old Testament permitted a man on special occasions to wear long hair. This exception is set forth in Numbers 6, known as ‘the Law of the Nazarite.’ Men were permitted to make a temporary ‘Nazarite vow’ to God. During the time of their vow, a Nazarite was not to cut his hair, but let ‘the locks of the hair of his head grow’ (verse 5). In addition, he was not to touch a dead person, eat any fresh grapes or raisins, or drink anything made from grapes, including wine. This law was inseparably connected with the ritual law of sacrifices: At the end of the separation, the Nazarite had to bring several offerings, and he had to go through additional rituals before the priest.

“Jesus, however, was not a Nazarite. He grew up in the city of Nazareth and was therefore called a ‘Nazarene’ (Matthew 2:23) — which is of course quite different from being a Nazarite.

“Since we have no record of a written Old Testament prophecy regarding to Christ being called a Nazarene, we conclude that Matthew is referring here to an oral prophecy (He specifically states that this had been ‘spoken’ of Jesus.) However, in Isaiah 11:1, Christ is called the ‘Branch,’ in Hebrew ‘nezer.’ This Hebrew word is very similar to the Hebrew word for Nazarene. It has therefore been suggested that Jews at the time of Jesus might have understood this verse to refer to someone from Nazareth.

“In any event, Christ was not a Nazarite, because He did many things which were prohibited for Nazarites.”

So, we see, that both Matthew and Luke confirm Jesus grew up in Nazareth.

However, there are events that are exclusively written in just one of the gospel accounts, as a study of the harmony of the gospels will show.

Only in the book of Matthew do we read about the visit of the magi (Matthew 2:1-12) and the flight into Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15).

Only in the book of Luke do we read about the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-7); the visit of the shepherds (Luke 2:8-17); Christ’s presentation in the temple (Luke 2:22-24) and the words of Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:25-38).

Does this mean that there are errors in these accounts?   We must remember that none of these events are mentioned in either the book of Mark or John.  If we honestly and carefully put all of this information together, there are no contradictions, just accounts that focus on different things that happened.

There are two verses at the end of the book of John which are very telling: “This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.  And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen” (John 21:24-25).

This clearly reveals that only so much about Jesus was written and much more was not recorded in the Bible.   Therefore, we have a lot of information about the Savior of mankind, recorded in different biblical books, but it is only a small amount that could have been recorded.   But God decided, directed and inspired the writers of the gospel accounts what needed to be recorded for posterity. The information that we have is sufficient to reveal God’s Master Plan for Salvation which shows that God’s faithful and loyal people can enter the Kingdom of God at Christ’s return.

Other areas of dispute in the article originally referred to at the beginning of this Q&A was that of the alleged differences between the events of Matthew 2 where the wise men from the east visited the “young Child” (Matthew 2:1-12) and where Joseph, Mary and the infant Jesus fled to Egypt on the instruction of the angel of the LORD (Matthew 2:13-15).

In Luke 2, we find recorded the visit of the shepherds who were told by an angel: “For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger” (Luke 2:11-12), and the journey that Joseph and Mary made to Jerusalem “to present Him at the temple in Jerusalem to the Lord” (Luke 2:22 and 39).

In Matthew 2, we read that the wise men “came into the house and saw the young Child with Mary” (verse 11).  In Luke 2, the shepherds saw a “Babe” (not a young Child) lying in a manger.   These two events were obviously quite a time apart.

There are those who see that these events are contradictory when, in fact, they are complementary.  Just because one writer gives one account and another writer gives different information, pertaining to a different time, doesn’t mean that either is in error.

The shepherds saw Christ just after He was born; He was circumcised in Jerusalem, and Simeon (Luke 2:25-32) and Anna (Luke 2:36-38) saw Him in the Temple at Jerusalem.  Much later, the wise men saw the Child and after Herod realised that the wise men had not returned to give him any news, it was then that Joseph was told to flee into Egypt.   We then read about the massacre of all male children under the age of two years taking place.  The fact that it was all male children under the age of two gives us an understanding that Jesus could have been up to two years old when this happened. In fact, we read that Herod ordered the massacre and “put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men” (Matthew 2:16).

In our Q&A on the wise men in Matthew 2, we quote the Bible Encyclopaedia as follows:

“[Regarding the] Magi who worshipped Jesus [the word] translated ‘wise men’ is the Greek word magos. This is the same as magus, an old Persian word equivalent to the chakam of the Old Testament (above). Magi is the plural of magus… There is no indication that they practiced sorcery or claimed magical powers. Their recorded conduct is sincere and worshipful. They appear to have researched the Old Testament and believed its prophecies about the Messiah… The record does not specifically say that there were three, or that they were kings… but there was obvious wealth involved… These magi did not arrive until possibly almost two years after Christ’s birth, certainly sometime after his presentation in the Temple (Luke 2:22-39)… There is no mention of camels or any mode of transportation in the biblical record. There is also no mention of their names…”

After the massacre, Herod died and Joseph was told to go back to the land of Israel, and the family then dwelt in Nazareth (compare Matthew 2:19-23).

Regarding the reporting of events, one internet writer opined that “When one reads any of the gospels, one gets the impression that it was a normal narrative technique at that time to report incidents which were separated by a significant amount of time as if they were successive events.”

The events in Matthew 2 and Luke 2 are complementary, and must be true because if they are not, then the Bible has errors, but we know that this is not so.   If the Bible had errors, then it could not be trusted.   But that is not the case, and the Bible is the Word of God that we can truly rely on!

(To Be Continued)

Lead Writers: Brian Gale (United Kingdom) and Norbert Link

It was brought to our attention by a reader in Africa that there had been a paper produced entitled, “Was Jesus really born in Bethlehem?  Why the Gospels disagree over the circumstances of Christ’s birth.” The paper was published in December of 2021 by Rodolfo Galvan Estrada III, Assistant Professor of the New Testament, Vanguard University.

He states that “Every Christmas, a relatively small town in the Palestinian West Bank comes center stage: Bethlehem. Jesus, according to some biblical sources, was born in this town some two millennia ago. Yet the New Testament Gospels do not agree about the details of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. Some do not mention Bethlehem or Jesus’ birth at all.

“The Gospels’ different views might be hard to reconcile. But as a scholar of the New Testament, what I argue is that the Gospels offer an important insight into the Greco-Roman views of ethnic identity, including genealogies. Today, genealogies may bring more awareness of one’s family medical history or help uncover lost family members. In the Greco-Roman era, birth stories and genealogical claims were used to establish rights to rule and link individuals with purported ancestral grandeur.”

With these comments, the author implies that the four Gospel accounts cannot be relied upon as being factual, but that they just relate a “narrative” based on manufactured genealogies to establish Christ’s “right to rule” and His “ancestral grandeur.”

Let us, first of all, answer the supposed contradictions in the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. We have addressed this issue in our free booklet, “Jesus Christ—A Great Mystery” and also in our Q&A entitled: “Would you please explain the difference in genealogy in the records in Matthew 1 and Luke 3? What was the nationality of Jesus?” To quote briefly from this Q&A, we say the following:

“Matthew 1 and Luke 3 describe different lines. Matthew 1 describes Christ’s legal genealogy through Joseph. Luke sets forth Mary’s line.

“Matthew 1:16 tells us that Matthew’s record covers Christ’s lineage through His stepfather Joseph. It says ‘Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.’

“A correct rendering of Luke 3:23 shows that Luke is setting forth Christ’s blood descent. However, the translation of the New King James Bible is misleading. It gives the impression that Joseph was the father of Heli, and that therefore, Luke is also setting forth Christ’s descent of Joseph. This is incorrect, as Joseph was not the SON of Heli, but of Jacob, as Matthew 1:16 points out.

“Luke sets forth Christ’s genealogy through His mother Mary, NOT through His stepfather Joseph. Accurately translated, Luke 3:23 should read: ‘Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age (being, as was supposed the son of Joseph), which was of Heli.’ The parenthesis should start with the words ‘being, as was supposed,’ and it should close after ‘the son of Joseph.’ The word ‘son’ in ‘son of Heli’ is not found in the original Greek. Jesus, who was supposed to be the son of Joseph, was, through Mary, a grandson of Heli. Heli was the father of Mary.”

It is interesting that this academic, Rodolfo Galvan Estrada III, tries to devalue the veracity of God’s Word and veers off on a tangent rather than trying to reconcile any differences that he might see. Surely, he must realise that if all the gospels were exactly the same, then one would be vitally important and the other three would be totally redundant.

From a human standpoint, we know, for example, that different witnesses of the same accident can often, seemingly, give different versions.   This may be due to a number of reasons; seeing an accident from a different angle; a good view of the incident rather than just a glance; one witness’ eyesight could be much better than another’s; problems with memory; maybe vested interests in the outcome, and more. This kind of argumentation has been used by some to criticize or question the accuracy of the four Gospel accounts, as the writers allegedly were suffering from faulty memory; vested interest in the outcome; a lack of thorough investigation or observation, etc.

As we will see, none of the following applies to the accuracy and reliability of the Gospel accounts, but strictly from a human standpoint, here is interesting information on the neurosciencenews.com website where we read the following:

“Researchers investigate why two people who experience the same event often have different memories of what occurred. Does it ever strike you as odd that you and a friend can experience the same event at the same time, but come away with different memories of what happened?  So why is it that people can recall the same thing so differently?? We all know memory isn’t perfect, and most memory differences are relatively trivial. But sometimes they can have serious consequences.

“Imagine if you both witnessed a crime. What factors lead to memory differences and whom should we trust? There are three important aspects to memory: encoding, storage, and retrieval. Encoding is how we get information into the brain. Storage is how we retain information over time. Retrieval is how we get information out of the brain.

“Differences in each or a combination of these aspects might help explain why memories differ from one person to another.”

This may sound pretty convincing for those who regard the four Gospel accounts, and for that matter, the entire Bible, only as uninspired writings by fallible human beings who tried to use their faulty memories, or even human traditions, to relate certain events.

However, interesting as it is when applied to human beings with faulty memories or observations, this is not the case with Scripture.

Jesus said: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, [it] will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you” (John 14:26).

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible explains:

“… bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you; which through inattention, or want of understanding in them, had slipped their minds, and were forgotten by them. This accounts for it, how the evangelists some years after the death of Christ; at different times and places, and without consulting each other, could commit to writing the life, actions, sayings, and sermons of Christ, with all the minute circumstances attending them.”

Further, we read in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…”

Also, 2 Peter 1:20-21 tells us that “no prophecy [or inspired preaching] of Scripture is of any private interpretation [or origin; compare margin of the New King James Bible], for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

Ecclesiastes 12:11 states: “The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by ONE SHEPHERD.”

Barnes Notes on the Bible comments:

“One shepherd – i. e., God, who is the supreme Giver of wisdom, Proverbs 2:6, and the chief Shepherd, Jeremiah 23:1-4. Compare 1 Corinthians 2:12-13.”

Matthew Poole’s commentary says: “And this clause seems to be added partly as the reason of that admirable harmony and agreement which is amongst all the men of God in all ages and places, because they are all taught by one Master, and guided by the same hand; and partly to oblige us to the greater attention and reverence to all their doctrines and counsels, which we are to receive as the word of God, and not of men only, as it is said, 1 Thessalonians 2:13.”

In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, we find the following remarkable words by Paul:

“For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.”

We can, therefore, safely appreciate that all of Scripture, including the four Gospel accounts, was authored by God, and written by men as they were led, not by their own faulty memory, but by God’s Holy Spirit.

As we know that the Holy Spirit guided the four different writers of the four Gospel accounts, we know that they will need to be harmonised; otherwise, we would not be able to trust the Bible to be true.   What we find in the different reports about the birth of Jesus and subsequent events is that they are complementary, not in competition.

In the paper that was written by the above-mentioned scholar disputing this fact, the following was an approving answer from another misguided scholar on the historical Jesus, John Meier, who wrote that: “Jesus’ birth at Bethlehem is to be taken not as a historical fact but as a ‘theological affirmation put into the form of an apparently historical narrative.’” In other words, the belief that Jesus was a descendant of King David led to the development of an invented story about Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.

In addition, Raymond Brown, a Roman Catholic and another scholar on the Gospels, also stated erroneously that “the two narratives are not only different – they are contrary to each other in a number of details.”

However, the Hebraic Jesus scholar Geza Vermes, speaking of the Nativity narratives, has described Brown’s coverage as “the primary example of the position of having your cake and eating it” (Wikipedia Encyclopaedia).

(To be continued)

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom) and Norbert Link

In the previous Q&A in this series, we began to look at some great relationships in the pages of the Bible.

Relationships – Great Relationships in the Bible (continued).

In this final instalment, we will continue to review some more interesting relationships.

Job and His Friends

Job is described in Job 1:1-3 as the greatest of all the people in the East, and he had seven sons, three daughters and many possessions. However, Satan was allowed to tempt him, but not to take his life (Job 2:6).  In his hour of need, he was visited by his three friends:

“Now when Job’s three friends heard of all this adversity that had come upon him, each one came from his own place—Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. For they had made an appointment together to come and mourn with him, and to comfort him.  And when they raised their eyes from afar, and did not recognize him, they lifted their voices and wept; and each one tore his robe and sprinkled dust on his head toward heaven.  So they sat down with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, and no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his grief was very great” (Job 2:11-13).

At the beginning, their concern, compassion and attitude were sincere and commendable. But as the story unfolds, his friends became condemnatory and accused Job incorrectly of all kinds of sins, because they did not understand—and neither did Job—why Job was suffering, concluding that Job must have greatly sinned to deserve such punishment. God wanted to show Job that he had to overcome his self-righteousness, but the three friends could not see that, while condemning Job of sins he was not guilty of (Job 32:3). God became angry with Job’s three friends and was willing to punish them severely, because they “have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has” (Job 42:7). While Job had repented “in dust and ashes” for the wrong things he had said against God, his three friends did not show the same kind of remorse. So, God asked Job to pray for them so that He would not deal with them “according to [their] folly” (verse 8). The remarkable conclusion is that Job WAS willing to pray for his three friends, even though they had shown themselves as accusers without mercy and compassion.

In the end, it all worked out. The former relationship when his friends made the time out of genuine concern to be with Job when he was in great distress, was restored.

Paul and Timothy

Timothy was a relatively young Evangelist, but Paul had full confidence in him. In 2 Timothy 1:1-2, we read: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, To Timothy, a beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.”

McLaren’s Expositions observes: “PAUL’S heart had been drawn to Timothy long before this letter was written, as far back as the beginning of his second missionary journey, and Timothy had cherished the enthusiastic devotion of a young man for his great leader. He seems to have been the best beloved of the circle which the magnetism of Paul’s character bound to him.”

There is no doubt that the two had a close relationship and friendship, and in verses 3-7, Paul writes about Timothy’s faith and heritage.   Paul had laid hands on Timothy and reminded him to stir up the gift of God which he had received.

We read in Acts 19:22 that Timothy and Erastus had ministered to Paul, and Timothy was with Paul, as we read in Philemon 1. Paul refers to him as “our brother and minister of God, and our fellow labourer in the gospel of Christ,” and he was confident that Timothy would be able to “establish” and “encourage” the brethren concerning [their] faith” (1 Thessalonians 3:2). Paul also referred affectionately to Timothy as “my true son in the faith” (1Timothy 1:2).

Abraham and God

“My friend”—that is how God referred to the patriarch Abraham (Isaiah 41:8: James 2:23; compare also 2 Chronicles 20:7 where Abraham is referred to as God’s friend “forever”). What a remarkable relationship where a limited, physical, mortal human being is thought of by the all-powerful, immortal, all-knowing, supreme God as His dearly loved friend. This friendship developed, and when God tested him by commanding him to slay his son Isaac as a sacrifice, Abraham was willing to obey. God wanted to see whether Abraham loved Him more than anything or anyone else, and Abraham trusted God so much that he understood that God would never ask something of him which would betray their friendship. Abraham could have thought of many reasons why he should not kill Isaac, but he proceeded as God had commanded him. He proved his faith by his works. And we know how well that situation worked out! God had not really intended for Abraham to kill his son, but Abraham did not know this. But he knew that God had promised him that he would become a father of many nations, through Isaac, and that God cannot lie.

And so, we read about Abraham’s motives and thoughts in Hebrews 11:17-19:

“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called,’ concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.”

David and God

David’s relationship with God was personal from the time that he was a very young man until the day he spoke his last words when he was dying.   In Acts 13:22 we read: “And when He had removed [Saul], He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’” This was because of his attitude toward God. In Psalm 63:1-2 we read: “O God, You are my God; Early will I seek You; My soul thirsts for You; My flesh longs for You In a dry and thirsty land Where there is no water. So I have looked for You in the sanctuary, To see Your power and Your glory.”

In 1 Kings 2:1-3, we read: “Now the days of David drew near that he should die, and he charged Solomon his son, saying: ‘I go the way of all the earth; be strong, therefore, and prove yourself a man.  And keep the charge of the Lord your God: to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn…’”

David had many faults and committed many sins, but once he recognized his mistakes and sins, he repented deeply. God, knowing his heart, appreciated this character trait tremendously. David loved God and His law (Psalm 119:10, 16, 35, 47, 97). His focus was on God and that is why he had such a strong and personal relationship with God.

John and Jesus

John 13:23 gives us an indication of the close relationship John had with Jesus: “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.”   The Benson Commentary observes: “This was John, the memory of whose sweet disposition, and other amiable qualities, is perpetuated in the peculiar love which Jesus bare to him. He always avoids with great care the expressly naming himself.”

Even Peter requested of John to ask Jesus who would betray Him, rather than asking Him personally (John 13:24).

We note Jesus’ words on the cross in John 19:26-27: “When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, ‘Woman, behold your son!’  Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold your mother!’ And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.”  He was the disciple who is noted as being at the crucifixion, and he was told by Jesus to look after His mother.  That certainly indicates a very close personal relationship, and the trust and confidence which Jesus had in John that he would fulfil that responsibility. It is remarkable that Jesus did not ask any of His other disciples, nor any of His half-brothers, to care for Mary. John had without any doubt a very special relationship with Christ. Even after His resurrection, Peter recognized this relationship. Christ had told Him three times that he was to feed and tend His sheep. He also told him that he would glorify God through his death as a martyr. It was at that moment that we read in John 21:20-23:

“Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, ‘Lord, who is the one who betrays You?’ Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, ‘But Lord, what about this man?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.’ Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, ‘If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?’”

Apparently at that moment of jealousy, Peter, very well aware of the special relationship between Christ and John,  wanted to know about John’s fate. But Christ told him bluntly: That is none of your business. You do what I told you to do.  John lived on, writing the gospel according to John, three letters, and the book of Revelation. Then he died, to be resurrected within the next second of his consciousness to be with his beloved Friend, being like Him, seeing Him as He is (1 John 3:2).

Jesus and Mankind

Real friends are loyal to each other when the going is easy and also when it is tough.   They support and sacrifice for each other and their relationship is usually very strong and close. The ultimate degree of friendship was described by Jesus when He stated: “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (John 15:13).  Jesus gave His life for us and if we want to be His friend, we must be willing to go all the way in proving our loyalty to Him: “You are My friends if you do whatever I command you” (John 15:14).

What is unrealised by the world at large is that “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44; compare John 6:65).   Those called now can have, and must have, that close personal relationship with God the Father and Jesus Christ, and those not called at this time will have their opportunity at a later time.

Christ calls us His friends and encourages us not to be afraid of men, but to have reverence and respect for God (Luke 12:4-5), assuring us of His great love and concern for us (verses 6 and 7). He told us—His friends–everything we need to know in order to inherit salvation (John 15:15). He called Lazarus His friend, whom He loved and resurrected (John 11:5, 11).

Jesus said to His disciples in John 15:16: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.”   The same is true today.  God the Father wants those whom He chooses at this time, to have a close personal relationship with Him and His Son. But this relationship can only be obtained and maintained if we refuse to be friends of the world and its evil way of life (James 4:4).

Conclusion.

The Bible is replete with information about relationships, as we have seen in this series. Even the genealogies that we read about in the pages of God’s Word are all indicative of inevitable relationships.

The most important relationship of all is the one that we have with God, as this will determine our future as well as being the right and godly way to live in this present evil world.

Lead Writers: Brian Gale (United Kingdom) and Norbert Link