1. The word translated here, as "friend of God" is actually the name Theophilus. It is translated, rather than transliterated because it may not be a coincidence that the person's name in this letter had this meaning. This book was written to anyone who is a friend of God. And as we will see in the endnotes concerning Jesus' genealogies, there are other parts of Scripture that were also written in a way that makes it personal to all of us who believe.

The use of the term "most excellent," just preceding the name, Theophilus, could be an indication that Theophilus was somebody of considerable rank in the Roman citizenship. In this case, it would be that he was a man holding a position that marked him with the title "most excellent" — rather than it being just Luke's opinion of him, that he was the most excellent person he ever knew, for instance. (Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11).

2. In Jeremiah 17:9 we read: "The heart is more deceitful than all else, and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" Therefore, being in this condition, what we need is much more than just a repaired heart. What we need is a new heart (Romans 8:7).

Understanding this, legalism is a man trying to fix his desperately-sick heart with rules and regulations. Salvation, on the other hand, is faith in God, trusting that (once we have turned away from our desire to sin) Jesus died for our sins and rose again from the dead. It is at this point that He will give us a new heart. This, however, is only possible through the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit, as the following verse proclaims,

Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances (Ezekiel 36:26-27, author's emphasis).

We must remember, though, that this is only accomplished on a partial basis at this point. Up to now, we have been given the Holy Spirit only as a down payment or "deposit" (Ephesians 1:13-14). But this passage, in its context, is speaking about Israel, and how it will be fulfilled when the Jewish nation as a whole comes to faith at the end of this age (Romans 11:25-26, Revelation 10:7).

3. The Greek literally reads, ". . . not out of bloods." And blood is in the plural form. This is a reference to national descent (See Acts 17:26). It is a similar expression to our saying someone is a "blood relative."

4. The Greek literally reads, ". . . of the will of the flesh." For the Biblical definition of what that means, consider Romans 7:14, Romans 2:28, and 3:20.

Therefore, "the will of the flesh" is a Hebrew colloquialism for saying that salvation cannot be obtained by efforts of the flesh, or by the desire of the flesh ("desire" being another valid definition of "will).

This is also what is taught in Galatians 2:16-21.

This does bring up a question similar to the one Paul deals with in Romans. Did God deceive the Jews all those years because He gave them the law, leading them to think that they could obtain righteousness through obedience to the law? Certainly not! The law was given to show all of us our need to conform our lives into the image of God. He uses the law to reveal Himself to us for the purpose of leading us into a desire to have a life that is set-apart from the world to God and His will in our lives — a will that is proclaimed in the totality of Scripture.

And just because some of the Jews misunderstood the law and stumbled over the stumbling stone — thinking that they could gain justification in God's sight by obeying the law (and this they tried in the flesh) — does not mean that that is what God intended for us by giving the law. To do so would be in some way accusing God of sin.

The law has never been intended to give us a way to obtain salvation. It has always been, as Paul quotes in Galatians 3:2 and Romans 10:5 from Leviticus 18:5, that we will live a long and healthy life if we obey God's law.

Righteousness was always through faith (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, and James 2:23). The law had a whole other purpose from the 1st day it was spoken by Jesus on Mount Sinai (John 1:18 and Exodus 24:11). And, as we have tried to see, "just because some of them did not believe, does that make God unfaithful (Romans 3:3, author's paraphrase)?" To burrow and expression from Paul: "Certainly not!"

5. The Greek literally reads, ". . . and not out of the will of a man." Another definition of "will" is "desire." A proper way to translate this phrase, then, is, ". . . not by a person's desire."

6. The Greek can also be translated literally, "He had His tent among us," or "He dwelt among us."

This is a very fascinating statement because while the Israelites were wandering in the desert, God had them build a large tent or tabernacle where, in the inner room or "holy of holies," Yahweh God/Jesus dwelt, appearing as a bright light (Exodus 25:8-9). This is where Moses "talked with God face to face" and afterward had to wear a veil (Exodus 33:8-11 and 34:33-35; also see, Matthew 17:2-4).

This bright light is known as the Shekinah Glory. (The word shekinah comes from the Hebrew word Shekan, meaning "to dwell," with the feminine form being shekinah.)

(If you have an Englishman Concordance, you can find every occasion this Hebrew word is used in The Law and The Prophets. It is Strong's number 7931. One of the many verses is Exodus 24:16, where it has been translated into English as the word "abode." Another way you can find it is by looking up the English word "dwell" in a regular concordance.)

Aside from all this, however, is the fact that this could be an indication that Jesus was born on the feast of Tabernacles, since, as John says, "He tabernacled among us."

He certainly was not born in December. It is way too cold during that time of year for shepherds to be out in the field with their sheep at night (Luke 2:8). It gets very cold in the desert at night during December in Israel.

After I finished this book and its endnotes, I came across a very interesting article by Mike Gascoigne called "Birth of Yeshua [Jesus]" © 1995.

The one point that I would not agree with Mr. Gascoigne about is on his conclusion that the wise men happened to come when Jesus was coincidentally visiting Bethlehem for a feast (which, by the way, is celebrated in Jerusalem and not Bethlehem). I believe that Joseph decided to plant roots in Bethlehem after Jesus was born, probably knowing that the Scriptures declare the Messiah to come from Bethlehem (Matthew 2:5-6 and John 7:42).

Knowing this, Joseph probably bought a house and was planning to stay. This is even indicated by the fact that when they had come out of Egypt (the place they went right after the wise men had left from their visit with Jesus), the Gospels tell us that Joseph wanted to return to Judea but was afraid to because he had heard that Herod's son was reigning in his place (Matthew 2:22).

7. The Greek word commonly translated "only-born" is monogenes, and it comes from two Greek words ginomai, meaning "kind" or "only-kind (not to be confused with gennos," meaning "originated" or "born") and menos, meaning "only" or "unique."

If a man is an only-born son, that would NOT make him unique because there are other only-born sons. But there is only one Son who was born into a physical body by the Holy Spirit, and that DOES make Him unique. Jesus was the only man born from the heavenly Father.

This is what is in view when we are referring to Jesus as "God in the flesh." And though all the fullness of God had dwelt in Him (Colossians 2:9), the "house (or tent)" that men looked at when they saw Jesus' physical body could not have contained Him (2 Chronicles 2:6). God is much more and much bigger than just He who dwelled in the body we know as Jesus. He was dependent on His Father and worked only through His Spirit (John 5:19). Therefore, you cannot look at Jesus and say "there is God" the same way people did to the Caesars.

Jesus is a manifestation of the Almighty God — He is not the total existence of God. He is only the revealed right hand of God. This is why we hear Jesus make comments like, "to your God and My God." This is with the understanding that Jesus was fully God, though He was fully man.

In correlation, it must be remembered that it is not a contradiction to say that Jesus was both God and man. It would only be a contradiction if we were to say that He is God, and He is, at the same time, not God. That IS a contradiction.

Also, consider the verse in John 14:16-18 where it says, "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth … I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you (John 14:16-18)."

The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit who dwelled in Jesus' body. He was born of the Holy Spirit. He was the Holy Spirit dwelling in a man's body — but only in "the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3)." And it was only on this day that He became God's Son (Hebrews 1:5). There are not three God's, a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit. But there is only One God who manifests Himself to us in three different ways: As Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is a difference.

8. Jesus is the only Son born from the Father. We are all adopted. As it is said in Ephesians 1:5, "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself (Ephesians 1:5)."

9. Hebrews 1:1-2 is very interesting when read in the Greek. In the Greek it says that the Father "has spoken to us into the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us in Son." What that means is, God has, in the past, spoken to us by speaking into and, thus, through the prophets. But He has in these last days spoken directly to us from within His Son.

10. One time somebody tried to quote a Bible verse to me, saying, "No one has seen God and lived." I immediately thought, "that is not right;" it says in Exodus 24:9-10 that "Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders [all] . . . saw God." And they lived!

There are either one of two verses I think this man was trying to quote, either Exodus 33:20 or John 1:18. If it was Exodus 33:20, he should have said how God told Moses, "No one may see my face and live (author's emphasis)." And if it was the passage in John that says how "no one has seen God . . ." without saying, "and lived," he should of quoted it as just that.

However, that same passage continues with a very interesting statement. It goes on to say, But "The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared Him," meaning whenever someone in the Old Testament saw God, it was Jesus they were seeing. It was a pre-incarnation of Jesus.

For our concern, we have either one of two choices: Either one or more of these verses do not fit into our theology and so we throw them out, or it is that we need to re-adjust our theology. And, really, there is only one choice. And since the choice is already made, we now have to consider the contexts of these verses to see what is really being taught.

First, let's consider Exodus 33:20, where, in this interaction between Moses and God, we find that it is right after the Israelites had made the golden calf (chapter 32) — arousing God's anger (Exodus 32:10). At the same time, we see Moses asking God, "Let me see your glory." With which God responded, "no one can see My face and live right now because I'm angry, but you may see My back (author's paraphrase and interpretation)."

Remember, God is angry because the people are building the golden calf at the very same moment this is happening — something Moses is not aware of yet. Therefore, the reason I can add, ". . . because I'm angry right now" is because some people DID see God and live. In that case, not being able to see God's face cannot be an unconditional truth. Moses talked with God face to face (Exodus 33:11).

Worded another way: Since Moses did not see Him at this time, but did at other times (See Exodus 33:11 and Genesis 32:30), there must be a special reason why Moses couldn't see His face at this point.

Maybe God's words to Moses when he was in the cleft of the rock — which is Jesus (Psalm 19:14, 1 Corinthians 10:4) — may explain why. He said, ". . . The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving-kindness and truth; who . . . forgives iniquity, transgression and sin. . . . " All this happened as Moses saw the glory of Yahweh, while the people below were worshipping a lifeless golden idol.

In other words, God was telling Moses that even though the people were sinning in this way, He was a forgiving God.

Doesn't this sound familiar? Doesn't it sound like Jesus as He was hanging on the cross for the worlds sins, when He said, "Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing." The world is busy worshipping idols and Jesus is asking the Father to forgive them and, also, "spoke in a loud voice saying, 'My God, My God why have you forsaken me?" A parallel to Moses — that Jesus was not able to see His Father's face because He was becoming sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21).

All this agrees perfectly with John 1:18, when it says, "No one at any time has ever seen God, but the only-born Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has come out to lead us to Him (GDT)."

Relative to this, every time someone saw God (Genesis 32:30; Judges 13:22-23; Exodus 24:11, to name just a few) they were seeing Jesus. And in the Gospels, it is as Jesus said to Philip, "Have I been here with you this long, Philip, and you still do not know Me. If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father (John 14:9, GDT)."

To those who say we cannot see God, consider the following verses, where we are told, "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him because we shall see Him just as He is (1 John 3:2)."

And, as Job said, "Even after my skin is destroyed, yet from my flesh I shall see God (Job 19:26)."

11. See endnotes 1:7 and 1:8.

12. There are two accounts in the four gospels of Jesus' genealogy: one in Matthew and one in Luke. There are, however, some very distinct differences between the two. For that very reason, they have been recorded separately in this volume.

The differences are due to the purpose each writer had in mind for why he gave His genealogy. Matthew gives the genealogy of Him from Miriam's side of the family, as Jesus ascended from Abraham. It starts with Abraham and then shows his genealogy as it ascends up until the birth of the "King of Israel." For the promise of the King was to come from the seed of the woman, through Abraham (Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 22:18 with Galatians 3:16). The one in Luke's gospel is different in the fact that it gives the genealogy from Joseph's side of the family. That is why it starts with Joseph and then gives the descent down to the first man, Adam, the descendant from whom we inherited "the curse."

This explains why the genealogies from Abraham to King David agree, but then from David on down to Miriam and Joseph, each genealogy takes on a different course, with different names. The Anointed One was promised to come from the seed of Abraham (Genesis 22:18) and would be the son of David (Psalm 132:11).

Therefore, if you follow the genealogies, they are identical until you get to King David. From there on, not a single name truly agrees. Matthew gives Jesus' genealogy from Miriam's side of the family, while Luke gives it from the family of "as was supposed, the son of Joseph (Luke 3:23)." ("As was supposed . . ." because He was really not from the line of Joseph, being that He was born of a virgin. And it would not be from Joseph's line because of the curse in Jeremiah 36:30. Something that was ultimately because of the curse we inherited from Adam) (Romans 5:12).

13. The Temple services were split up between twenty-four divisions of the descendants of Aaron, as given in 1 Chronicles 24:1-19.

14. The Greek says, "a daughter of Aaron."

Well, so much for the ten lost tribes. (This is in reference to the teaching among some scholars that says ten of the twelve original tribes of Jacob were lost following the Syrian captivity.) But not only is the tribe of Levi mentioned in the verse given above when it says she was a "daughter of Aaron," but it also says in Luke 2:36 that the prophetess named Anna was from the "tribe of Asher." The twelve tribes being Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher (See Exodus 1:1-5).

Therefore, we have the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (which are considered, unanimously, to be the two un-lost tribes). But now we also have the tribe of Levi and Asher. That being, it must be, at the most, 8 "lost tribes," if there really are any. This is especially the case given the video by A & E, called "Quest for the Lost Tribes (An Epic search for the Truth Behind One of the Bible's Greatest Prophesies. ISBN: 0-7670-2880-5)" in which they demonstrate evidence for the existence of other tribes even today.

15. The Greek word used here is an odd one. It is the word enantion and has the meaning of "in the sight of." It is derived from two other Greek words, en and anti, literally meaning "in opposite to. . . . "

Theologically, it can be translated as such because, in His sight, we are, if compared to Him, or in opposite to Him, not righteous in any way. In fact, the inclinations of our hearts are wicked all the time (Jeremiah 17:9, Psalm 14:3). So except for the standard with which He has decided to approve us in — through His Son, Jesus the Messiah, giving us a new heart — the old one being incurable (Romans 8:7) — we would all perish.

Additionally, if we are opposite to Him, and He is righteous, we can only be righteous if He declares us as such.

However, there is a sense in this passage that Zacharias and his wife were righteous because they had meticulously made an effort to obey God's commands with a pure heart and not, as it were, for appearance. This is in contrast to the Pharisees who obeyed only in pretense (Matthew 23:27 and 5:20). This is why God has also approved of calling Zecharias and Elizabeth "righteous, obeying all the commandments of the Lord without fault (Luke 1:6)."

In contrast, Jesus was not against the Pharisees because they were obeying the law, but because they were only obeying it through a distorted understanding, and not with a pure heart (Matthew 25:23-28).

Another point to consider is, since no one is good enough to obey the law fully, how could Zacharias and Elizabeth obey "all the commandments of the Lord without fault (Luke 1:6)"? In finding an answer, it must be remembered that the law of God also gives the provisions for what to do when one of them is broken. The law of God not only articulates what to do to be in perfect obedience to God, but it also gives guidelines on what to do when we break one of His commands.

For instance, if we were to cause someone's animal to die, we would want — I hope — to reimburse the person for the cost of whichever animal we were instrumental in its death. Another example is whenever someone sins, the steps are outlined on how to be reconciled afterwards.

I doubt that Zacharias and Elizabeth never sinned, but I am confident, according to God's word, that they always did what was right in response.

16. The Temple services were split up between twenty-four divisions of the descendants of Aaron, as given in 1 Chronicles 24:1-19.

17. In this passage, the phrase, "at the hour of incense" is mentioned twice. But for the purpose of eliminating what becomes a redundancy in English, one of them is left out.

Also, concerning the Ark of the Covenant, what is commonly understood is that it was most likely not in the Temple during Jesus' day, but that it had been relocated at some time before the Israelites were taken captive into Babylon.

The last time the ark is mentioned in the Bible is in 2 Chronicles 35:3.

The book "The sign and the Seal" by Graham Hancock, in my opinion, is some interesting reading on the subject (A Touchstone book Published by Simon and Schuster, Inc. Rockefeller Center 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10020).

18. Is this verse alluding to the comment Jesus made: "There has not risen a greater prophet than John the Baptist (L 7:28)?"

19. The Greek sometimes makes the very odd statement, "this is the word Jesus spoke to them." However, this is odd only if looked at through our vernacular. If it is looked at through the Hebrew understanding — the understanding of the Jewish people at that time, and in some respect today — the word "word" also had the meaning of "thing." So saying, ". . . you did not believe the thing I have told you," or ". . . you did not believe what I have told you" would also be a very appropriate interpretation of this word. (Also see endnotes 11:1 and 46.)

20. The Greek says, ". . . when He looked upon me."

21. In those days, if a woman went through life childless, it was considered to be a sign of their disapproval in God's eyes (see, 2 Samuel 6:20-23). But consider Luke 13:3-5.

22. The Greek word translated here as "where . . . from," literally reads, "from what country."

23. The Greek literally reads, "cried out a great outcry and said. . . . "

24. In Exodus 21:1-6, especially verses 5 and 6, God gave the instructions on how, after a slave was released on the year of Jubilee, if he decided that he loved his master and wanted to stay as his servant — willingly — he would make that commitment by letting the master pierce his ear. His master would take a hammer and nail, put his servant's ear up against the door post of his house, and drive the nail into his earlobe. In this way, he would mark his commitment to become a bond-slave. God gave this instruction in Exodus 21:1-6, especially verses 5 and 6.

25. The Greek literally uses a word that means "to scatter." But the sense of the text is that He had confused them in the prideful thoughts of their hearts. In essence, scattering their thoughts. He did this because, "claiming to be wise they became fools (Romans 1:22)." And if you look at the Hebrew translation of this verse, you can see that they use the word pizar (???), which means to scatter. But it can also be translated, "to lead astray."

26 According to this passage, Mary was 3 months pregnant with Jesus when John the Baptist was born. And the following details explain this: Mary ". . . visited Elizabeth in her sixth month (Luke 1:26)," and "stayed there for three more months and then went home (Luke 1:56)." And, since Mariam left to visit her aunt Elizabeth just after the angel Gabriel told her she was going to conceive; we, therefore, know that Jesus was born six months after His cousin John the Baptist and was, consequently, six months younger. (Mary conceived; then she went to Elizabeth, who was six months pregnant, stayed there three months until Elizabeth gave birth.)

Therefore, Mary was, by this time, three months pregnant herself. If she got pregnant when Elizabeth was six months pregnant and stayed with her until she delivered at nine months, Mary was, consequently, 3 months pregnant when John was born.

And now knowing these things, and knowing when John the Baptist was conceived, we can calculate and see that John was most likely born on Passover, and, consequently, Jesus would have been born on the Feast of Tabernacles. To read a full explanation of why this is so, see endnote 1:6.

The other alternative is that He was born on Passover. And that would fit in with Michael R. Molnar's explanation of "The Star of Bethlehem . . .". See endnote 2:20

27 After the fall, since God cannot look upon sin, it is an amazing thing that it was God's pleasure to reconcile the world to Himself, as it says in Colossians 1:19-20, "It was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him [Jesus], and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross."

And so it is: even though sin separates us from God, He has not forsaken us. He has "examined us," and then made provisions for us to be reconciled to Himself through the blood of His Son.

28. The Greek here says, "Holy Covenant." And since holy means "set apart," as well as "morally upright," a more accurate translation, in this case, would seem to be ". . . above all covenants." This is because a covenant He makes is not just set apart from others, but it is in fact set apart well above any other covenants — since He is the One making it — a righteous and holy God, a God who cannot lie, making a covenant. He is someone who also has the power to do much more than anyone else can even begin to promise!

29. In Malachi, where this idea is from, it is Yahweh who is speaking, when He says, "I will send my messenger before Me, to prepare my way before Me." This being so, His name Yahweh is inserted here, rather than the word Lord (which is what is in the Greek text). This is done to draw our attention to the proclamation Zacharias is making about Jesus — that He is Yahweh.

30. This is a peculiar set of words in the Greek. It expresses an idea that can only be understood by knowing the Jewish culture of that day, and it is this: To be engaged was the same as being married except for the fact that they had not yet consummated the marriage with "the wedding night." And the words that are translated in this book as "before they became one flesh" are literally the words, "before they came together," referring to a couple coming together as one flesh (Genesis 2:24).

31. The name Jesus comes from the Hebrew word Yeshua, which means, and is translated into English as, "salvation."

More specifically, the name Jesus is a Greek transLITERation of the Hebrew name Yeshua. That is, instead of finding a similar word meaning the same thing as it means in the original language (salvation, in this case), they took the Hebrew pronunciation of that name and used the equivalent Greek letters that sounded as close as possible to the letters in the language being transliterated from. (This will be explained in more detail below.)

Anyway, the Hebrew name Yeshua (pronounced Ye-shoo-ah) is where we get the English name Jesus. It comes from the Hebrew root word yasha, meaning "to save." Therefore, Jesus' given name actually comes from (if translated instead of transliterated) the Hebrew word "salvation." This is why it says, "you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21, author's emphasis)."

Joshua (or as it is in Hebrew, "Yehoshua"), on the other hand, comes from two Hebrew words, the name Yehoveh (otherwise known as Jehovah) and the word, "salvation." These two words are combined to become the expression "Yahweh is salvation," rather than simply the word "salvation." That is because Yehoshua (meaning, "Yahweh is salvation") was a foreshadow, and not the actual reality of Jesus (salvation) itself. Put another way, Yehoshua means "Yahweh is salvation (it is another way of saying He will become our salvation)," and Jesus is that salvation. That is one way to look at it.

Interestingly enough, in Isaiah 12:2, when it says, "Jehovah has become my salvation," it actually reads in the Hebrew, "Jehovah has become my Jesus."

There is also a debate as to whether the name Jesus came from the two names Ai (Ai, being the name of a Roman god) and Zeus (the name of another Roman god) — these two names put together as the name Ei-zeus (pronounced hey-sus, or ye-seus (the transliteration of the Greek name "Jesus," as we mentioned above). (There was no such thing as a J until the 17th century.)

And so the theory is that the Roman Catholic church gave Him this name to entice the pagan Roman culture to accept Jesus as there god in place of their previous gods Ai and Zeus.

That may sound plausible, but there is also another option, and that is this. When we transliterate the name Moses, we do this from the Hebrew pronunciation of Moshe (pronounced moe-shay).

The reason they add the "s" at the end is because of the mechanics of the Greek language. In the Greek language there are different endings for the same word, depending on what case or tense the word is in. For example, the Greek word for "salvation" is soteria. But if it is in the accusative case, it is soterian, and in the genitive case, it is soterias. But with proper nouns, such as a name, before the grammatical endings are applied, they always end with the letter "s".

Concerning Jesus, it would go as follows: Since the Greek has no sound for the letter Y, the Greeks used their equivalent, which would be the diphthong "Ie." Then, since they did not have the sound "sh" they would have only used the letter "s." With all this taken together, they would, then, now have the spelling of His name as Iesua (pronounced hey-sue-ah).

Then, if they did as they did with Moshe, changing it to Moses because of the Greek noun ending "s" it would have become the name Iesus (pronounced hey-sus). Then in the 17th century the I became a J, and so we now have the name Jesus.

Therefore, it is not a Roman trick at all. They did not use this to get anybody to worship their gods; it is due to the mechanics of the Greek language, and the laws of transliteration.

32. In this verse, the word "virgin," in the Hebrew, can also mean a young unmarried lady. But in those days, in the Jewish culture, a young unmarried lady and a virgin were the same thing. For if a young lady was not a virgin and not married, or not widowed, she would have been called a harlot or a prostitute — definitely not a young maiden.

Besides, in the historical context that the Gospels and the Epistles were written in, since Joseph was planning to hide Mary so that she would not suffer from the social repercussions, this would then seem to demonstrate this fact even further. It shows the seriousness they had for a woman who had sex outside marriage.

33. The reason Jesus was not literally given the name "Immanuel" when He was born is because, if a person in those days (which is what the disciples were) had read the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14, they would understand it to read, ". . . you shall call his name 'God With Us.'"

Given this fact, the text is simply stating that the Messiah was going to be on earth as God with His people to save them. Isaiah was not intending to prophesy the exact phonetics of the name Jesus was going to be given at birth. Also, see endnote # 29 and 31.

34. The Greek plainly says, "And it happened. . . ."

35. This text could also be understood that Quirinius was governing in Syria, which he was doing at the time of Jesus' birth; rather than him being the governor of Syria, which wasn't until after Jesus' birth.

36. If you were to go to Israel today, you would, without a doubt, have a manger pointed out to you. But it would not be like what you would expect. A manger, in actuality, is a rectangular stone about one and a half by three feet in size, with a bowl type area carved out in the top for the purpose of holding food to feed their domestic animals.

They did not use a manger to feed a whole flock of sheep. The sheep were fed by the grass of the fields, or on open plains. Mangers, on the other hand, were used to feed burden type animals like a horse or mule, or even a household lamb that they had purchased from a shepherd to slaughter in the near future.

Therefore, it would seem that this manger was part of a dwelling structure for the household animals, and was most likely the one connected with the Inn. It was not a cave out in the field.

It does need to be noted, however, that, archaeologically, we only find the stone mangers. But it very well could have been a wooden bay type manger that was part of the animal house connected to the Inn. The wooden ones would have all just rotted away by now.

37. The Greek simply says, "in that same place."

38. See endnote 36 just above.

39. It is interesting that here, in His first coming, He came by the humble means of an animal's feeding trough and was accompanied by a whole host of heaven's angels. At His Second Coming, He will also be coming with a whole host of heaven's angels (Mark 8:38, 13:27). However, He will not be coming lowly like a lamb. He will come in power, like a lion, on a white horse (Revelation 19:11-16).

40. The days of a woman's purification according to the Law of Moses are found in Leviticus 12:2-6 where it mentions that after a birth of a boy a woman was to continue in the blood of her purification for forty days before she was supposed to bring the required sacrifice to the Temple in Jerusalem.

Recognizing this, we also now know that Joseph and Mary could not have fled to Egypt until at least 40 days after Jesus was born, since the passage in Luke says how they brought Him to the temple for the required sacrifice "after the days of her purification, according to the laws of Moses were complete."

And since they still did not return to Bethlehem until after their excursion in Egypt, but went back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:19-23), we also know that they could not have made this sacrifice until sometime before the wise men came to visit Him — sometime after this sacrifice.

And we also know that because they fled to Egypt the same night the wise men left, in the middle of that night (Matthew 2:13-14), they could not have made the sacrifice after this point either. This means that the wise men did not come to Jesus the night He was born. Jesus had to have been more than 40 days old.

Explained another way, Mary and Joseph waited forty days after Jesus was born to fulfill the sacrifice required in the Law of Moses, which was to be at the House of God in Jerusalem. Then, immediately after the wise men made their visit, in the middle of the night, Joseph was told in a dream to flee Bethlehem because Herod was looking to kill Jesus.

Joseph fled that very night, not giving them time to make the required 40-day sacrifice for the birth of a baby boy. Therefore, the wise men came sometime after this 40 day sacrifice. And it was most likely 2 years after His birth — according to the time Herod determined from the wise men as to when they had first seen the star (Matthew 2:7).

41. The Greek text for this verse uses the word "Holy," which literally means, "to set apart." It was decided to translate this into its literal meaning in order to bring out how they would have understood this word in those days, as it is used in this context.

42. The Greek word used here is paraklaysin. It comes from two root words: para, meaning "being along side of," and kaleo, meaning "to call."

In other words, this word means, "to call along side of." And this is usually for the purpose of comforting someone after a sin, or wrong action, in order to encourage him out of that sin. This word is also, basically, the same word used in John 16:7, when Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit (paraklaytos) or comforter.

The Greek words used in these two instances are in their noun form. However, the first one ends with the Greek letters . . .sin, while the other one ends with the letters . . .tos. The reason the endings are different is because with the Greek language, when you have a phrase in the accusative, each word in that phrase will also have the accusative ending. But if you have a genitive phrase, all words in that phrase would have the genitive endings. So though they may have different tense endings, that does not change the fact that they are both nouns. That is, even though one of them may have the ending . . .sin and the other . . .tos, they are still both nouns. The . . .os ending rule only applies in every instance when a noun is given in isolation from any modifying suffixes — like in a dictionary.

Anyway, the point is, from what Simeon says — that "the paraklaytos would bring light to the Gentiles" — it seems that he understood it to be a reference to the Messiah. As well, we can see, by what he says, that he did not have the view that the Jews are pervasively accused of having — that they were waiting for the Messiah to only conquer and rid them of the Romans (though certainly some of them had this narrow view of their Messiah). Simeon understood from The Torah and The Prophets that the Messiah was going to "bring light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 49:6 and 42:6)."

Therefore, it seems that Simeon may have been one of those people with the heart of a Berean (Acts 17:11) — which was not common then, or even today. Very few Christians these days actually let the Bible tell them what truth is. Instead, they let their own ideas govern their thinking when misinterpreting scripture. Most who profess to be Christians in the Unites States do what is right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25 and Isaiah 5:21)

You can also see this today in the fact that most Christians misunderstand His Second Coming. They believe it to be His coming for the same type of reasons the Jews of Jesus' day believed the Messiah was going to come — to relieve them of the trials the world (or the Romans) was bringing upon them.

43. The Greek text in this verse uses the word commonly translated "Holy," which literally means "to set apart" as well as "morally upright." Therefore, it was decided to translate this into its literal meaning of "to set apart," to make it easier to understand; I then used the word "holy" to bring out the meaning of the word Holy that we understand today, which is the meaning of a person being morally upright. In this way, this word is given more of an amplified translation.

44. The Greek word used here is the word from which we get our English word "despot."

45. Well, so much for the ten lost tribes (see Genesis 30:12-13 and Numbers 1:41). Anna is from the tribe of Asher. We also know that Elizabeth (Mary's relative) was from the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5 — Aaron was Moses' brother and Moses was from the tribe of Levi). So if there are any lost tribes, which I am not convinced there are (James 1:1), there are only eight. For from the days of Jesus physical ministry through the rest of the Bible, four tribes are identified as existing. They are the tribes of Benjamin, Joseph, Levi, and Asher.

Another interesting thing is that since Elizabeth was from the tribe of Levi, and Miriam (Jesus' mother) was her relative, that would mean that Jesus was from, both, the tribe or Judah and also from the tribe of Levi — depending on how Elizabeth was related to Miriam.

46. The word translated here as "acknowledged . . . with thanksgiving" is a difficult Greek word to translate. But I believe the closest meaning intended is captured by translating it as, "acknowledged . . . with thanksgiving."

To explain the Greek, the following is the reason why this is the case: The expression is translated from the Greek word anthomologeomai, and it is a compound word coming from three Greek words, anti, meaning "opposite" or "against," homo, meaning "the same as" or "likewise," and logos, meaning "to speak" or "to have a word with someone," as in a conversation. (This is usually seen when someone says, "I want to have a word (logos) with you." For it has much more meaning than simply the idea expressed by the English word, "word." It has more the idea of a logical explanation).

Within the Bible, the most common use of this idea is without the word anti preceding it, and it is the word homologios, which is generally translated as "to confess," and literally means, "to speak the same (coming from the two Greek words meaning, "same" and "speak").

However, in the context of Hanna's words, and with the added Greek word anti, it is commonly translated, "giving thanks."

To my understanding, it was clearer and more accurate to the Greek by translating it as "acknowledged . . . with thanksgiving," and it could have been translated literally as "to speak the same," "against," or "in response to something." (Anti, meaning, "opposite" or "against," with the understood meaning of "in response to something.")

47. The Greek says, ". . . the days of Herod."

48. According to Leviticus 12:2-6, when a boy is born, the mother is supposed to wait 40 days, and then she is to bring an offering to God in the Temple of Israel, in Jerusalem. This, as it is told in Luke 2:22, is what Joseph and Mary did.

Not only that, but Matthew 2:13 says that as soon as the wise men had left the house Joseph and Mary were staying, an angel appeared to Joseph and told him to flee to Egypt. And this is what he did as soon as he awoke, while it was still night." This means that Joseph and Mary had to have brought this sacrifice from Bethlehem to Jerusalem (a six-mile trip) before these wise men made their visit.

Even further, it says in Matthew 2:16 that when Herod killed the children, he killed all the boys two years old and under. He did this according to the time he had determined from the wise men as to when they had first seen the star. And it was two years before they made their visit (Matthew 2:7 and 2:16).

This being so, Joseph and Mary had to have fled to Egypt from sometime between 40 days (the days between His birth and the required sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem) to two years after Jesus was born.

And since it says that Joseph and Mary were in "a house (Matthew 2:9-11)," this, then, adds to our understanding that it was not on the same day as the shepherds visit. Otherwise, it would have been while He was lying in a feeding trough, in a cave, and not in a "house" as a "small child".

So, apparently, what had to have happened is, Joseph and Mary, knowing that their child was the Messiah, and knowing that He was to be from the town of Bethlehem, probably decided to plant roots there, and so they bought a house.

Living in Bethlehem does seem to be their intention when they came back from Egypt. For it says that they had headed back to Bethlehem, but that they were prevented from doing so because Herod's son was reigning in his place (Matthew 2:20-23).

Also, see endnote 1:40.

49. The word "Jew" comes from the name Judah. Originally it was that if you were from the tribe of Judah, you would have been called a Jew. Later, it came to include anyone who was a descendant of Jacob, living in the land given to the tribe of Judah. Then it became a way to identify only the descendants of Jacob who were involved in the things surrounding the Temple's activities. This is why Jesus — who was a Jew — would say things such as, "You Jews ... (referring to those who were ministers of the law)."

Herod was only acting as king of the Jews because Rome, and not God, had appointed him as such — that is as King of the Jews. For God said that it would only be a descendant of King David that would reign over Judea (Psalm 132:11-12). I also find it very interesting that the Gospels clearly did not ever call Herod "the King of the Jews." For only the true Messiah is the King of the Jews (Romans 2:28).

And if anyone wants to argue this point, it needs to be remembered that that is a main accusation Jesus was crucified for — for being the King of the Jews. And to reject Him as the King of the Jews (for one example) is to reject His crucifixion.

50. The fact that it had been two years since they had seen the star is known because of Matthew 2:16.

51. See endnote directly above.

52. Given the fact that Herod had asked the wise men to tell him when they had seen the star, and that they had said it had already been two years since then (Mathew 2:7, 16), context, therefore, dictates that the star had to have reappeared or, at least, changed in appearance. And since this star was used to lead the wise men to the house where Jesus was living, and since no one else in Jerusalem saw it (f they did, Herod could have easily known where Jesus was and killed Him, rather than killing all the boys two years old and younger), it only makes sense that it had appeared relatively low, and that it had led the wise men in a more personal way. This would also seem to explain why they "rejoiced with exceedingly great joy" when they saw it.

Another possibility is that the star had always been present, but that it wasn't until this particular point that its manifestation had changed and become more of an extraordinary event, causing them to "rejoice with exceedingly great joy." The second does not seem as likely as the first, and it even begs the question of what the change in manifestation was. In fact it would almost seem to be the same as saying that it had reappeared.

There is also the belief — which is what I hold to — that when it reappeared, it was in the form of the Shekinah Glory, as described for us in the Torah and the Prophets, particularly when it says, "the glory of the Lord went before them in the desert as a cloud during the day, and as a pillar of fire during the night (Exodus 13:21)."

53. The Greek word used here has the meaning of going towards someone to lick the hand, similar to the way a dog licks the hand of its master.

It also says that they "fell," implying that they had worshipped Him according to the custom of the east, which is to fall on your hands and knees, with your face to the ground.

54. Gold, frankincense, and myrrh — these are not the things I would bring to anyone as a gift. Well, maybe the gold, but certainly not frankincense and myrrh. Gold would be fitting to give a king, since it does symbolize royalty. But frankincense and myrrh are burial ointments? So even in His birth, His death is proclaimed!

But there's more: Gold represents a king. Frankincense is a fragrance used by the priest in the temple. And myrrh is a burial ointment, or a medicine used for men in general. Therefore, these gifts can also represent the fact that Jesus was the combination of king of Judah, priest of Israel, and man in general — God taking on the likeness of a man (Philippians 2:7-8).

And as a priest, He performed the perfect sacrifice as the only man qualified to be the sacrifice in our place, since He was without spot or wrinkle. And this is also what gave Him the right to be our blessed King. He is the embodiment of all three of these great truths.

55. The Greek word translated here as "small boy" is the word paidion, which means a "small child." It is not the word, brephos, which means a "baby."

56. The words used here, ". . . as to when they had first seen the star" is understood in the context of Matthew chapter two, specifically verse 7.

57. "He shall be called a Nazarene, as it is written in the Prophets (Matthew 2:23)."

Well as far as everyone is concerned, there is no verse that says, "He shall be called a Nazarene" written in the Prophets.

However, Messianic Jews are in a very interesting position compared to the rest of the church. They are excluded by their own and rejected by "the church." And the nature of this position brings about some very unique benefits. One benefit being that they are forced to ask some very crucial questions and, from that, have found answers to some rather difficult passages in Scripture. From this position, they, therefore, have a lot to teach us.

One of the things they can teach us is that before the days of the Messiah, in about 500 BC, the Jews were taken into captivity by the Babylonians, with a few of them staying behind (Nehemiah 1:3). Among those who stayed behind, there was a certain group of people from the lineage of David who recognized that the verse, ". . . and a branch shall grow from his roots (Isaiah 11:1)" was speaking of the Messiah, who was to come from Jesse, king David's father.

So with this in mind, during the Babylonian captivity, they fled north and settled a village. (Or they had, at least, after the captivity, preserved in this promise, came back to the land, and settled a village.)

And with the start of any village, you need a name. Well, with this town beginning because of the verse quoted above, what better name to call it than "the branch," which is, in Hebrew — since that is the language they spoke — the word Netzer. Naturally, then, being a person from Netzerot (". . .ot" being a Hebrew plural ending), what else would you be called except a Netzareen, as it is written in the prophets! (Note that the Hebrew word for a Nazarite is different, it is the word natzir, which means "to separate.")

For a more simplified explanation: The descendants of king David who survived the Babylonian captivity preserved their identity through the promise in the Bible that the Messiah would come from the "branch" of Jesse, Kind David's father. Then when they settled back in the land of Israel, they named their town with the Hebrew word for branch, which is Netzer, or the plural form Netzerot. And a person from Netzerot would be a Netzareen, as the prophets had declared.

58. The Greek word for "pleasure," when we read, "God's pleasure was upon Him" is literally the word "grace," meaning "free gift."

59. Jesus said, "As often as you do this [speaking of the Passover], do it in remembrance of Me (Luke 22:19)." With this, then, it is handed down to everybody — Jews and Gentiles.

Easter, on the other hand, is derived from the pagan goddess of fertility (whose name is Ishtar, pronounced Ish-tar), and the celebrations surrounding her.

Stemming from that, rabbit's are a sign of fertility, and eggs were symbolic of new life. That is why we have the Ishtar bunny delivering chicken eggs.

60. What is interesting about this is that it was when He was about twelve years old, the approximate time of a Jewish boy's Bar mitzvah. (The Bar mitzvah being when, according to society, a boy was considered to have now become a man.) This is the first time Jesus would have been accepted as being one of the adults. (This also seems to be another sign of His submission to authority, even though He probably could have won any of them in any debate years before that.)

Anyway, the phrase popularly translated as, ". . . listening to them and asking them questions" does not mean that He was questioning them to get answers, to learn something, or so that He could understand the Scriptures. It should, rather, be worded, "He was questioning them." And it should be understood similar to the way He questioned Nicodemus, when He responded to him, saying, "are you the teacher of Israel, and you do not know these things . . . (John 3:10)?"

This would also explain why it says, just a little further down, in Luke 2:47, that ". . . they were astonished at His understanding."

61. The Greek word apokrisesin, meaning "answers," implies the phrase, ". . . of the things they had talked about."