Related to the question of why the universe is old, the question arises as to why Jesus appeared in the flesh when he did. I’ll hold off on my answer and let you guys discuss, if you wish.
Also, why where he did may be interesting.
Interested to see what you come up with. I could talk about progressive revolution and nature and God being patient so that more can be saved but I think Galatians 4:4 is about the only answer I know of and it leaves a lot of questions unresolved.
4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.
We could ask a lot of questions about why God did x or y instead of z or where and when. Sometimes x and y seem odd to us but I think as Christians we have enough to trust that z is the better plan. After all, if everything God revealed made perfect sense to me that would be a telltale sign that this anthropomorphic deity is a a figment of my imagination and just me believing in myself.
Vinnie
Without putting too fine a point on it, there is an optimum time period when Israel is cohesive but under Rule of another, and there is enough of “The other” to make it more than an internal figure. There needs to be culture and identity and respect for a prophet. Capitol punishment but preferably dubious for the “crime” of being God, and so on.
Much earlier and it would not have been noticed, much later and it would not have had the same corporate effect
Modern global communications would probably have worked against it as would modern journalism. There would be no room for doubt or faith.
Looking at it dispassionately, not Biblical or religiously, it would seem that the time was spot on
Richard
1 Like
Because, as Galations 4:4 said: “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, . . .”
- Because that’s where Joseph and Mary were?
One thought I had was that 70 AD marked the end of temple worship, and a large diaspora happened, making the time ripe for the spread of the gospel, which had reached a point where it had developed enough for distribution.
3 Likes
That’s why, while not a perfect solution, the geographical location of Israel makes sense for why specifically there. You’re at the crossroads of the three most populous continents in the world and with the Roman Empire, you had a period of time where trade networks stretched all over the known world and that definitely helped the spread of the Gospel.
I agree with @RichardG that the modern age would be too skeptical to believe in anything Jesus did in the Gospels, especially in the age of AI and deep fakes. DeepFaking Jesus’ voice would really produce some nightmare results on the effectiveness of the Gospel message. And people are just likely to dismiss Him wholesale, especially if we are just implanting Jesus with our post-Enlightened world. It be much easier in my opinion to discount and discredit Jesus whole sale. At that rate, C.S. Lewis’ trilemma options would be seen in full force amongst the people.
Perhaps so, but (as N.T. Wright is often fond of saying), the ancients already knew that dead people don’t come back to life. They didn’t need modernists to reach this “brilliant” realization. There was plenty of skepticism to go round back then too.
One thought I have is that the incarnation did happen during a brutal time for the hopes of the “nation” of Israel. And even despite that we seem to have a sort of avalanche of assumption among some evangelical quarters today that Jesus must have lived during some sort of “cozy time” when turning the other cheek or loving your enemies had a greater chance of being effective back then than it does now. (Like - I guess the Romans were just such ‘kind’ people back then - or so the delusional evangelical imagination thinks.) So imagine how much worse this all would be if Jesus really had shown up in cozier times with much less violence! He would stand even more accused of being surrounded by ‘softer’ or ‘gentler’ environs. As it is, and where he was, we see that love of enemies was applied and lived out during times that would be among the most difficult to do so.
So Jesus was born circa 4BC because of what happened in 70AD?
Or … I wonder if it’s plausible to think that Jesus’ influence on all the tinder-box issues may have contributed (in even any more causal kind of way) to what happened on 70AD? Though I’m not sure how that would have worked. Probably not since that would still be too soon, and his impact on history would not have been nearly so apparent as it would become just a few hundred years after that!
Just a thought that such may be the case. You have to lay the foundation before you can build the house, so the work of the cross and the maturation of the gospel through the apostles including Paul had to be in place before it could be spread through the events of 70 AD. Theologically, with no Temple, the Jewish segment of society were left with rethinking the presence of God, and how to worship, leaving them ripe for the gospel message. It may be a piece of the puzzle, though not the whole picture.
All just supposition of course.
Another related question is why was Jesus incarnated as male and not female? A typical response I’ve heard is that “women in that culture would have found it hard to gather disciples and to have their voice taken seriously”. I suppose that makes pragmatic sense. I heard another intriguing explanation, though….that in the form of a male in that culture, God more explicitly could demonstrate what it means to lay down power and to “wash another’s feet”. By voluntarily assuming those lowly tasks and non-violent manner which otherwise would have simply been the expected role of women and slaves, Jesus demonstrated the humility and self-sacrificial love inherent to God’s character.
2 Likes