Rejected At The Inn?: Christmas Tradition vs. Scripture, Pt. 3 (A Repost)

In the past, I know that scholars such as Ben Witherington have made mention of the fact that Jesus' family was not turned away from an inn; I will argue the same thing here. However, in addition to the textual evidence that exists (which Witherington picks up on), I want to provide a few more insights. So, I hope you find this post helpful. May your heart and mind be blessed as you read!

In various and sundry English translations of the New Testament, we find an interesting word at the end of Luke 2.7. The verse reads: “…and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” The inn? The Greek word used here for “inn” is καταλυμα. Further on in Luke’s book, at 10.34 to be precise, in most English translations the word “inn” is used again. The NIV reads: “He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. The he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an ‘inn’ and took care of him.” Normally, we would expect that if we looked at the Greek here, we would find that previous term, καταλυμα, but that’s not the case. The word here is πανδοχειον.

The question arises then: Is there a difference between a καταλυμα and a πανδοχειον? Actually, yes there is! A πανδοχειον really was an ancient inn. The lexicons define it as a place that “receives all”; that’s literally what the term means.  Perhaps a look at one more passage in Luke’s work will shed some more light on the topic at hand. Luke 22.11 says, “…the Teacher asks: ‘Where is the ‘guest room,’ where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?” The term used in 22.11 for ‘guest room’ is καταλυμα. As we’ve seen, a πανδοχειον is actually an inn while a καταλυμα is the guest room of someone’s home. So, Luke reports Jesus here as going into the guest room of a house to eat The Last Supper.

It is quite interesting, then, that in both 2.7 and 22.11 the word is καταλυμα, yet the English translations render this one word differently. In my estimation we should either use the word “inn” in both places or the word “guest room” in both places. And since the word does not mean “inn” (again, Luke is perfectly fine using a different word for this term), “guest room” is our best option. I mean, it kind of ruins The Last Supper story if we try to import πανδοχειον into it. It would read: “…The Teacher asks: ‘Where is the inn, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”

However, if we take “inn” out of 2.7 and use the original, more fitting “guest room,” in context the story makes a lot of sense: “and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the guest room.”

Think about this: Bethlehem wasn’t exactly a huge town. Some argue that in Jesus’ day, there were maybe 5 or 6 hundred people in the town proper; that’s not a lot. Others have been a little more generous on the numerical side suggesting that maybe 2,000 made up the town. Either way, the fact is, Bethlehem wasn’t that large of a town and so, there wasn’t much need for a hotel there. Archeology has yet to uncover any such thing either. So, we can reasonably conclude that there was not an inn there. As a kind of side note we might also refer to the writing of the prophet Jeremiah (41.14) who says that there was an inn miles outside of Bethlehem but not in the town itself. (See also 2 Sam 19.37-40). The point is, there was no inn in Bethlehem. There was a καταλυμα, however. In fact, there were probably quite a few of these—guest rooms that is!

Furthermore, when Luke talks about having the Passover meal in the guest room of a home, he of course, expects his ancient hearers to be able to relate (they would have been familiar with what a house containing a καταλυμα looked like, usually a two story house where the guest room was on the top floor). Let us consider another piece of evidence. If Joseph was going to his hometown, Bethlehem, it is practically unthinkable that in the ancient world, someone from his town would have turned him away. This would have brought shame upon that household. Even more, to turn away a pregnant woman would have been that much more shameful. Nobody would have done this, especially if, as I said, it was Joseph’s hometown. Moreover, this being Joseph’s hometown, if he had bypassed his family’s home or the homes of relatives to try to stay at an inn (with a pregnant wife), he would have been looked upon with shame by his family. Joseph would not have done this!

So, the evidence (textual, contextual and archeological) suggests that when Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem for the census, it was the “guest room” of his family’s home that had no room—this probably because everyone else had traveled there to register too. Since the guest room was full, Joseph and Mary would have slept downstairs in what we might consider a living room. This comports really well with how the birth narrative plays out. In Matthew 5.15, we read, “…if you put a lamp on a stand it gives light to all who are in the house.” This gives us a good image of what the downstairs portion of the ancient home was set up like. The living room was one big, open room and it was often separated from the kitchen / cooking portion of the home by a step (that is, the living room was a bit lower than the cooking room.

Here’s something else to consider: the animals often stayed in the living room portion of the home. Troughs and mangers were built into the floor. Often times these mangers also acted as partitions between rooms. In antiquity people brought their animals in at night so they wouldn’t get stolen. Just as well, in Jesus’ culture, to leave animals in the house during the day was unacceptable, so, they brought them back outside in the morning (by the way, this is how Jesus knows that the donkeys will be outside and can thus, tell His disciples to go and get them - Lk. 19.30). In the winter, this was actually quite helpful for heating the house as the larger animals put off much heat. So, in all likelihood, this bottom room of Joseph’s family’s home is where Jesus was laid in a manger (a manger which was readily available).

Thus, there was no inn at Bethlehem that Jesus was turned away from. Instead, there was not space in the guest room of the family’s home. This tells us that there were other family members there already, most likely, including other women. It is speculation but given the cultural norms, these women probably helped Mary birth Jesus. One last piece of evidence is in order. When you read on in Luke’s narrative, at 2.21-22 he writes this: “On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise Him, He was named Jesus, the name the angel had given Him before He had been conceived. When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord.” Now, this is based off of Leviticus 12.2-4 which says that after giving birth, a woman could not go to the temple for 33 days—this was to ensure her cleanliness and purity. If you add 8 days to 33, you get 41. 41 days is a lot of time, about a month and a half. Joseph and Mary, then, were planning to stay a long time, not just a few days. Thus, it seems that they would have not tried staying in a hotel (think of the cost!) but with family who lived in that town. Besides, in that culture, this would have only been expected.

Hope this sheds some light on the subject for you!

Where Was Jesus Born? Christmas Tradition Vs. Scripture, Pt. 2 (A Repost)

My conviction is that in a skeptical world, Christians need to do their homework, know their facts and have their story straight! This is especially true when it comes to Scripture. All believers should be studied up! It is incredibly important to me that when we speak about the Bible or related subjects, we speak as honestly and accurately as possible. For some reason, though, every year when Christmas rolls around, many believers seem to throw these principles out the window; even if only in the name of embracing Christmas traditions. In fact, being a minister, I've noticed that the Christmas story has become so commonplace and domesticated that when one tries to say something fresh about it, even if from an exegetical standpoint, peoples' feathers get ruffled.

However, ruffling some feathers in the name of truth is fine with me; passing on corrupted stories is not. Take for instance, the claim that so many commentators and preachers have made through the ages, that Jesus was born in a cave. Well, if we do our homework, we find out that this idea began about 90 years after Jesus' death. It can be found first in an early work titled the Protoevangelium of James, which ultimately, was a document voted down by the Early Church. Then, forty or fifty years later, a guy by the name of Justin comes along and what does he do? Of course, he writes the same thing! From there, the idea is passed on to Origen and can later be found in a book titled The Armenian Infancy Gospel.

In my research, then, I realized that in what seemed like no time, this idea of Jesus' birth in a cave moved from the second to the fourth century AD. It was in the fourth century that the emperor Constantine built a Church house over a selected cave, a cave he believed these "legends" attested to (and as we who are churchgoers know, once something is built, Christians immediately grow attached to it and never want to let go of it). Anyways, St. Jerome, a Latin speaking man, actually spent thirty years in part of this cave translating the Bible (see how it was becoming a fixture!) and in the sixth century, Justinian remodeled the cave and fixed it up rather nicely (can you say "tourist attraction"? this is done with much of what is uncovered in the Bible lands; if you've ever been, you know exactly what I'm talking about; in fact, the "cave" is still a tourist attraction). Years later, though, in the tenth century, the passing-it-on game continued and a guy by the name of Hrotswith of Gandersleim handed off the "birth cave" baton. A number of years later, Philip the Carthusian used this story and in the 1900's, Werner the Swiss did the same thing. And as you may be well aware of, sadly, there are many preachers today who are still saying this.

What we see happening here is simply the handing down of faulty information. Hopefully, you find this as problematic as I do. I think we must strive to remedy such problems. The world doubts Christians and their story enough, not having our facts straight only makes it worse. We must share our story carefully, accurately and truthfully.

So, if not in a cave, where was Jesus born? Well, that will be answered in my next post in this series! In the meantime, may you strive to get the story straight and not fall into the pit of placing Christmas traditions over Scriptural truths.

Christmas Carols: Christmas Tradition Vs. Scripture: Pt. 1 (A Repost)

There are a few things I love about the Christmas season and then there are some things that just straight up bother me. One thing that really irks me is when Christmas tradition replaces Scriptural truth and teachings. So, I am going to do a short series of posts this month exploring areas where I see Christmas tradition encroaching on or even overriding Scripture. It is my conviction that in a world where Christianity often has little credibility, is viewed with great skepticism and is often asked questions of, as believers, we "must" have our facts and our story straight. We must be honest and knowledgeable about our faith and its narrative. That said, the current post will focus on a few select Christmas carols.

1. We Three Kings of Orient Are - Okay, even the title of this song is off. Firstly, the Scriptures never say that kings brought gifts to Jesus. What the Scriptures do teach, however, is that magi came bearing gifts. If one does their homework, they will find out that magi (magoi) were astronmers of antiquity (and usually not looked upon very favorably; I will say more about the magi in a forthcoming post). Secondly, though magi is in the plural in the Scriptures, it never says how many of them there were. It is simply tradition that there were three because there were three gifts. For all we know, there could have been two or ten.

2. Silent Night - My biggest problem with this song is that it doesn't fit contextually. When you read the Scriptures you get the idea that the night Jesus was born, the world was everything but silent and calm. Indeed, Jesus' parents can't find a place to stay, angels are coming to Joseph in dreams, angels are singing aloud before shepherds, the empire is broiling, etc.

3. The First Noel - One of my problems with this tune is that it refers to the magi as "wise men", a nomenclature assigned to them much later, around the 8th century AD. The text never portrays them as wise men or kings but as magi (astronomers). Again, I believe that as Christians we need to get the details right.

I'm sure that there are more examples I could give but at present, I cannot think of any others. When I come across these songs or I am in a group that is singing them, I do one of two things: 1. I either do not sing, or 2. I consciously change the lyrics. Personally, I see no point in teaching the story incorrectly through sermon or song!

Why December 25th? (A Repost)

A couple of years ago a number of mega-Churches decided that they would close down on Christmas Day, which fell on a Sunday. As many of you are aware, this provoked a lot of controversy. As I listened to the arguments on both sides (I also partook in them), I heard a couple of statements that sent me searching: 1) Nobody knows the exact date Jesus was born, and 2) Christmas began as a pagan holiday. What follows are my thoughts on these comments.

It is probably safe to say that when researching the history of Christmas, most people trace its origin to the early years of the fourth century CE. It was around that time that the emperor Constantine was ruling. Constantine came into power, in many ways, with ease. So easily won was the battle over an enemy, Maxentius, that everyone regarded Constantine as favored by the gods. In fact, an arch still stands in Rome today that is engraved with pictures of his enemies drowning with the inscription that notes this victory came by the “prompting of a deity”.

The deity or god that this inscription refers to is the “Unconquered Sun”. While Constantine is commonly spoken of as a Christian, it is true that he worshipped the sun god. In the late Roman Empire, Mithraism, a cult that worshipped the god of light (or the sun) began to flourish. They believed that this light would protect them from all evil. Constantine believed this too.

Prior to entering battle one afternoon, Constantine looked up at the sun. In that moment, he claimed that he saw a cross amid the sun and heard a voice which said, “by this [cross], conquer.” Constantine saw this as a sign from God. For him though, there was no differentiation between the sun god and the God of Christianity. He thought of them as one in the same. Soon after, worship and celebration of the birth of the sun god became popular. The date of the celebration? December 25th. (Others have suggested that something similar took place with Aurelian in CE 274. Whether one champions a Constantinian or Aurelian argument is moot. The argument focuses on whether or not Dec. 25th was developed by Christians before or after pagan celebrations with the same date.)

But Christianity, contrary to popular opinion, did not start celebrating the birth of Christ as a reaction to pagan festivals such as these. In my view, this is simply a widespread rumor that is incorrect. Actually, it seems to be the other way around. Pagans were concocting celebrations to combat the rapidly growing religion of Christianity. You see, in the early second century, a man by the name of Hippolytus went to great lengths in one of his commentaries (Commentary on Daniel) to defend the date of Christ’s birth (this is in the 2nd century CE!!!). What is more is that as Christians in the early second century (again, long before Constantine in the fourth century) sought to define a date for Christ’s crucifixion, in the process, some arrived at December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth. How did this happen?

Christian historian William Tighe (see more from a recent interview with him below) says that there was a common belief that existed among those of Jewish origin that can be referred to as the “integral age concept”. Simply put, this was the belief that great prophets died on the same day of the month that they were born. So, if a prophet was born on the 25th day of some month, he would also die on the 25th day of a month as well. Tighe contends that when the early Christians set the first Passover date (the time of Jesus’ death by crucifixion / Easter), they set it at March 25th. If you add nine months to that, this is how they arrived at December 25th.

Up until three centuries ago, nobody (as far as I have found) was using the argument that the pagan celebration had come first (this is a modern argument). Tighe shows that two men, Protestant historian Paul Ernst Jablonski and Catholic monk Jean Hardouin, were the first to make the “pagan origins” argument. Thus, according to Tighe’s research, of which I find rather compelling, the Christmas holiday did not start as pagan or have its roots in paganism. Nor was it invented to simply combat pagan celebrations. Again, it was the pagans who wanted to combat Christianity that developed festivals promoting false worship.

While in the big picture the particular day of Jesus’ birth might not change anything about our faith, it is still important to be able to discuss the matter. Further, using the arguments that the mega-Churches used a few years ago is, in my eyes, incorrect and unacceptable. But then again, that’s the reason for writing posts that deal with the issue of Christmas Traditions vs. Scripture. Lastly, here is a segment of a 2004 interview done with Tighe, some fascinating food for thought:

"Last year, Inside the Vatican magazine also supported Dec. 25, citing a report from St. John Chrysostom (patriarch of Constantinople who died in A.D. 407) that Christians had marked Dec. 25 from the early days of the church. Chrysostom had a further argument that modern scholars ignore:Luke 1 says Zechariah was performing priestly duty in the Temple when an angel told his wife Elizabeth she would bear John the Baptist. During the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, Mary learned about her conception of Jesus and visited Elizabeth "with haste."The 24 classes of Jewish priests served one week in the Temple, and Zechariah was in the eighth class. Rabbinical tradition fixed the class on duty when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and, calculating backward from that, Zechariah's class would have been serving Oct. 2-9 in 5 B.C. So Mary's conception visit six months later might have occurred the following March and Jesus' birth nine months afterward."

Go Ahead, Say "Merry Χ-Mas" - It's A Very Christian Phrase! (A Repost)

Today begins a number of posts/reposts on Pisteuomen dealing with Advent.  I hope to continue this through the rest of the Advent season.  I'm a Christian. But I'm a Christian who, to be quite frank, is just incredibly sick and tired of a lot the public antics of other so-called Christians. Or, maybe it's just the idiocy or ignorance of them that really gets me. Either way, I just wish these folks would get their heads out of the clouds and come back to reality. I say this right now because at perhaps no other time during the year are these types of people more arrogant and ignorant than during the Christmas season. I am ashamed that people within the church, people who perceive themselves as pious and devout and knowledgeable, are often none of the above. It often makes every Christian look bad AND stupid!

I'm thinking in particular here of the notion of "The War on Christmas." Lots of church-folk have been led to believe that saying anything but "Merry Christmas" during this season is borderline if not fully heretical. So, in what they believe to be a litmus test of faith, they will not back down; whether it is offensive or not, they will say Merry Christmas to Muslims, Jews, Atheists and anyone else they know is not a Christian. They will also go on the news and complain about cashiers or waitresses who do not use the phrase "Merry Christmas" and how it is an affront to the principles this nation was founded on. I say "Hogwash!" But the whole "nation's foundations" argument is something we shall save for another day. Here, I want to focus briefly on the phrase "Merry X-mas" and show why it is COMPLETELY Christian to say such a thing!

First, I just want to say a word about the idea of what social-scientists refer to as "presentism." Now, we in the West, we here in America are incredibly good at practicing presentism, even if we don't know it. Basically, presentism is the notion that what something is now is the way it has always been. This happens a whole lot on the mission field for example. Missionaries will often travel to different cultures and when they get there, they will encounter different types of lifestyles and practices. For instance, they find out that communion is being dispersed differently during worship. Instead of attempting to understand those customs for what they are, because they are different, they are seen as wrong or sometimes even sinful. So, what do the missionaries do? They say, "No! This is wrong, it needs to be done this way (= our way); this is the way it has really always been done and this is the right way." This is presentism! (I'm not talking about the Buddhist idea of presentism here!)

This same principle applies with the issue of "Merry Christmas"! When Christians hear someone say Merry X-mas, they freak out! Why? Because they believe that this is different than the way it has always been done. They believe that by saying Merry X-mas, people are trying to "take Christ out of Christmas." They believe that history is being sacrificed. They believe that faith is under attack. But...they are wrong! They are VERY wrong; they are completely misguided, in fact.

The truth is, saying "Merry X-mas" is a good thing and it is absolutely in-keeping with Christianity. Why do I say this? Well, the fact is, the "X" in "Merry X-mas" is not meant to cross-out or remove or replace Christ. Early on in Christianity, writers were using this letter as a sort of short-hand, an abbreviation, for the name of Christ. The English or Latin letter "X" actually comes from the Greek letter Chi (pronounced "key"). Chi is written as Χ (upper case) / χ (lower case). Some early Christian writers actually used two Greek letters, the first two letters of the word "Christos" (Christ or Messiah), which where Chi (X ,x) and Rho (Ρ, ρ). Now, in Greek, the letter Rho, which is "Ρ" actually looks like an English letter "p." So, the abbreviation could be ΧΡ.

So, why did the early Christians use these abbreviations? Well, in antiquity, writing materials were very expensive. Papyrus and ink were costly and used sparingly. So, to save ink, the early Christians when they were writing, would use abbreviations like Χ or ΧΡ. Papyrus (the paper-like material) was often hard to acquire. To preserve space on the papyrus, abbreviations were used. Thus, in biblical manuscripts, sometimes instead of spelling out the full word "Christos", authors would use Χ or ΧΡ. For them, then, saying Merry X-mas would not have raised one eyebrow or sparked one argument. In fact, they would likely look at modern folks getting in a hissy fit over this and shake their heads; they wouldn't be able to stomach or believe it!

And before some of you Christians out there start going haywire over what I'm suggesting here, I'd suggest you take a look at all of the cars in your church parking lots (or driveways perhaps) with all of the little fish symbols on them! Typically, inside those Christian fish emblems, you will find these 5 Greek letters: ΙΧΘΥΣ. In English, that's the word "Ichthus." In fact, here in the town where Asbury is, there is a HUGE music festival each year called "Icthus." Millions have attended over the years!

Ichthus is Greek shorthand; it is a Greek abbreviation. The Ι (iota) stands for "Jesus", which was spelled Ihsous (Ιησους) in Greek. The Χ (chi) stands for "Christos", which we have already covered here. The Th (theta) stands for "Theos" (Θεος), which means "God" in Greek. The U (upsilon) stands for "Huios" ('Υιος) which means "son" in Greek and the Σ (sigma) stands for "Soter" (Σωτερ), which means "Savior" in Greek. Put all of this Greek shorthand or abbreviation together and you have Ichthus, which means "Jesus Christ God's Son, Savior." Many times it is the very same Christians who cry foul when the abbreviation X-Mas is used, that have these abbreviated Christian symbols attached to their cars. One could, I suppose, cry foul against them saying that they are trying to write the words Jesus, Christ, God, Son and Savior out of the Christian faith because they use symbols. This could be especially true of those who have the fish symbol without the Greek letters!!! But, alas, I have said enough!

The point is, Christians who raise a stink every Advent about "taking Christ out of Christmas" are often walking contradictions; they are often practicing presentism, which is really just a form (in this case) of arrogance mixed with ignorance in a religious context. The end result, however, is that it makes us all look bad. If more Christians were aware of their history, the faith would be so much better off. Yet, instead of doing the hard work of historical research, they'd rather make a public spectacle of the faith.

I suppose that much of this is because we don't have a lot of real physical persecution in this country. So, to make themselves feel like they are sacrificing for the faith, they whine and whine about things like this so that they can feel like they are enduring persecution and that they are faithful. Really, this is nothing more than a pseudo-piety, that is, a false piety. So, with all of that in mind, I wish you all a very Merry X-mas! And I say that knowing that I'm in the good company of many of our earliest Christian writers and their documents!

Merry Χ-Mas: A Very Christian Phrase!

I'm a Christian. But I'm a Christian who, to be quite frank, is just incredibly sick and tired of a lot the public antics of other so-called Christians. Or, maybe it's just the idiocy or ignorance of them that really gets me. Either way, I just wish these folks would get their heads out of the clouds and come back to reality. I say this right now because at perhaps no other time during the year are these types of people more arrogant and ignorant than during the Christmas season. I am ashamed that people within the church, people who perceive themselves as pious and devout and knowledgeable are none of these. It just makes every Christian look bad AND stupid!

I'm thinking in particular here of the notion of "The War on Christmas". Lots of church-folk have been led to believe that saying anything but "Merry Christmas" during this season is borderline if not fully heretical. So, in what they believe to be a litmus test of faith, they will not back down; whether it is offensive or not, they will say Merry Christmas to Muslims, Jews, Atheists and anyone else they know is not a Christian. They will also go on the news and complain about cashiers or waitresses who do not use the phrase "Merry Christmas" and how it is an affront to the principles this nation was founded on. I say "Hogwash!" But the whole nation's foundations argument is something we shall save for another day. Here, I want to focus briefly on the phrase "Merry X-mas" and show why it is COMPLETELY Christian to say such a thing!

First, I just want to say a word about the idea of what social-scientists refer to as "presentism". Now, we in the West, we here in America are incredibly good at practicing presentism, even if we don't know it. Basically, presentism is the notion that what something is now is the way it has always been. This happens a whole lot on the mission field for example. Missionaries will often travel to different cultures and when they get there, they will encounter different types of lifestyles and practices. For instance, they find out that communion is being dispersed differently during worship. Instead of attempting to understand those customs for what they are, because they are different, they are seen as wrong or sometimes even sinful. So, what do the missionaries do? They say, "No! This is wrong, it needs to be done this way (= our way); this is the way it has really always been done and this is the right way." This is presentism! (I'm not talking about the Buddhist idea of presentism here!)

This same principle applies with the issue of "Merry Christmas"! When Christians hear someone say Merry X-mas, they freak out! Why? Because they believe that this is different than the way it has always been done. They believe that by saying Merry X-mas, people are trying to "take Christ out of Christmas". They believe that history is being sacrificed. They believe that faith is under attack. But...they are wrong! They are VERY wrong; they are completely misguided, in fact.

The truth is, saying "Merry X-mas" is a good thing and it is absolutely in-keeping with Christianity. Why do I say this? Well, the fact is, the "X" in "Merry X-mas" is not meant to cross-out or remove or replace Christ. Early on in Christianity, writers were using this letter as a sort of short-hand, an abbreviation, for the name of Christ. The English or Latin letter "X" actually comes from the Greek letter Chi (pronounced "key"). Chi is written as Χ (upper case) / χ (lower case). Some early Christian writers actually used two Greek letters, the first two letters of the word "Christos" (Christ or Messiah), which where Chi (X ,x) and Rho (Ρ, ρ). Now, in Greek, the letter Rho, which is "Ρ" actually looks like an English letter "p". So, the abbreviation could be ΧΡ.

So, why did the early Christians use these abbreviations? Well, in antiquity, writing materials were very expensive. Papyrus and ink were costly and used sparingly. So, to save ink, the early Christians when they were writing, would use abbreviations like Χ or ΧΡ. Papyrus (the paper-like material) was often hard to acquire. To preserve space on the papyrus, abbreviations were used. Thus, in biblical manuscripts, sometimes instead of spelling out the full word "Christos", authors would use Χ or ΧΡ. For them, then, saying Merry X-mas would not have raised one eyebrow or sparked one argument. In fact, they would likely look at modern folks getting in a hissy fit over this and shake their heads; they wouldn't be able to stomach or believe it!

And before some of you Christians out there start going haywire over what I'm suggesting here, I'd suggest you take a look at all of the cars in your church parking lots (or driveways perhaps) with all of the little fish symbols on them! Typically, inside those Christian fish emblems, you will find these 5 Greek letters: ΙΧΘΥΣ. In English, that's the word "Ichthus". In fact, here in the town where Asbury is, there is a HUGE music festival each year called "Icthus". Millions have attended over the years!

Ichthus is Greek shorthand; it is a Greek abbreviation. The Ι (iota) stands for "Jesus", which was spelled Ihsous (Ιησους) in Greek. The Χ (chi) stands for "Christos", which we have already covered here. The Th (theta) stands for "Theos" (Θεος), which means "God" in Greek. The U (upsilon) stands for "Huios" ('Υιος) which means "son" in Greek and the Σ (sigma) stands for "Soter" (Σωτερ), which means "Savior" in Greek. Put all of this Greek shorthand or abbreviation together and you have Ichthus, which means "Jesus Christ God's Son, Savior". Many times it is the very same Christians who cry foul when the abbreviation X-Mas is used, that have these abbreviated Christian symbols attached to their cars. One could, I suppose, cry foul against them saying that they are trying to write the words Jesus, Christ, God, Son and Savior out of the Christian faith because they use symbols. This could be especially true of those who have the fish symbol without the Greek letters!!! But, alas, I have said enough!

The point is, Christians who raise a stink every Advent about "taking Christ out of Christmas" are often walking contradictions; they are often practicing presentism, which is really just a form (in this case) of arrogance mixed with ignorance in a religious context. The end result, however, is that it makes us all look bad. If more Christians were aware of their history, the faith would be so much better off. Yet, instead of doing the hard work of historical research, they'd rather make a public spectacle of the faith.

I suppose that much of this is because we don't have a lot of real physical persecution in this country. So, to make themselves feel like they are sacrificing for the faith, they whine and whine about things like this so that they can feel like they are enduring persecution and that they are faithful. Really, this is nothing more than a pseudo-piety, that is, a false piety. So, with all of that in mind, I wish you all a very Merry X-mas! And I say that knowing that I'm in the good company of many of our earliest Christian writers and their documents!

Jesus' Birth In Context: 12 Posts of Christmas

Here is a compilation of pasts posts here on Pisteuomen dealling with Christmas and the birth of Jesus. Most of these are from a series titled "Jesus' Birth In Context". I have also listed some back posts from last Christmas. So, here's a list of twelve posts dealing with the birth of Jesus and the Infancy Narrative(s). Enjoy.

* God-man Talk At Christmas: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 7
* Was Mary Scandalous? Was She Raped?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 6
* The Magi: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 5
* Was Jesus' Birth Unique?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 4
* A Miraculous Conception?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 3
* Jesus & Prophecy: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 2
* Born Of A Virgin?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 1

* Jesus' Genealogy At Christmastime
* Why December 25th?

* Rethinking "The Inn": Christmas Tradition Vs. Scripture, Pt. 3
* Was Jesus Born In A Cave? Christmas Tradition Vs. Scripture, Pt. 2
* Erroneous Christmas Carols: Christmas Tradition Vs. Scripture, Pt. 1

Need Some Christmas Reading? Jesus' Birth In Context

So, I'm bringing some works out of the Pisteuomen vault. Here is a compilation of posts from last year's Christmas series on Pisteuomen titled "Jesus' Birth In Context". I have also listed some back posts from the Christmas before that. So, here's a list of twelve posts dealing with the birth of Jesus and the Infancy Narrative(s). Enjoy.

* God-man Talk At Christmas: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 7
* Was Mary Scandalous? Was She Raped?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 6
* The Magi: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 5
* Was Jesus' Birth Unique?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 4
* A Miraculous Conception?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 3
* Jesus & Prophecy: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 2
* Born Of A Virgin?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 1

* Jesus' Genealogy At Christmastime
* Why December 25th?

* Rethinking "The Inn": Christmas Tradition Vs. Scripture, Pt. 3
* Was Jesus Born In A Cave? Christmas Tradition Vs. Scripture, Pt. 2
* Erroneous Christmas Carols: Christmas Tradition Vs. Scripture, Pt. 1

Christmas Challenge To Christians On Facebook

While it might seem Scrooge-ish to say anything at all during this holiday season, I just can't help myself. You see, I am irked. I am irked because there really here hasn't been a time in the last couple of days that I've gotten on Facebook without seeing someone post a pious status update that says something like the following:

"People might want to take Christ out of Christmas but they can't take Christ out of me. If you're proud to be a Christian and are not ashamed of Christ, then post this as your status for 1 day. Most people will be too ashamed or scared to do this."

Not only is it sad that the test or standard for being a Christian to some people comes down to a "holiday facebook status update" but it is just downright absurd and shallow. I mean, if we wanted to make this the measure of faith in good conscience, then why not make every status update all year round something like this? I mean, if this is the test, the challenge, the measure, is "1 day" really good enough people?

Besides, we are no longer fighting about or for the phrase "Merry Christmas"...that's over with. NEWSFLASH: It has been over with for quite a while! Trying to act like the government or other religions or whomever, are still trying to hijack Christmas is like what the Apostle Paul referred to as a boxer punching the air: it's pointless.

Lest you need to be reminded people, the phrase "Merry Christmas" isn't in the Bible. Nope, it's not even in the King James Version!!! If you really want to glorify God this Christmas, if you really want to exalt Jesus this Christmas, then let me issue you a challenge: serve the orphans and widows! Yes, yes, yes, this is what Scripture (James 1.27) calls "true" or "pure" or "undefiled" religion! In fact, as my good friend Xavier Pacheco has pointed out, the Greek word in Jas. 1.27 for "visit" (episkepsetai / επισκεψεται) the orphans and widows, in context, can actually be linked to Lk. 1.68 where the same word is used and has the sense of "visit and bring redemption to". In other words, "pure" and "undefiled" religion, Christianity, especially at Christmastime, should be a time where believers are bringing redemption to the orphans and widows! So, go do it. Get off of your rump and go do it! It's a little tougher than updating your Facebook status but it's definitely more pleasing to God and fulfilling! Heck, you can post pictures of it on Facebook for all I care but go and serve them!

You know what this whole stupid Facebook status thing reminds me of? It reminds me of the first ever (recorded in history) Christmas card, illustrated by J. C. Horsley. In that card, as you can see in the picture, there are wealthy people, perhaps Christians, having a "merry" time in Christ's name, while they have the destitute serving them. This is the OPPOSITE of true religion! But hey, it's what it has come to for most people in America who refer to themselves as Christians.

Perhaps we should take "Merry" out of the phrase "Merry Christmas" so that Christians here can remember what it is truly about: not being "merry" but being "followers of Christ" who strive for true and pure religion. But I don't foresee that ever happening because as long as we can keep "merry" attached, then Christians can convince themselves that it's all about having a good time and making themselves happy.

So, that's my challenge for you Christians on Facebook: Strive toward true and undefiled religion!

Jesus' Birth In Context

Here is a compilation of posts from this year's Christmas series on Pisteuomen titled "Jesus' Birth In Context". I have also listed some back posts from last Christmas. So, here's a list of twelve posts dealing with the birth of Jesus and the Infancy Narrative(s). Enjoy.

* God-man Talk At Christmas: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 7
* Was Mary Scandalous? Was She Raped?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 6
* The Magi: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 5
* Was Jesus' Birth Unique?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 4
* A Miraculous Conception?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 3
* Jesus & Prophecy: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 2
* Born Of A Virgin?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 1

* Jesus' Genealogy At Christmastime
* Why December 25th?

* Rethinking "The Inn": Christmas Tradition Vs. Scripture, Pt. 3
* Was Jesus Born In A Cave? Christmas Tradition Vs. Scripture, Pt. 2
* Erroneous Christmas Carols: Christmas Tradition Vs. Scripture, Pt. 1

Why December 25th ?

A couple of years ago a number of mega-Churches decided that they would close down on Christmas Day, which fell on a Sunday. As many of you are aware, this provoked a lot of controversy. As I listened to the arguments on both sides (I also partook in them), I heard a couple of statements that sent me searching: 1) Nobody knows the exact date Jesus was born, and 2) Christmas began as a pagan holiday. What follows are my thoughts on these comments.

It is probably safe to say that when researching the history of Christmas, most people trace its origin to the early years of the fourth century CE. It was around that time that the emperor Constantine was ruling. Constantine came into power, in many ways, with ease. So easily won was the battle over an enemy, Maxentius, that everyone regarded Constantine as favored by the gods. In fact, an arch still stands in Rome today that is engraved with pictures of his enemies drowning with the inscription that notes this victory came by the “prompting of a deity”.

The deity or god that this inscription refers to is the “Unconquered Sun”. While Constantine is commonly spoken of as a Christian, it is true that he worshipped the sun god. In the late Roman Empire, Mithraism, a cult that worshipped the god of light (or the sun) began to flourish. They believed that this light would protect them from all evil. Constantine believed this too.

Prior to entering battle one afternoon, Constantine looked up at the sun. In that moment, he claimed that he saw a cross amid the sun and heard a voice which said, “by this [cross], conquer.” Constantine saw this as a sign from God. For him though, there was no differentiation between the sun god and the God of Christianity. He thought of them as one in the same. Soon after, worship and celebration of the birth of the sun god became popular. The date of the celebration? December 25th. (Others have suggested that something similar took place with Aurelian in CE 274. Whether one champions a Constantinian or Aurelian argument is moot. The argument focuses on whether or not Dec. 25th was developed by Christians before or after pagan celebrations with the same date.)

But Christianity, contrary to popular opinion, did not start celebrating the birth of Christ as a reaction to pagan festivals such as these. In my view, this is simply a widespread rumor that is incorrect. Actually, it seems to be the other way around. Pagans were concocting celebrations to combat the rapidly growing religion of Christianity. You see, in the early second century, a man by the name of Hippolytus went to great lengths in one of his commentaries (Commentary on Daniel) to defend the date of Christ’s birth (this is in the 2nd century CE!!!). What is more is that as Christians in the early second century (again, long before Constantine in the fourth century) sought to define a date for Christ’s crucifixion, in the process, some arrived at December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth. How did this happen?

Christian historian William Tighe (see more from a recent interview with him below) says that there was a common belief that existed among those of Jewish origin that can be referred to as the “integral age concept”. Simply put, this was the belief that great prophets died on the same day of the month that they were born. So, if a prophet was born on the 25th day of some month, he would also die on the 25th day of a month as well. Tighe contends that when the early Christians set the first Passover date (the tine of Jesus’ death by crucifixion / Easter), they set it at March 25th. If you add nine months to that, this is how they arrived at December 25th.

Up until three centuries ago, nobody (as far as I have found) was using the argument that the pagan celebration had come first (this is a modern argument). Tighe shows that two men, Protestant historian Paul Ernst Jablonski and Catholic monk Jean Hardouin were the first to make the “pagan origins” argument. Thus, according to Tighe’s research, of which I find very convincing, the Christmas holiday did not start as pagan or have its roots in paganism. Nor was it invented to simply combat pagan celebrations. Again, it was the pagans who wanted to combat Christianity that developed festivals promoting false worship.

Though, in the big picture, the particular day of Jesus’ birth might not change anything about our faith, it is still important to be able to discuss the matter. Further, using the arguments that the mega-Churches used a few years ago is, in my eyes, incorrect and unacceptable. But then again, that’s the reason for writing posts that deal with the issue of Christmas Traditions vs. Scripture. Lastly, here is a segment of a 2004 interview done with Tighe, some fascinating food for thought:

"Last year, Inside the Vatican magazine also supported Dec. 25, citing a report from St. John Chrysostom (patriarch of Constantinople who died in A.D. 407) that Christians had marked Dec. 25 from the early days of the church. Chrysostom had a further argument that modern scholars ignore:Luke 1 says Zechariah was performing priestly duty in the Temple when an angel told his wife Elizabeth she would bear John the Baptist. During the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, Mary learned about her conception of Jesus and visited Elizabeth "with haste."The 24 classes of Jewish priests served one week in the Temple, and Zechariah was in the eighth class. Rabbinical tradition fixed the class on duty when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and, calculating backward from that, Zechariah's class would have been serving Oct. 2-9 in 5 B.C. So Mary's conception visit six months later might have occurred the following March and Jesus' birth nine months afterward."

Christmas Tradition vs. Scripture, Pt. 3

I know that Ben Witherington has made mention of Jesus not being born in an inn and I will argue the same thing here. However, in addition to the textual evidence that exists (which Witherington picks up on), I offer much more. So, I hope you find this post helpful. May your heart and mind be blessed as you read!

In various and sundry English translations of the New Testament, we find an interesting word at the end of Luke 2.7. The verse reads: “…and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” The inn? The Greek word used here for “inn” is καταλυματι. Further on in Luke’s book, at 10.34 to be precise, in most English translations the word “inn” is used again. The NIV reads: “He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. The he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an ‘inn’ and took care of him.” Normally, we would expect that if we looked at the Greek here, we would find that previous term καταλυματι, yet, that’s not the case. The word here is πανδοχειον.

The question arises, then: Is there a difference between a καταλυματι and a πανδοχειον? Actually, yes, there is! A πανδοχειον really was an ancient inn. The lexicons define it as a place that “receives all,” that’s literally what the term means. However, καταλυματι simply means “to dissolve,” “break up” or “loosen”. Perhaps a look at one more passage in Luke’s work will shed some more light on the topic at hand. Luke 22.11 says, “…the Teacher asks: ‘Where is the ‘guest room’, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?” There term used in 22.11 for ‘guest room’ is καταλυμα. As we’ve seen, a πανδοχειον is actually an inn while a καταλυμα is the guest room of someone’s home. So, Luke reports Jesus here as going into the guest room of a house to eat The Last Supper.

It is quite interesting, then, that in both 2.7 and 22.11 the word is καταλυματι, yet the English translations render this one word differently. In my estimation we should either use the word “inn” in both places or the word “guest room” in both places. And since the word does not mean “inn” (again, Luke is perfectly fine using a different word for this term), “guest room” is our best option. I mean, it ruins The Last Supper story if we try to import πανδοχειον into it. It would read: “…The Teacher asks: ‘Where is the inn, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”

However, if we take “inn” out of 2.7 and use the original, more fitting “guest room”, the story, in context, makes a lot of sense: “and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the guest room.”

Think about this: Bethlehem wasn’t exactly a huge town. Some argue that in Jesus’ day, there were maybe 5 or 6 hundred people in the town proper; that’s not a lot. Others have been a little more generous on the numerical side suggesting that maybe 2,000 made up the town. Either way, the fact is, Bethlehem wasn’t that large of a town and so, there wasn’t much need for a hotel there. Archeology has yet to uncover any such thing either. So, we can reasonably conclude that there was not an inn there. As a kind of side note, we might also refer to the writing of the prophet Jeremiah (41.14) who says that there was an inn miles outside of Bethlehem but not in the town itself. (See also: 2nd Sam. 19.37-40). The point is, there was no inn in Bethlehem. There was a καταλυματι, however. In fact, there were probably quite a few of these—guest rooms that is!

Furthermore, when Luke talks about having the Passover meal in the guest room of a home, he of course, expects his ancient hearers to be able to relate (they would have been familiar with what a house containing a καταλυματι looked like, usually a two story house where the guest room was on the top floor). Let us consider another piece of evidence. If Joseph was going to his hometown, Bethlehem, it is practically unthinkable that in the ancient world, someone from his town would have turned him away. This would have brought shame upon that household. Even more, to turn away a pregnant woman would have been that much more shameful. Nobody would have done this, especially if, as I said, it was Joseph’s hometown. Moreover, this being Joseph’s hometown, if he had bypassed his family’s home or the homes of relatives to try to stay at an inn (with a pregnant wife), he would have been looked upon with shame by his family. Joseph would not have done this!

So, the evidence (textual, contextual and archeological) suggests that when Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem for the census, it was the “guest room” of his family’s home that had no room—this probably because everyone else had traveled there to register too. Since the guest room was full, Joseph and Mary would have slept downstairs in what we might consider a living room. This comports really well with how the birth narrative plays out. In Matthew 5.15, we read, “…if you put a lamp on a stand it gives light to all who are in the house.” This gives us a good image of what the downstairs portion of the ancient home was set up like. The living room was one big, open room and it was often separated from the kitchen / cooking portion of the home by a step (that is, the living room was a bit lower than the cooking room.

Here’s something else to consider: the animals often stayed in the living room portion of the home. Troughs and mangers were built into the floor. Often times these mangers also acted as partitions between rooms. In antiquity people brought their animals in at night so they wouldn’t get stolen. Just as well, in Jesus’ culture to leave animals in the house during the day was unacceptable, so, they brought them back outside in the morning (by the way, this is how Jesus knows that the donkeys will be outside and can thus, tell His disciples to go and get them - Lk. 19.30). In the winter, this was actually quite helpful for heating the house as the larger animals put off much heat. So, in all likelihood, this bottom room of Joseph’s family’s home is where Jesus was laid in a manger (a manger which was readily available).

Thus, there was no inn at Bethlehem that Jesus was turned away from. Instead, there was not space in the guest room of the family’s home. This tells us that there were other family members there already, most likely, including other women. It is speculation but given the cultural norms, these women probably helped Mary birth Jesus. One last piece of evidence is in order. When you read on in Luke’s narrative, at 2.21-22 he writes this: “On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise Him, He was named Jesus, the name the angel had given Him before He had been conceived. When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord.” Now, this is based off of Leviticus 12.2-4 which says that after giving birth, a woman could not go to the temple for 33 days—this was to ensure her cleanliness and purity. If you add 8 days to 33, you get 41. 41 days is a lot of time, about a month and a half. Joseph and Mary, then, were planning to stay a long time, not just a few days. Thus, it seems that they would have not tried staying in a hotel (think of the cost!) but with family who lived in that town. Besides, in that culture, this would have only been expected.

Hope this sheds some light on the subject for you!

Christmas Tradition Vs. Scripture, Pt. 2

My conviction is that in a skeptical world, Christians need to do their homework, know their facts and have their story straight! This is especially true when it comes to Scripture. All believers should be studied up! It is incredibly important to me that when we speak about the Bible or related subjects, we speak as honestly and accurately as possible. For some reason, though, every year when Christmas rolls around, many believers seem to throw these principles out the window; even if only in the name of embracing Christmas traditions. In fact, being a minister, I've noticed that the Christmas story has become so commonplace and domesticated that when one tries to say something fresh about it, even if from an exegetical standpoint, people's feathers get ruffled.

However, ruffling some feathers in the name of truth is fine with me; passing on corrupted stories is not. Take for instance, the claim that so many commentators and preachers have made through the ages, that Jesus was born in a cave. Well, if we do our homework, we find out that this idea began about 90 years after Jesus' death. It can be found first in an early work titled the Protoevangelium of James, which ultimately, was a document voted down by the Early Church. Then, forty or fifty years later, a guy by the name of Justin comes along and what does he do? Of course, he writes the same thing! From there, the idea is passed on to Origen and can later be found in a book titled The Armenian Infancy Gospel.

In my research, then, I realized that in what seemed like no time, this idea of Jesus' birth in a cave moved from the second to the fourth century AD. It was in the fourth century that the emperor Constantine built a Church house over a selected cave, a cave he believed these "legends" attested to (and as we who are churchgoers know, once something is built, Christians immediately grow attached to it and never want to let go of it). Anyways, St. Jerome, a Latin speaking man, actually spent thirty years in part of this cave translating the Bible (see how it was becoming a fixture!) and in the sixth century, Justinian remodeled the cave and fixed it up rather nicely (can you say "tourist attraction"? this is done with much of what is uncovered in the Bible lands; if you've ever been, you know exactly what I'm talking about; in fact, the "cave" is still a tourist attraction). Years later, though, in the tenth century, the passing-it-on game continued and a guy by the name of Hrotswith of Gandersleim handed off the "birth cave" baton. A number of years later, Philip the Carthusian used this story and in the 1900's, Werner the Swiss did the same thing. And as you may be well aware of, sadly, there are many preachers today who are still saying this.

What we see happening here is simply the handing down of faulty information. Hopefully, you find this as problematic as I do. I think we must strive to remedy such problems. The world doubts Christians and their story enough, not having our facts straight only makes it worse. We must share our story carefully, accurately and truthfully.

So, if not in a cave, where was Jesus born? Well, that will be answered in my next post in this series! In the meantime, may you strive to get the story straight and not fall into the pit of placing Christmas traditions over Scriptural truths.

Christmas Tradition Vs. Scripture: Pt. 1

There are a few things I love about the Christmas season and then there are some things that just straight up bother me. One thing that really irks me is when Christmas tradition replaces Scriptural truth and teachings. So, I am going to do a short series of posts this month exploring areas where I see Christmas tradition encroaching on or even overriding Scripture. It is my conviction that in a world where Christianity often has little credibility, is viewed with great skepticism and is often asked questions of, as believers, we "must" have our facts and our story straight. We must be honest and knowledgeable about our faith and its narrative. That said, the current post will focus on a few select Christmas carols.

1. We Three Kings of Orient Are - Okay, even the title of this song is off. Firstly, the Scriptures never say that kings brought gifts to Jesus. What the Scriptures do teach, however, is that magi came bearing gifts. If one does their homework, they will find out that magi (magoi) were astronmers of antiquity (and usually not looked upon very favorably; I will say more about the magi in a forthcoming post). Secondly, though magi is in the plural in the Scriptures, it never says how many of them there were. It is simply tradition that there were three because there were three gifts. For all we know, there could have been two or ten.

2. Silent Night - My biggest problem with this song is that it doesn't fit contextually. When you read the Scriptures you get the idea that the night Jesus was born, the world was everything but silent and calm. Indeed, Jesus' parents can't find a place to stay, angels are coming to Joseph in dreams, angels are singing aloud before shepherds, the empire is broiling, etc.

3. The First Noel - One of my problems with this tune is that it refers to the magi as "wise men", a nomenclature assigned to them much later, around the 8th century AD. The text never portrays them as wise men or kings but as magi (astronomers). Again, I believe that as Christians we need to get the details right.

I'm sure that there are more examples I could give but at present, I cannot think of any others. When I come across these songs or I am in a group that is singing them, I do one of two things: 1. I either do not sing, or 2. I consciously change the lyrics. Personally, I see no point in teaching the story incorrectly through sermon or song!