God-Man Talk At Christmas: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 7 (A Repost)

During Christmastime, in the Christian tradition, we hear over and over that Jesus is God made flesh. To put it differently, Jesus is the "God-man". The traditional teaching in Christianity is that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, she miraculously conceived a child as a virgin and gave birth to Him. Thus, He was "God's Son" or "The Son of God". In the opening verses of Mark's Gospel, the nomenclature is used: Jesus the Messiah, "Son of God" (Grk: υιος θεος). It also appears in Mk. 5 (Gerasene Demoniac story) and Mk. 15 (story of the Roman Soldier at the cross).

Interestingly, this title is not unique to Christendom and it is certainly not unique to Jesus. Nearly 50 years before Jesus stepped on the scene, Octavian was already referring to himself as the divi filius (the Latin of υιος θεος). For the 30 years prior to Jesus' birth Augustus was also being called this. During the rule of Tiberius, we know that his ruling son, Germanicus, also referred to himself (and had others refer to him) this way too. Elsewhere in Greek writings, we find that followers of Asklepius, Dionysius and Zeus, among other so-called deities, were referred to as the "sons" of that god.

In Jewish literature we find "son of God" language in Dan. 7 and Psa. 110. A. Y. Collins has also written an article that shows where this phrase can be found in Dead Sea Scroll literature. Among Hebrew persons, this phrase seems to have been a reference to a coming Messiah. The fact is, in scores of documents and inscriptions, all dated before Jesus, this label is used. It is found in both the biblical texts and in extra-biblical texts; it is found in Jewish lit. and Graeco-Roman lit. as well.

So, what do we make of this? How might it affect the language we use at Christmas? To answer the first question, I would suggest, along with A. Deissmann, that even if the "Son of God" characterization originated in Hebrew circles, by the time it came to be applied to Jesus, that is, in a predominantly Graeco-Roman society and culture, Gentiles were hearing and understanding it in a bit of a different light than their Jewish counterparts (and vice versa). Not only was this a "messianic" reference, it was also a socio-politically subversive title (e.g. there is a new King / Ruler on the empirical playing field now!). Moving on to answer the second question: What this means for us at Christmastime is that while this title is not unique to Jesus, it still has significant meaning. Probably, it is not a title that refers specifically to the "virginal conception / birth" but rather, to Jesus as the coming Messiah, again, the "new" Ruler. In other words, at Christmastime, during Advent, when we use the phrase "Son of God" it is probably more correct for us to use it in terms of focusing on the "coming" or "arrival" of the Messiah and not necesarrily on the notion that He was "virgin born". It would have resounded in the ears of the first believers as a type of subversive political mantra too: You don't have to submit to evil authorities, follow Me, I am your King.

All I am suggesting here is that when we use the title applied to Jesus by the first Christians, we use it to reflect on Jesus' advent, not necesarrily the way that advent happened. I realize it may seem like I'm splitting hairs here because reflecting on His advent leads to reflecting on His conception. However, many times the great theological truth of His arrival or coming simply gets overshadowed by how it happened. So, I am simply contending that this holiday season, we focus not only on the "how" but also, and maybe even moreso, on the "why" and "who" of Christmas. I am also suggesting that we do some socio-religio-political reflection; let us consider how Jesus affects and penetrates all of these spheres of our lives today. Also, think about how being a Christian during this season may cause you to be subversive to all sorts of evil and oppressive "empires"...even your own! But most of all, make sure you give Jesus the praise and honor that is due to Him, the Son of God, the Messiah, our King. Merry Christmas!!!

Was Mary Scandalous? Was She Raped?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 6 (A Repost)

What better time than Christmas to resurrect old arguments about the birth of Jesus, right? Let's take, for example, the dated notion that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was raped by a Roman soldier named Panthera. This, actually, is a viewpoint that the modern filmmaker (and member of theJesus Seminar), Paul Verhoeven, is attempting to make in a movie and write a book about. The title of the book is Jesus Of Nazareth: A Realistic Portrait. But is the notion that Mary was raped, actually realistic? Or better yet, is this an argument we can place any stock in? Not so much because it troubles me theologically but because I can find no good evidence that would cause me to subscribe it, leads me to say "No" to both answers. More on this in a moment!

Let me digress a little bit here and ask another question, one that has also been around a while but also seems to get brought up at Christmastime: Did God rape Mary? Was the miraculous conception an act of interpersonal violence? Did God force Himself on the young Jewish girl? Is God some type of serial rapist? Could this story only work in a culture where patriarchy silenced women and left them with no voice? Well, let's start with the last question, to which I would answer "No". For one, this story has persisted through the ages. For two, women were not totally silenced (even when raped) in antiquity, as the OT story of Tamar attests. Further, the society (dominated by males) actually developed laws to protect women from rape and to punish men who carried out such acts. See Ex. 22.15-6 and Dt. 22.25-9. On a side note, the OT is replete with links to rape (Gen 20, 26, 34; Ex. 22.15-6; Dt. 22.25-9; 1 Kgs. 1, Jer. 20.7, Ezk. 16, 23; Jdg. 19-21; 2 Sam. 13, etc.). Even Tamar, who was raped, is mentioned in Jesus' lineage. Realizing that women had a "right" to say "no", when we read birth narratives about Jesus, we actually find Mary saying "yes" (e.g. "I am your bondservant..."). She is choosing to proceed with the event.

I wish I could go more into this (and perhaps I will at a later time) but from a narrative point-of-view, Mary is not raped by God. As odd as it seems to say it, the act appears "consensual". So, did they have sex? Was there some kind of "divine hookup"? Well, not really. The Gospels say (and Christian tradition affirms) that it was through the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary that she became pregnant. In Christian theology, the belief is that the Holy Spirit never forces Himself upon persons but that only enters their life upon invitation. Clearly, the Gospel story / stories depict Mary as inviting God to work in her life. So, did God rape Mary? If we take the point-of-view of the Gospels--written by males in a patriarchal culture, who, if they had wanted to show "male dominance" could have easily made it seem like "divine rape"--we can say "No".

Now, back to the Roman soldier named Panthera. Where did this story even come from? Well as best as I can tell, it pops up in a 2nd-century document written by the Christian philosopher named Origen (who, perhaps, recieved it from Ambrosius). In a work he titled Against Celsus, he notes that another philosopher, named Celcus, was promoting this idea. Now, I have included all of chapter 32 of Against Celsus below so that you can read it for yourself. But if you read it, and do that in context, you will see that Origen is not all that concerned with defending a theology of a virginal conception or birth. Instead, what he is concerned with doing--and this fact bears out through the entirety of the work--is to argue, against Celsus, that Christians aren't simplistic thinkers (or stupid). To be able to do this, oddly, Origen feels like he has to prove that Jesus was not born from an ignorant Roman soldier but that His birth was legitimate. As Origen says at the end of chapter 32: "It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say all), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities." For Origen, it is important that Jesus be "superior" and have "excellent" qualities. In other words, to prove that Christians are great thinkers, Origen felt like he had to show first that Jesus was great. This is an odd approach to say the least.

Before leaving Origen, I should also point out that elsewhere, Origen is not hesitant to tie the incarnation of Jesus to the Pax Romana (Roman Peace). Origen thought Jesus' incarnation was God's way of proving that the Pax Romana was the way to establish world peace. The Graeco-Roman guild of NT scholarship argues the opposite of this view across the board; indeed, Origen would not find welcome in those circles today!

What I find most interesting about Origen's work is that it is not a defense of the virginal conception, in the main. In fact, he does not seem all that concerned with the theological concept. Of course, neither do any of the apostle Paul's writings point to the virgin birth (some have argued that Gal. does), nor do any of the other NT documents. Only Matthew and Luke mention it directly (though the saying in Mk. may be another allusion). There is little even in the NT dealing with this matter. Though Paul's letters were highly occasional, one wonders why he never drew any theological concepts from the conception if it were so significant? What about the other writers?

While there is little said about the virginal conception, it goes without saying that the Gospel writers aim to be clear on the matter: Mary was not raped and she was not the victim of scandal, neither was she scandalous herself. What took place was an act between Mary and God. If a rape consists of violating personal consent, taking advantage of a vulnerable person, misusing power and authority (as happens with so many ministers today!!!), then the Gospel story cannot be found guilty and as such, neither can God. Just as well, Mary is presumed innocent (as the Early Church's end-view attests to).

Origen, Against Celsus (chp. 32)

But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera; and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions. Is it at all agreeable to reason, that he who dared to do so much for the human race, in order that, as far as in him lay, all the Greeks and Barbarians, who were looking for divine condemnation, might depart from evil, and regulate their entire conduct in a manner pleasing to the Creator of the world, should not have had a miraculous birth, but one the vilest and most disgraceful of all? And I will ask of them as Greeks, and particularly of Celsus, who either holds or not the sentiments of Plato, and at any rate quotes them, whether He who sends souls down into the bodies of men, degraded Him who was to dare such mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and to reform so many from the mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more disgraceful than any other, and did not rather introduce Him into the world through a lawful marriage? Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions? It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say all), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.

The Magi: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 5 (A Repost)

Throughout Christian history, the magi (Grk: μαγοι) have become a central part in Jesus' birth narrative. Yet, there are some good reasons for us to step back, survey their roles in the story, and ask some new questions. We shall start with questions that challenge some of our presuppositions: Why have they been referred historically to as "kings"? Why have people suggested that they are "wise"? What makes us think that they were "men"? Why do we only include three in the episode? How do we know they traveled by camel? Is there any reason for us to believe that they were wealthy? Why do we assume that they were intelligent stargazers and that they could read the heavens? Is there evidence to suggest that they were from Babylon or Persia? Why do they give the gifts they do?

Now, answering all of these questions could lead to the writing of a book. But, I want to ponder them, so, I'll have to do so in a more brief manner than a tome. So, let me just explore the above questions one-by-one.

1. Why have they been referred historically to as "kings"? The proper answer to this, I think, is that to be seen as "fulfilling" OT texts like Isaiah, they must be viewed as kings. Isaiah says that kings will worship the Messiah. So, to "fulfill" predictions, people have connected the μαγοι with kings (even their gifts correlate with those mentioned in Isa.). But the truth is, every piece of ancient literature that we have never suggests that magoi were kings. Instead, all of the extant literature contends that they were indeed, servants to kings. (In the 2nd century, however, we do have a Christian writer who links them to kings, though he doesn't say they themselves are kings, he merely links them to them). When we read Matthew's account of the birth narrative we see this too. The μαγοι visit a king, take orders from him and proceed to find Jesus. Never are they depicted as the kings. What has happened then is that through prooftexting and making false scriptural connections (in hopes of prediction/fulillment) we have flipped Matthew's writing on its head: these μαγοι are not to be presented as kings but as servants to kings.

2. Why have people suggested that they are "wise"? The easy answer is that they were interpreted as stargazers, readers of the heavens. Yet, in antiquity, stargazers were looked on with suspicion and ridicule. Their jobs were seen as absurd; they were learned in nonsense. Mark Alan Powell has shown numerous examples of this. He contends that the "star" they were supposedly following is nothing complicated but rather, it was simple, right in front of them; anyone could have followed it. Notice that when they get to Jerusalem the first thing these guys do is ask "where is the one born king of the Jews?" Ever noticed that they came from the East only to ask a question? Ever noticed that they traveled to Jerusalem unsure of where they were going? Wise? Not so much. Ever noticed that had the angel not appeared to them, they probably would have gone back to Herod? The fact is, stargazers in antiquity were viewed as the opposite of wise: they were fools. Notice in Matthew that it is the "foolish" whom God chooses to reveal things to, not the "wise". So, we should see these μαγοι in their proper ancient social contexts as fools.

3. What makes us think that they were only "men"? Well, this is probably due to the fact that in antiquity, men were viewed as workers and travelers while women stayed at home. But the fact is, the text never suggests that they were only men. I must admit, however, that I have not read any ancient passages that depict them as women. Still, this should give us pause when we think about how to identify them.

4. Why do we only include three in the episode? The most likely answer to this is that there are "three" gifts that are given (gold, frankincense and myrrh). Yet, we can't say with confidence that one person gave all three gifts or that ten did, maybe even twenty, let alone three. It is reading way too much into the story that has led us to both identify the μαγοι as kings, wise, male and numbering three.

5. How do we know they traveled by camel? We don't! They could have traveled by boat (depending on where they were coming from; it could have been included part of their journey!), by foot, by donkey, etc. We have no clue. It is the late reworking of the nativity story that has led us to presuppose that camels were in the mix.

6. Is there any reason for us to believe that they were wealthy? No. Indeed, they gave great gifts but we don't know how much they gave. It could have been a small pouch full or an abundance. They could have brought the gifts from home or bought them on the way there. They could have sold their own goods to get the gits, they could have traded for them, purchased them or already owned them and just gave them up. We have no hard evidence to be in a position to say a lot about their social status. But the fact is, if μαγοι were typically despised and if they were generally servants, they probably weren't wealthy.

7. Why do we assume that they were intelligent stargazers and that they could read the heavens? The obvious answer is: They followed the star from wherever they were coming. But does Matthew seem to suggest that anyone could have followed this star? Or what if we consider the ancient view that stars were also considered celestial beings? Could they have been following an angel (of the Lord) then? Would this comport with other dreams, visions and appearances where angels are involved? Question #7 also relates to the next question.

8. Is there evidence to suggest that they were from Babylon or Persia? The phrase "from the east" (Grk: ανατολη) has led people to believe that they came from areas where astrology was popular in antiquity. This may well be the case but we just don't know. Perhaps they had only traveled twenty or fifty miles instead of coming from Babylon or Persia. If we are going to glean anything from "East" we have to presuppose and imply a lot. One may be able to offer a possible reconstruction as has been done in the past (e.g. astrologers lived in Babylon, traveled to Jerusalem following solar guides, etc.). But the truth is, it seems that Matthew wants to suggest that it is God who does the guiding in the story. Would reading the heavens suggest that it wasn't God who was leading them?

9. Why do they give the gifts they do? It would seem to me that the gold, frankincense and myrrh are gifts, as the song says, are fit for a king. But is there more going on here than just that? I could be terribly wrong here but it seems so. If gold is fit for a king, fankincense for a prophet, and anointing oil (myrhh) for one who is facing death, the point could be: This baby is a king/prophet who has been born to die. Or, we could simply argue that all three gifts are worthy of a king. Bearing this in mind, we see something interesting, something ironic going on here: In Matthew's story, it is not the actual kings that worship Jesus (indeed, Herod wants Jesus dead) but rather, servants of kings. Indeed, scripture is not "fulfilled" but inversed, flipped on its head. Matthew is using irony. It is not kings who come to Jesus (though kings should) but rather, servants of kings, foolish servants at that!

What does all of this mean for the Christmas story as we tell it today? Well it means that we should try to keep it in context so that we can get across what was really trying to be said and what was really trying to be focused on: That Jesus is the King of kings! Further, Jesus is a King of fools, a King whose servants are not wise by worldly standards but yet are privvy to the ways and voice of God. We should not try to read too much into this story so that the heart of it gets over-sentimentalized and lost. We must strive to retain the core of the story that focuses on Jesus' kingship and the fact that we are to be servants, even foolish servants for Him. During this Advent, I can hardly think of a greater truth!

Was Jesus' Birth Unique?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 4 (A Repost)

In my previous post on this series (A Miraculous Conception?), I raised a number of questions that Christians must ask and attempt to answer when thinking about Jesus' birth in its ancient context. I also showed a number of ancient accounts of the births of prominent persons in antiquity. Those narratives had many elements in them that were similar to the story of Jesus' birth (dreams, visions, natural phenomena [stars, etc.], deities impregnating women, persons called 'son of god', etc.). *Note: If you have not read that post, please click the above link and do so, it will really, really help you draw out a fuller meaning from this post.

So, I should remind us here that in Jesus' day (both before, concurrent with, and after His time on earth), there were birth narratives of others that were considered "miraculous". Historically, we are not in a position to really ask whether any of these things "really" happened. Nobody in antiquity probably would have asked that question or one similar to it, so, maybe we shouldn't focus on it either. They knew that the "signs" or "miracles" in the stories were at the very least, narrative markers, meant to point to things beyond the supposed event itself. All of this should lead us to ponder whether or not and how or how not, Jesus' birth might be considered unique. This question, in my view, takes us beyond debating whether or not Jesus was born (let's just say, for the sake of argument, that He was and so were the others...e.g. Plato, Augustus, etc.) and gets us talking about what the first Christians understood His birth to be about and to mean!

In other words, I am asking here: If we move beyond the issues of historicity to theology, what, to the first Christians, was theologically significant about Jesus' birth? What were they attempting to say by mentioning the traveling star, the magi, the singing angels, the attendant shepherds, etc.? And I would want to ask another question here too: If Jesus was still conceived of a virgin but the Gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke were embellished (perhaps, like the accounts of Plato, Heracles, Alexander the Great, etc.), does this affect your view of the importance of Jesus' birth at all? Also, just how central is a "virgin conception" to having a healthy Christian theology? Though Paul's (and other NT letter writers') correspondences were / are highly audience-contextualized, comprising 2/3 of the NT, why do they never ever mention this birth at any length? It seems to me that if it were so central they could have surely drew some theo-ethical principles from it. But perhaps there are contextual reasons for that.

I want to do two things at this point: 1) share a very short personal story, and 2) point you to a modern storybook. The personal story comes from an encounter with the book I'm going to mention in a moment. I stumbled across this book last Christmas and after reading it was floored. For the last year, I have thought repeatedly about this text and what it might suggest about Jesus' birth narrative. Now, the text I'm referring to is a children's book by Nancy Tillman titled On the Night You Were Born.

Last year, during Christmas, I found myself reading this book to my daughter, who had just been born a few months earlier. As I read it to her, there arose a tension inside of me. On the one hand, I felt like I was lying but on the other hand, I felt like I was conveying to my daughter, with broken language and images, just how wonderful I thought she was. If you do not own this book, order or buy it. If you do own it, read it again. Either way, I want to supply you with some of the text here. And as you read this, please, put yourself in my shoes and imagine reading this to your newly born child:

"On the night you were born, the moon smiled with such wonder that hte stars peeked up to see you and the night whispered, 'Life will never be the same.' Because there had never been anyone like you...ever in the world. So enchanted with you were the wind and the rain that they whispered the sound of your wonderful name. The sound of your name is a magical one, let's say it before we go on (you are the one and only ever you). It sailed through the farmland high on the breeze (Who in the world is exactly like you, who, who, who), over the ocean (you are a miracle), and through the trees until everyone heard it and everyone knew of the one and only ever you. Not once had there been such eyes, such a nose, such silly, wiggly, wonderful toes...When the polar bears heard they danced until dawn. From faraway places the geese flew home. The moon stayed up until the morning the next day and none of the ladybugs flew away..."

Now, there's more to this great story but I will not reproduce it here (again, go buy it!!!). If you were sitting next to me while I was reading that to my daughter, what would you think, do or say? Would you call me a liar? Would you think less of me? Would you say I was ridiculous? Probably not! Why? Because you know that the story is not meant to have every single detail read wooden literally!!! Because your know that nature and animals do not actually react like that when a child is born. But because the birth of a child is so special, you know that using these images and metaphors to express it is not wrong! It is merely one way to convey to your child that they are of the utmost significance. This type of poetic licensing isn't a problem and it isn't "untrue". It is simply one way to talk about a great moment in time or the wonderful experience of childbirth.

In light of the fact that scores of ancient birth accounts from antiquity exist, accounts full of natural phenomena, miracles, grand imagery, etc., I don't think we have to debate over whether Jesus was born or whether or not certain events transpired "wooden literally" as they are spoken of. In fact, I wonder if we could read an account like Luke's, in a fashion similar to the way we read Tillman's book? The truth is, Jesus' birth account isn't all that unique; indeed, the Gospel writers' accounts are strikingly similar to those I mentioned above and in the previous post of this series. The other truth is, the Gospel writers (Matt and Luke) did think Jesus' birth had something unique about it. That's what we should focus on!!!

So, what did they think was so unique? It might well be the case that when it comes to Jesus' birth, we can't quite say. It seems to me that the point of the birth accounts are there mainly to, at the very least, put Jesus on par with, in the category of, or to surpass the births of other prominent people. In other words, all they are meant to do, from a literary standpoint, is to make it clear that Jesus is signficant, important and unique. Yet, where the significance comes to the fore and where it is found to be unique is not in the birth but rather, in the resurrection and ascension. Perhaps this is why the first Christians didn't really focus on Jesus' birth like we do during Christmastime or Advent but rather, on Him being buried, raised and ascended! To be sure, those are the things that, in the eyes of the Early Church, made Jesus unique. And those are the things that make Him unique still today!

Other Posts (to date) In This Series:
* 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 & Prophecy: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 2 (A Repost)

A few years ago, I attended one of Ron Luce's "Acquire The Fire" events and quite enjoyed myself. I was a youth minister at the time and had taken my students to the event mainly because the renowned apologist, Josh McDowell, was speaking. Prior to attending, I had read through and referenced a variety of McDowell's books. I admired what he was doing; he helped me through some tough, searching and trying times. At the conference, he came out and just blew everybody away with this bit he did on biblical prophecy. He claimed that there were hundreds of thousands of OT prophecies that had "come true" in the NT. He even showed this great little video that argued that the statistical analysis of the number of fulfilled OT prophecies should leave nobody with any doubts about the veracity of the Bible.

I got into this for a while, I must admit. But there came a point in time when, through a different, more critical approach to the biblical texts, I began to realize Mr. McDowell's approach was erroneous. Indeed, the cherished "messianic prophecies" view that I once clung to, now had to be relinquished or better yet, remodified. This was scary on the one hand but freeing on the other. What was freeing about it was that now I could read the Bible without attempting to force interpretations out of it and with more ability to be able to encounter it on its own terms. I know why so many evangelical Christians are so reluctant to let their cherished views be dropped and/or modified: they feel like a turncoat or they realize they were wrong and/or they sometimes feel threatened or embarrassed by it all.

I say all of that to say that when I read the Scriptures today, particularly things like NT passages where authors say "it was fulfilled", I no longer understand that the way that I used to. You see, before reading contextually, I was coming to verses like Mt. 1.22: "And this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet" and reading that quite wooden-literally. In the comments section of a previous post (HERE), someone asked me how I could see such a verse as not being "messianic prophecy". Well, there are a few things that contribute to my view:

1. As I have written about before, persons in antiquity did not think of time like we do today. For starters, they thought in more of a circular fashion and not such a linear (timeline) way. Just as well, as persons in an agrarian civilization, they had little time to be preoccupied with the future. For them, the emphasis (as the Lord's Prayer suggests) was on "this day". While looking ahead was not totally out of question or view, looking further than the next season or two was a rare thing. So, understanding how the ancients thought about and lived in light of "time", really forced me to reconsider some of my views.

2. In addition to understanding time differently, I also had to understand things in their proper contexts. For example, when I read in Isa. 7, as I pointed out HERE, I must read in light of the context of Ahaz's socio-political situations. Then, when I read of something similar in Mt., I must also read in light of his socio-political situations too. Even more importantly, I must consider how Isa. 7-9 influences Mt. 1-4. As I have shown, the issue of "naming" there is incredibly important. Thus, we begin to see that there is a reinterpretation and reuse of situations going on in Mt. This leads directly into my next point.

3. I realized that if I have to try to see things from an ancient, agrarian point-of-view, a non-linear view, I must relinquish my "linear" view of prophecy and fulfillment. Indeed, I would now suggest that thinking in those modes or categories is not all that helpful, in fact, it is quite distracting.

4. If I'm not thinking in terms of prophecy / fulfillment, then I must think in terms of reuse / re-application or re-implication. The truth seems to be that the NT writers often found similar situations to theirs in OT texts and then reused them. Paul's use of the muzzled ox in Lev. for instance, originally had nothing to do with paying missionaries. However, in Corinthians, Paul draws that analogy through creative interpretation. There is no fulfillment there, yet, there is reuse.

5. The Greek word for "fulfilled" is πληροω (pleroo). It has multiple meanings: to make full, to fill fuller, to be filled, to complete, etc. Now, when Mt. says in 1.23 (and this goes for those other places he says it too!), that the "prophet said...and it was fulfilled", what he's really saying is: "the prophet said ____ in his context and now, in my context, I'm reusing it, attaching new implications and applications to it, and thereby imbuing my current situation with a fuller meaning." There is no sensus plenoir reading or interpreting going on here! Matthew is simply filling out the meaning of his present context more than he already had, by injecting it with more meaning. The example of Civil Rights leaders quoting Scripture at rallys is something very similar. By invoking the Bible, they were filling the present situation even more full with meaning...namely, social and spiritual meaning!

6. It has taken me some time to own up to it, but at this point, as an honest interpreter, I must acknowledge that there were predictive items in the Bible that never came to pass (see Goldingay's commentary, which Greg Boyd recently mentioned and ingeniously expounded on HERE) and that sometimes, the prophets themselves disagreed (which I have written about HERE).

So, what does all of this have to do with the context of Jesus' birth? Well, a lot, really. It has a lot to do with it because in places like Mt. 1.22, we are now able to see what Matthew was actually doing (and what some have suggested he was doing, but wasn't). Matthew wasn't suggesting that "messianic prophecy," in the strict sense of the term, was being fulfilled! (And by the way, it is high time for Christians to stop making people-groups like Jews feel stupid because they don't believe in messianic prophecy! Why should they when that's not what the NT writers believed either!?) What he was suggesting, however, was that the contexts and situations surrounding Jesus' birth can be imbued with more ethical, social and spiritual meaning when some imagery and language from Isaiah's text is borrowed. You can read about that in the previous post, or HERE.

So, when it comes to Jesus and prophecy in light of the infancy narratives, let us read the texts anew and with more clarity. Indeed, let us be "filled" with more meaning than we have ever been filled with and let us see things we have never seen before. If that is accomplished, then this nativity story is truly one that can be life-changing and prophetic! More on Jesus' birth in context to come, stay tuned!!!

Born Of A Virgin?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 1 (A Repost)

On the heels of a brief discussion that previous post brought up, namely, controversies surrounding the birth of Jesus, I thought I'd start a brief series during Advent that explored, in context, that very subject. Since I was asked to decipher some of the language pertaining to the nativity story, particularly that of the "virginal" conception / birth, I am going to start there. I should say here that I am very excited about this series and that I have already made a lot of headway on it. I hope some of the posts provoke good discussion (and, perhaps, debate).

So, here, I want to start by addressing the use of Isa. 7.14 in Mt. 1.23. No doubt, scores of scholars have spent much time on this very issue throughout history. The majority of the conversation has focused on whether or not the Hebrew term 'almah, found in Isaiah, rendered "parthenos" in the Greek LXX (Septuagint, that is, the first Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) and subsequently in Mt., mean "virgin" or not? Not to burst anyone's evangelical bubble, but the truth is, the term 'almah, has a wide range of meanings. For example, the term is used in the OT many times in reference to music! It can also mean "to conceal". Just as well, it can be used in a masculine sense, as it was of King David and Jonathon, and thus, have no sexual connotations attached to it whatsoever. In Isa. 54, it used to speak of widows who are barren. Thus, even the Isaianic author(s) can use it differently.

What, then, are we to make of its use in Isa. 7? Well, as I have already said, it does not have to be translated as "virgin"; even extra-biblical resources prove this to be the case. However, it can be translated that way, as many OT examples prove (if you want all of these Scripture references just ask for them and I will provide them, otherwise, I'm not going to cite a verse here every time I mention something; that gets tedious.) I should also say that there are other terms denoting virgin too! Thus, Isa. could have readily used different, and less ambiguous words.

As most (sadly, not all) Isaianic scholars have noted, the socio-political context of Isa. 7 is important to consider when reading and interpreting it. In short, the social circumstances are that Syria is about to wage war on God's people, of whom Ahaz is king. The prophet Isaiah is sent to Ahaz to tell him that if he trusts in God, there will be no reason to worry, however, he should not trust in Assyria as an ally (thereby, eschewing God). He even tells Ahaz to ask for a sign (though Ahaz is reluctant). Isaiah suggests that a woman, known both to himself and Ahaz, will bear a "sign" (Hebrew "ot"). Isaiah says, in the verse in question (7.14): "The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, an 'almah will conceive and bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel."

So, should the term 'almah be translated there as "virgin" or "young woman"? Well, let me posit that, at this point, that's not the right question to ask or to focus on. What is important, however, is the "sign". What is the sign? Is it something natural or super-natural? Does it have to be one or the other? Well, the text doesn't suggest that it has to be one or the other, so, it could be either. In my view, the sign, according to the verse (and context) is the "naming" of the child. Of course, in OT times, names were often very important. Indeed, in Isa. 7-9, we notice that 3 children are named and that each of those children have names that reflect the socio-political climate of the time.

Now, if you read Mt. 1-4 (NOT JUST MT. 1.23!!!), you will notice that Isa. 7-9 is cited twice. The point is: Mt. is not simply citing Isa. 7.14 as a lone verse, no, what he is doing is importing the entire conext of Isa. 7-9 into Mt. 1-4. In other words, Mt. is not suggesting that something akin to a "messianic prophecy" is being fulfilled. Instead, what Mt. is doing is comparing his current socio-political situation with that of Isaiah and Ahaz's. To put it more succinctly: Just as the 3 children and their names are of paramount importance in Isa. 7-9, reflecting their current socio-political climaxes and what will become of them, the same is true of Jesus, who will be "called" Immanuel.

In Isa., the name Immanuel was representative of a child that would be born at a time concurrent with the overthrow of Ahaz's enemies. In short, the current political regime was to fall. In Mt., the same thing is being suggested. But here's another link: Just as in Isa., where if God is rejected, there will be judgment, the same is true in Mt. It's up to Matthew's hearer's to figure out which side they are on (e.g. the judgment side or the deliverance side). Thus, the opposite of "God with us" must be "God not with us" or "God against us". Taking all of this into consideration, it seems clear to me that the most important reason for Matthew to draw on Isaiah was to make a connection between how the "names" were representative of the current socio-political contexts. And for both Isaiah and Matthew, it appears that they believed God was very involved in those contexts!!!

In my view, this type of contextual reading does a few things: 1) It properly orients us as to Matthew's reasons for using Isaiah, 2) It shows the similarities between the socio-political contexts, which readily allowed Mt. to draw on Isa. (because there were so many similarities), 3) It moves the discussion away from debates over 'almah and parthenos (among other terms), 4) It reminds us that there is an immediate context in both stories and that this is not "messianic prophesy", and 5) That God, in a major way, is involved in the situations of His people and is more than willing to be such. For me, the last supposition (#5) is of paramount importance, especially if we are going to use this narrative during Advent.

We cannot miss the larger and more important point (that God is for His people) at the cost of talking only about a "virgin" or "young woman". But then again, that very issue is probably why you've read this far. So, to take up that question in light of all of the contextual information above, Was Mary a virgin and Was Jesus conceived of virginally? To that, all I can say is that according to Matthew, that sure is a possibility. But for him, the bigger picture is that in some way, similar to that of the past, God is going to deliver His people from an oppressive empire if they trust in Him, an oppressive spiritual evil (satan) if they hope in Him and final judgment if they call on Him. If they don't, they face impending judgment. So, what Matthew is doing in the infancy narrative is laying out a choice for his hearers: Which side are you choosing to be on, "God with us" or "God against us"? It seems like a no-brainer! Which side do you find yourself on this Christmas season?

Now, I should note before I totally end this post that I purposefully did not answer the question of the title fully here because I hope to make my view on the issue more clear with subsequent posts. So, I hope you will continue reading and discussing this matter.

Jesus' Genealogy at Christmas (A Repost)

Recently (12/16/07) I preached on the genealogy of Jesus, something I had never attempted before. (I think that visiting the graveyard last week where a number of my relatives are buried is what ultimately got me reflecting on the genealogies.) Anyways, as one who is highly interested in using the social sciences to interpret the Scriptures, that is the angle from which I approached Mt. 1.1-17. What follows are some insights into Jesus’ genealogy at Christmas (or any other time of the year for that matter).

To begin, we should keep in mind that in Jesus’ world, honor was the thing most sought after and shame was the thing most avoided. It has been said more than enough that antiquity was an honor/shame culture. When reading Matthew’s genealogy, then, and the rest of the birth narrative for that matter, I think we see Matthew doing all he can to show that Jesus is due honor. As would be expected, Matthew even uses the infamous 3 g’s (gender, geography, genealogy) all within the scope of 1.1-2.1.

For example, Matthew’s opening verse notes that Jesus is a “son” of David and a “son” of Abraham. That might seem simplistic to us and there may be a tendency to gloss over it but the fact is, in the 1st century Mediterranean world, the birth of a “male” was usually more honorable than the birth of a female. Gender is doubly emphasized in the first sentence of the New Testament!

As for genealogy, we see that in 1.1 as well. For Jesus to be a “son” of Abe and Dave is an incredibly honorable thing. To be part of their lineage automatically, in Jewish eyes, attributed honor to Jesus. Moreover, the simple fact of being listed with these great “men” of faith, was an honor in and of itself. So, in Mt. 1.1 we already see a number of ways that Matthew is making the point that Jesus is worthy of being honored. In 2.1 we read that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. This is a “geography” reference. I will abstain here from going into a long speech about how “place” of birth or “place” of dwelling determined whether or not one was attributed honor or shame and say that, for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem was an honorable thing. This was the birthplace of King David and any Jewish male born there would have been ascribed some sort of honor because of it. (*Note: When we read things like “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” we should see this as a shaming technique. Evidently, those challenging Jesus thought that living in Nazareth was not worthy of honor.)

So, at this juncture, we’ve seen how in 1.1-2.1 Matthew has used the 3 g’s to bring up Jesus’ honor. I submit that he does this on purpose and that, even more, this is likely his main purpose in telling the birth narrative! Matthew wants persons to pay Jesus honor. This is also why Matthew includes magi bringing Jesus gifts (though, in some circles these magi would have been despised), angels visiting Jesus’ parents and giving directions that would ensure the baby’s protection, cosmic phenomenon, etc. All of this is to reveal Jesus’ honor.

But there is something else that Matthew does too: he includes 5 women in the genealogy. Why exactly does he do this? Well, I am of the persuasion of R. Brown that when we place the 5 women and their stories side-by-side, we notice something: each of them was, at some time or another, surrounded by what appeared to be (or was) sexual scandal. (I will not recount the stories of each of the women here.) However, another thing that they share in common is that despite the seeming scandal, in the end, God vindicated or used them to accomplish some divine purpose. Thus, Matthew’s reason for including them is to essentially say: “Look, people are questioning Mary’s pregnancy; they think she has committed some scandalous sexual act. Yet, if you look at those in Jesus’ genealogy and you reflect on their lives, you will see that, at some point their lives were shrouded in scandal but really, it was God at work. The same thing is happening with Mary!” Thus, what appears to be a shameful act on the surface, actually becomes a way of honoring Jesus; God the Father is acting on behalf of Jesus and His parents. This is an honorable thing indeed!

Apart from the fact that Joseph, Jesus’ father is pictured as such a righteous and honorable man (which automatically gives Jesus some honor), Matthew also desires to portray Jesus as the new Moses (even the overall book is arranged in 5 parts). Jesus is now the prophet par excellence—an honorable thing indeed. Because many books have already been written and still could be written on this topic, I will not say much more about it here. There is one more thing I should point out, though. It seems to me that Matthew is using numbers to bring honor to Jesus as well.

Matthew uses 14’s and 5’s in his first few chapters repeatedly. (e.g. 14 sets of generations, 5 dreams, 5 uses of the title Messiah, 5 women mentioned, etc. The 5’s are probably intended to hearken back to Moses and the Pentateuch.) But the 14’s suggest something else. I think that Matthew (not recounting all of Jesus’ ancestors by any means) is attempting to say to his people: “Look, at 14 generations God acted this way. 14 generations later, God did it again. Now, we’re 14 generations out, so, it shouldn't surprise us that God is doing a similar thing yet again.” Thus, this is Matthew’s way of saying that God is acting in Jesus’ situation in ways similar to that of Israel’s history. Here, then, Jesus is intimately attached to Israel’s history (also via the Moses connections) and thus, much honor is assigned to Him.

What I have tried to show here is that from a socio-cultural perspective, that is, viewing the text through an honor/shame paradigm, reveals how passages that we often gloss over, come to life with new meaning. It is clear to me that Matthew’s original audience(s), would not have missed this as much as we do. Indeed, they would have much more easily gotten Matthew’s point that Jesus is due great honor. From the standpoint of modern application, we might teach and preach on this text during Christmas or any time of year asking those around us if honoring Jesus is as central to their lives as it might have been to, say, Matthew’s. In the end, preaching the genealogy isn’t that hard when we take into consideration its purpose (then and now): to give Jesus the honor that He deserves.

Free Book: The First Christmas (A Repost)

A few years ago this book was being given away online.  Here it is again, at no cost.  Download this free book titled The First Christmas: The Story Of Jesus' Birth In History And Tradition, which is about 70 pages in length and contains essays by 6 renowned scholars including: Dale Allison, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor and more. Click the image-link below to download the book! (*Note: The download may take a few moments to start!)

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!

A Video Response to "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus"

So, recently, a video has been floating around sites like Facebook that's getting quite a bit of attention. It is titled "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus". There are many errors in the video as far as I'm concerned and in my own video spoken word response, I point some of those out. Here it is:

*Update/Just a Note:* So much of western Christianity is about the self and feeling good and emotions. Yet, that's precisely not what Paul and the other early Christians were about. So, where does some of this come from? Well, partially from a philosopher named WFG Hegel, who saw the world in counterparts. Good/evil, black/white, etc. This is part of where we get the grace/law, grace/works dichotomies. Then, when you add the earlier Christian thinker Martin Luther into the equation, the one who misread Paul as an apostle who, like himself, was torn apart with internal conflict, you get the problematic view of justification. Where Luther did a lot of good, this, I believe, he got wrong. Unfortunately, it has stuck and it has become a popular view among modern Christians. Pitting grace against law/works is often done, as with Luther, on an emotionalistic basis. That was the gateway to Luther's interpretation: his emotions! He "felt" free from the Law and he "felt" good about himself finally. But the problem is, his reading was anachronistic to a great degree! Neither Jesus, Paul, nor any other ancient Jew (or early Christian for that matter) was anti-Law or held to a grace/works or grace/Law dichotomy promoted in the video I'm responding to. In fact, at the end of Galatians, Paul rejoices in the Law and can even refer to it as the Law of Christ. And that my friends, is precisely the problem with this video floating around! As I said to a friend, at least he tried. So, it's not that I'm being antagonistic toward him as much as it is that I am attempting to entering into conversation with him, attempting to help him understand the historical roots of where his views come from, something he may or may not know (but judging by the content of the video, he most likely doesn't). Certainly, my video is not nearly as nicely done (I don't have that kind of equipment) and will not get played or sent around as much as his (that's perfectly fine), but if I got him to watch it and to learn something, I will have felt like I did a good thing! And really, that raises another issue: The notion that if something is aesthetically pleasing or professionally done, it is good or even right. If we stop and think for a moment, however, we realize that this is not always the case.

A Bethlehem Sunset (& Barbwire)

So, in just a few hours, I head off to the airport to return home.  My time in Israel has simply been amazing!  I came here alone, not knowing a soul, and made a lot of great friends.  I took no travel tours and managed to hike through the Old City and countless other biblical sites on my own (though, a new-found friend graciously helped me with transport from time-to-time).  I navigated the bus routes and shops, studied Greek like never before and experienced the Holy Land in so many special ways.  The mixture of rich cultural and topographical landscapes here in Israel has enriched my life.  

Tonight, I watched the sunset just a few feet up from the barbwire fence that separates the West Bank from Jerusalem.  The irony is that while I stood there in that place denoting such a historical divide, I was also watching the sunset behind Bethlehem.  Even more, I was standing in the very field where the shepherds were keeping the flocks by night during Jesus' birth.  It was here where the angels proclaimed "Glory to God in the highest and upon the earth peace to all people by God's good will."  Even though the sun will continue to set behind Jerusalem until the return of our Lord, the fact is, the sun will never set upon either the peace of God or the good will of God that comes to humanity through Jesus Christ.

So, as I prepare to leave this place, I am thinking on these things! As the sun sets wherever you live, perhaps you can think on these things as well.  Take a look at the images below, on the first one, look close to the left side, perhaps you notice the fenced in road that starts near the bottom of the page and follows the foot of the mountain around; that's what separates Jerusalem from the West Bank.  Then, take a look at the glow of the sun.  Try to imagine what took place here on the night of Jesus' birth thousands of years ago and let the peace that he brought really, truly sink deeply in to your soul.  And then let the call to follow the Prince of Peace, the one who brought peace without violence, renew your thought and spirit!  Amen and amen!

(Click the image to enlarge it.)

(This is an image from the Franciscan Cemetery in the Old City that I took today.  What a beautiful shot of the cross.)

Underground In Jerusalem: The Sanhedrin

Today was either my favorite or next to favorite day here in Jerusalem thus far.  Part of that was because studying Greek was so enjoyable (albeit intense) and part of it was because I got to explore more of ancient Jerusalem's underground world.  In fact, I think that my favorite or again, next to favorite, site that I've seen so far was the spot where the Sanhedrin met to carry out their vicious plot against Jesus.  This morning at about 8am Jerusalem time, I was sitting underground with a group of New Testament lovers reading the Gospel account of Jesus' night-time trial.  Of course, this is in all four Gospels but we were reading Matthew's narrative (Mt. 26.57-68).  I don't know if it was the lighting, being underground, or that the story is so scandalous in and of itself that got me--perhaps all of them!--but it was totally cool reading this story in the original language and then interpreting and discussing it in Greek too.  Quite amazing.  

I don't need to go into an essay on the Sanhedrin, certainly, you can find a lot of that data quite easily.  But I did want to share some of my photos (especially the panorama), because the place is just awesome!  So, below are some pictures I took this morning.  Enjoy!

(This is a panoramic shot I took of my Greek colleagues reading/discussing the Sanhedrin events, in one of the likely spots where the Sanhedrin met and brought accusations against Jesus.)

(This, as you can see, is just a picture of an ancient column in the meeting place.  I thought it was very cool, which is why I'm sharing it.)

(And here is a snapshot of me, reading Matthew's account and discussing it.  What a great time!)

Jesus' Temple Temptation

This afternoon I had the privilege of walking through one of the newest tunnels being excavated in Jerusalem.  It  is a tunnel that runs from the west side of the City of David to the base of the temple, following along the temple's western wall.  It has been open a little less than a month and is supposedly going to continue being dug through over the next few years.  It seems, as of now, that it was used in antiquity as a water channel.  Anyway, I mention that here because once I came up out of the ground, I was standing beside the western wall.  Walking south a number of yards to the corner of the western and southern walls, I saw a very significant place, which in Greek is called το πτερυγιον (the edge, pinnacle or summit).

Below, you can see a photo that I took of το πτερυγιον.  This is the place where, according to Matthew's account, Jesus likely was tempted by ο διαβολος (the devil).  Here's what Matthew's account says in Greek, followed by my translation and then a photo I took today:  

"Τοτε παραλαμβανει αυτον ο διαβολος εις την αγιαν πολιν και εστησεν αυτον επι το πτερυγιον του ιερου"

"Then the devil took him to the holy city and he stood upon the highest edge of the temple"

The are several important things that could be said about this highest edge of the temple, particularly in the time of Jesus.  One, the most obvious perhaps, is that it is a place from which one can see everything around it; it is a bird's eye view of sorts.  Here, for example, is what Jesus may have seen (click images to make them larger):

Two, it is the place where, again, in Jesus' day, a trumpeter would announce the beginning and end of the Sabbath by playing the trumpet.  It is this second detail that is typically lost on readers of the Bible.  A recent archaeological find containing a Hebrew inscription which reads "to the place of trumpeting to" (which you can see just below) marks the southwest corner and pinnacle of the temple.  Here are a couple of images:

(This is the bottom of the inscription seen in the picture just before it.  The lip or edge here denotes the place where the trumpeter would have stood and possibly, where Jesus may have stood as well.)

The significance of this in one regard is that it functions to heighten the drama of Jesus' temptation story even more!  In the story recorded in Mt 5, Jesus is not simply standing in a place where he can see the city below him, he is also standing in a place that marks the beginning and ending of the Sabbath, the place from where God's Israel is called to rest in him.  In Matthew's story, Jesus announces from the highest edge "It is also written, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"  The trumpeting call of Jesus is faithful obedience to God, an obedience that is not testing God or manipulating him but rather, trusting in him.  Could it also be suggestive of Jesus being Lord of/over the Sabbath?  Perhaps I am reaching here but these are just some initial thoughts I've had and I thought they'd be fun to share.  Certainly, there is much more to say but that's all for me from now.  What say ye?

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!

The Jesus Many Want (Or Have Created)

This is the Jesus that many people across the world lust after. This is the Jesus who not only is okay with war but sanctions it as long as it is fought by someone who calls themselves a Christian. This is the Jesus that, if the real Jesus returned, would either not recognize or may find as his complete antithesis. This is the Jesus whose Sermon on the Mount (and he's on a Mount, because he has fought his way to the top, trampling everyone else below him) has become:

Blessed are the warmongers, for they shall inherit every oil rig.

Blessed are those strapped with guns and missiles, for they shall rule this earth.

Blessed are those who devastate nations, for they will be feared.

Blessed are those who have the biggest military, for God will most certainly be on their side then.

Blessed are those who train for war, for they will outlast the rest.

Blessed are those aggressive, for they will get to lord their power over others.

Blessed are those who fight in my name, for their acts will be overlooked.

Blessed are those who send their children into battle, they shall receive public honor.

Blessed are those who lay down their crosses for artillery, they shall attain might.

Blessed are those who hate their enemies, for they knew better than the real Jesus.

Blessed are those who sacralize violence, for they will be in the clear.

...

The list could go on...

Saved From? Saved For? Saved By?

Ok, so, I'm going to do my best to keep this brief and to the point. I have been putting this post off for days but since I was just interrupted 5 minutes ago, I thought I'd go ahead and post it. Who was I interrupted by? A Southern Baptist preacher and his wife. That's right, at 7pm in the evening, they knocked on my door. When I opened the door, he did the first thing a good Baptist does: Handed me a tract. After that, he told me he was a pastor and then told me about his church. I told him I was a pastor too; he didn't know how to respond. So, I said, yeah, I am a teaching pastor at a new Methodist church. His silence ended as soon as I said that. So, what did he say when he found the words to speak again? You probably guessed it, that's right, he said, "Well, are you saved?" Yep! As soon as I said the word "Methodist" he questioned my salvation. He went on, "Even some pastors aren't saved, did you know that? They can have pastor in front of their name and not know the Lord. Do you know the Lord?" I started to get a little irritated with his abrasiveness but I simply nodded and said yes. Having done his so-called kingdom work of advancing tracts, he left feeling like a winner.

This situation, which happened just a few minutes ago, is quite similar to what's going on with all of the Rob Bell stuff. Bell's video for "Love Wins" is quite provocative; I actually showed it to my students in class today and we took a few minutes to cover some of these issues. Anyway, Bell addresses the issue of salvation here, but evidently, some, like John Piper and others were able to infer from the 3 minute video that he was a heretic. John Piper and Justin Taylor both need to issue public apologies as far as I'm concerned. But alas, if God planned for Piper to assault Bell, well, there's nothing that can be done about it, I guess. Anyway, the whole Baptist door-knocker and Bell thing have shown me the centrality of soteriology of salvation in all of this.

In his video, Bell raises these issues, even if kind of indirectly. Essentially, some questions that professed Christians should ask and be able to answer are: What are we saved from? And what are we saved for? And who are we saved by? In my estimation, these questions are not just at the base of Christianity, they are, in many ways, at the very heart of it. These are incredibly significant theological/spiritual questions. Are we saved from God? Hell? Satan? Sin? Self? All of the above? Are we saved for Afterlife? Now? Mission? Evangelism? Are we saved by God? Confessions? Beliefs? Choices? Actions?

Now, I'm not going to deal with the three tenses of salvation as described in the New Testament here (e.g. "have been saved," "are saved," "are being saved"). Instead, let me say a few other things, namely, some things about the questions just raised. As a Christian, I believe that by and through Christ and his faithfulness, we are saved "from" being forever separated from God, Christ's father. This separation is reconciled by way of Christ's work, the truth of which the Spirit reveals and makes known to us. We are saved "for" the purpose of being in relationship with God, Christ's father; ultimately, a relationship that brings him glory. And so, who are we saved by? Well, when it is all said and done, really, we are saved by God the Father. Again, Christ's work makes this possible and the Spirit reveals the validity and veracity of Christ's work to us.

When we go talking about issues of salvation, these, I think are some significant questions worth asking and answering. Really, how you answer these questions is going to say a ton about what you believe about many other things. But the truth is, a concept such as salvation can never really be boiled down to the trite door-to-door knock and tract of a Southern Baptist preacher, who asks, "So, are you saved?" You don't know how bad I wanted to ask him these things: Saved from what, sir? For what, sir? By whom, sir? And what do you mean by "saved" as if it is final? What about the tenses of salvation? What about the choice to step outside of salvation? But really, I knew it would have been a fruitless endeavor to interrogate him in the same way he was interrogating me.

But if I may, let me ask (unassumingly), How might you answer these questions?

Resources on the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Etc.

Here are some resources, the first which I developed, and the second that my students created in class this morning, that deal with religious affiliations in antiquity that are pertinent to New Testament studies. Enjoy!

Review Of Willimon's "Why Jesus?"

Here's a copy of the lecture I gave for NT Theology this morning at ATS for those who are interested:

Another Digital Nativity

In addition to yesterday's post, here's another creative re-telling of the nativity in a modern context passed on to me by my father-in-law: