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

A Miraculous Conception?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 3 (A Repost)

For a great majority of Christians, the "virgin conception / birth" of Jesus is a cherished belief. In fact, I recall stumbling across a poll a couple of years back which said that something like 91% of Americans believed that Jesus was conceived of a virgin (even though 91% of Americans aren't Christians). Of course, this teaching, doctrine, belief or whatever you want to call it, has, since its inception, not been without its critics. As early as the 2nd century, just a few decades after Jesus' death, we already have persons and groups denying that Jesus' birth was "miraculous". Some even suggested that Mary was raped. The rumor also flew around that Mary was promiscuous (perhaps, even sleeping with or cheating on Joseph).

Rarely discussed, especially in evangelical or conservative circles (perhaps liberal ones too), are some interesting pieces of literature. I don't know if it is because of the fact that persons have no idea that these texts exist, that they have purposefully been suppressed, or that they are irrelevant. I can't say for sure if the previous two answers have any bearing to them but I can say that the third one isn't correct. So, what texts am I talking about?

Well, I'm talking about the birth accounts of Plato, Alexander the Great, Augustus, Pythagoras, Heracles, etc. (by the way, David Dungan, a great scholar who passed away recently, wrote a book titled Documents for the Study of the Gospels, which should be consulted on this matter). It is intriguing to me (not scary!) that in Mediterranean antiquity, the birth accounts of prominent persons, typically had what we could consider "miraculous signs" attached to them.

For example, Diogenes Laertius speaks of a vision surrounding the birth of Plato and also says that the philosopher was born of the deity "Apollo". Origen, in his "Against Celsus" (I.37) says (most likely to persons of Christian identity): "It is absurd not to use Greek stories (historia) when talking to Greeks in order that we might not seem to be the only ones using such an incredible story (paradoxes historia) as this one (e.g. Jesus' birth)."

If one reads about Alexander the Great's birth, as mentioned in Plutarch's "Lives", they find all kinds of "miraculous" things. There are visions (by both mother and father) accompanying the birth, strikes of thunder, lightning bolts hitting his mother's womb as well as a seal engraved on it, a great fire, encounters with animals (via dreams / visions), etc.

As for Pythagoras, like Plato, he was believed to be the product of Apollo. In Iamblichus's "The Life of Pythagoras", Pythagoras is said to have "sent down from heaven to be among men...having great wisdom in his soul". Iamblichus says that he was considered by many to be a "son of God". On a similar note, Diodorus says that Herakles was born of the great Greek god Zeus, who slept with Alkmene one night. Power and might were to go before and accompany this great being known as Herakles. Seutonius says that with Augustus's birth, there were natural phenomena like lightning, shooting stars, and odd actions of the sun. Out-of-place things also happened in the temple and there were also visions and dreams. As Christians, I would submit that we must take such accounts seriously when thinking about the birth narratives of Jesus. When we do, suddenly, Jesus' conception begins to look a little differently...perhaps because it "looks" a little more contextual.

I would also point out here that in antiquity, the language of "son of God" wasn't uniquely applied to Jesus. Instead, it was applied to great persons, especially emperors. Thus, using it to attempt to draw some totally unique theory about Jesus is probably not the best way for us to go, especially in regards to the birth account(s). Instead, we should ask how the first Christians were using it and how they were understanding what they meant by it.

So, we have to ask the question now: Was Jesus' birth considered uniquely miraculous in antiquity or were the NT authors attempting to (as Origen alludes to) cast and tell it in such a way that Greeks could easily relate to and understand it? To answer that question, however, I think one must first answer the following query: How, in light of the other birth accounts of great personages in antiquity, is Jesus' birth similar or different, more legitimate or less legitimate, more contextually and culturally shaped or not?

In closing, I want to ask you, if you read this post in its entirety, to please read the next one all the way through too. In that forthcoming post, I am going to make a connection between the evidences I offered here, which are from antiquity, and a very important modern example. I do hope that you will read the next post in conjunction with this one. Blessings to you and yours this holiday season!

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' 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

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

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

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: yios theos). 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 yios theos). 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 hte 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 giev 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

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 the infamous Jesus Seminary) Paul Verhoeven is attempting to make 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: Exodus 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

Throughout Christian history, the magi (Grk: magoi) 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 magoi 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 magoi 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 magoi 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 magoi 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 into the story that has led us to both identify the magoi 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 magoi 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 anatole) 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

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 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? It seems to me that if it were so central, they could have surely drew some theo-ethical principles from it.

I want to do two things at this point: 1) share a very short personal story, and 2) point you to a modern story book. 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 (Mt. and Lk.) did think Jesus' birth has 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

A Miraculous Conception?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 3

For a great majority of Christians, the "virgin conception / birth" of Jesus is a cherished belief. In fact, I recall stumbling across a poll a couple of years back which said that something like 91% of Americans believed that Jesus was conceived of a virgin (even though 91% of Americans aren't Christians). Of course, this teaching, doctrine, belief or whatever you want to call it, has, since its inception, not been without its critics. As early as the 2nd century, just a few decades after Jesus' death, we already have persons and groups denying that Jesus' birth was "miraculous". Some even suggested that Mary was raped. The rumor also flew around that Mary was promiscuous (perhaps, even sleeping with or cheating on Joseph).

Rarely discussed, especially in evangelical or conservative circles (perhaps liberal ones too) are some interesting pieces of literature. I don't know if it is because of the fact that persons have no idea that these texts exist, that they have purposefully been supressed or that they are irrelevant. I can't say for sure if the previous two answers have any bearing to them but I can say that the third one isn't correct. So, what texts am I talking about?

Well, I'm talking about the birth accounts of Plato, Alexander the Great, Augustus, Pythagoras, Heracles, etc. (by the way, David Dungan, a great scholar who passed away this week, his work, Documents for the Study of the Gospels should be consulted on this matter). It is intriguing to me (not scary) that in Mediterranean antiquity, the birth accounts of prominent persons, typically had what we could consider "miraculous signs", attached to them.

For example, Diogenes Laertius speaks of a vision surrounding the birth of Plato and also says that the philosopher was born of the deity "Apollo". Origen, in his "Against Celsus" (I.37) says (most likely to persons of Christian identity): "It is absurd not to use Greek stories (historia) when talking to Greeks in order that we might not seem to be the only ones using such an incredible story (paradoxes historia) as this one (e.g. Jesus' birth)."

If one reads about Alexander the Great's birth, as mentioned in Plutarch's "Lives", they find all kinds of "miraculous" things. There are visions (by both mother and father) accompanying the birth, strikes of thunder, lightning bolts hitting his mother's womb as well as a seal engraved on it, a great fire, encounters with animals (via dreams / visions), etc.

As for Pythagoras, like Plato, he was believed to be the product of Apollo. In Iamblichus's "The Life of Pythagoras", Pythagoras is said to have "sent down from heaven to be among men...having great wisdom in his soul". Iamblichus says that he was considered by many to be a "son of God". On a similar note, Diodorus says that Herakles was born of the great Greek god Zeus, who slept with Alkmene one night. Power and might were to go before and accompany this great being known as Herakles. Seutonius says that with Augustus's birth, there were natural phenomena like lightning, shooting stars and odd actions of the sun. Out of place things also happened in the temple and there were also visions and dreams. As Christians, I would submit that we must take such accounts seriously when thinking about the birth narratives of Jesus. When we do, suddenly, Jesus' conception begins to look a little differently...perhaps because it "looks" a little more contextual.

I would also point out here that in antiquity, the language of "son of God" wasn't uniquely applied to Jesus. Instead, it was applied to great persons, especially emperors. Thus, using it to attempt to draw some totally unique theory about Jesus is probably not the best way for us to go, especially in regards to the birth account(s). Instead, we should ask how the first Christians were using it and how they were understanding what they meant by it.

So, we have to ask the question now: Was Jesus' birth considered uniquely miraculous in antiquity or were the NT authors attempting to (as Origen alludes to) cast and tell it in such a way that Greeks could easily relate to and understand it? To answer that question, however, I think one must first answer the following query: How, in light of the other birth accounts of great personages in antiquity, is Jesus' birth similar or different, more legitimate or less legitimate, more contextually and culturally shaped or not?

In closing, I want to ask you, if you read this post in its entirety, to please read the next one all the way through too. In that forthcoming post, I am going to make a connection between the evidences I offered here, which are from antiquity, and a very important modern example. I do hope that you will read the next post in conjunction with this one. Blessings to you and yours this holiday season!

Jesus & Prophecy: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 2

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 spiel he did on biblical prophecy. He claimed that there were hundreds of thousands of OT prophecies that came 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 prophesies" 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 with less of my expectations forcing interpretations out of it and more of encountering 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: you feel like a turncoat, you realize you were wrong, and you are sometimes feel threatened or embarassed 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 my previous post (HERE), Jason 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 on Pisteuomen before, persons in antquity 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 reliquinsh 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 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 prophesy 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 & 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:

On the heels of a brief discussion that yesterday's 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 conext 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 concieve 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. Please, feel free to discuss these things here at Pisteuomen by clicking on the "comments" link below".