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.

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.

The RSV: Want A Communist Bible For Christmas? (A Repost)

I ran across an intriguing piece of information today regarding Christmas & the Bible back in 1952. Of course, Harry Truman was the president during this period and if you didn't already know, this was also when the new RSV (Revised Standard Version) of the Bible came out. In fact, Truman happily recieved a copy from the publishers at the White House. This was big news.

It was such big news because, going into Advent, a lot of Christians argued that this new translation was a direct assault on Christmas. Why? Well, one reason is because of how it rendered Isa. 7.14, you know, the verse where the traditional rendering of "virgin" was now translated as "young woman". In turn, this led to a re-reading of the Gospel accounts and Mary's conception and birth of Jesus. A firestorm debate arose over whether or not Mary's pregnancy was of supernatural origin or human agency. According to the RSV, said some, Mary had been relegated to a "young woman" and the infancy narrative, the nativity, Christmas, etc. were now all under attack. Even the Air Force training Academy dubbed the RSV the "Communist Bible".

Just a little tidbit of history that I found intriguing and thought I'd pass on. Any thoughts?


*See Peter J. Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles Over Translating the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999) and Sheila Whiteley, Christmas, Ideology and Popular Culture (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 2008).

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.

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".

RSV: A Communist Bible For Christmas

I ran across an intriguing piece of information today regarding Christmas & the Bible back in 1952. Of course, Harry Truman was the president during this period and if you didn't already know, this was also when the new RSV (Revised Standard Version) of the Bible came out. In fact, Truman happily recieved a copy from the publishers at the White House. This was big news.

It was such big news because, going into Advent, a lot of Christians argued that this new translation was a direct assault on Christmas. Why? Well, one reason is because of how it rendered Isa. 7.14, you know, the verse where the traditional rendering of "virgin" was now translated as "young woman". In turn, this led to a re-reading of the Gospel accounts and Mary's conception and birth of Jesus. A firestorm debate arose over whether or not Mary's pregnancy was of supernatural origin or human agency. According to the RSV, said some, Mary had been relegated to a "young woman" and the infancy narrative, the nativity, Christmas, etc. were now all under attack. Even the Air Force training Academy dubbed the RSV the "Communist Bible".

Just a little tidbit of history that I found intriguing and thought I'd pass on. Any thoughts?


*See: Thuesen, Peter J. (1999) In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles Over Translating the Bible, New York: Oxford University Press. and Whiteley, Shiela. (2008) Christmas, Ideology and Popular Culture, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.