Matthew and Luke both claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. However, the details of their stories are quite different. What to make of that?
Matthew has written his story of Jesus from a particular perspective. His story begins with a genealogy. In the genealogy he describes three periods with fourteen fathers begetting sons. The three periods are Abraham to David, David to the Exile (when Jerusalem was over run) and the exile to Jesus. By highlighting these key moments in history, Matthew is particularly emphasizing how God saves (Jesus=Jeshua=Yahweh Saves) His people. Abraham and David both received important promises from God relating to God's gift of salvation to the world and to His people.
Matthew includes several woman, each one a person who was a foreigner or whose motherhood was the result of unusual circumstances. This is a preview of Mary's pregnancy. The foreigner theme is also a key issue for Matthew, who seems to be writing, in part, to explain why the Gentiles believe in Jesus while many Jews reject Him. Scholars have noted that the numerical value of the name DAVID (in Hebrew each letter is also a number) is fourteen. Are the three sets of fourteen fathers also a reference to David? We do not know. It would be lovely if Matthew had included a "behind the scenes of writing the Gospel" in his work. We do know that Luke has a different genealogy. It goes back in time all the way to Adam. It does not include some of the same names. But he is making his point as well, which echos throughout his gospel.
Genealogies for many of us are repetitive and boring. This was not the case for the biblical writers. The names listed are often people about whom we know things. Someone who knows the bible knows who many of these people are. The woman especially (e.g., Bathsheba is an adultress, Rahab a prostitute, etc) are important examples of how someone can make mistakes in their life yet still help God's plan along. (It is also a remnider that woman may not be appreciated in ancient culture as much as men, but God respects them)We are the result of our heritage. Choices made long ago impact us today. God is seceretly at work through us saving the world. In Jesus we see the central act of God's activity. But it is a consolation to know that Jesus comes from some questionable predecessors.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Christmas and Luke's Gospel
Anyone who has read Matthew and Luke notices that although they often have different emphasis, they are pretty much telling the same story. The story of Jesus is recongnizable. Some of the differences are because of a particular emphasis. Luke, for example, is very much focused on concrete poverty and many of his stories include an exhortation to take care of the poor. So where Matthew has "blessed are the poor in spirit" Luke has "blessed are the poor." Each tries to capture and convey in the limited space at their disposal a fuller picture of Jesus. If I can read an entire Gospel in a couple of hours it is safe to think that Jesus' 30+ years of life are not totally contained in the twenty or so chapters!
This brings us to Matthew and Luke and their infancy narratives. First of all, Mark does not have any stories about baby Jesus. He starts off with John the Baptist. There are lots of theories why this was so. No one knows. There is good reason to think Matthew and Luke actually had a copy of Mark's Gospel in their possession when they wrote their own Gospels. The arguments make sense, but I also know life is less logical than our reconstructions are. At any rate, Matthew and Luke have two stories of the birth of Jesus which really do not easily fit together. One reason for this, perhaps the main reason, is probably because they are telling the birth story to make clear what Jesus' life really means from their perspective. We forget that ancient history had different expectations and different emphases from our history. For one thing there was an understanding that the narrative was also a construction where the author had some leeway to construct his story. [Truth be told even today that is still true. Anyone who reads a newspaper account knows that the writer leaves out many details and plays up an angle for the story. History is always written from a perspective and the writing always conveys a view point.] However, there is still more or less accurate writing and even ancient authors were expected to write in a way that respected the truth.
As I said, the birth stories are different but both agree that Jesus' mother, Mary, was a virgin. The question which I have is this, if Mark does not mention it then where did Matthew and Luke come across this idea? Compounding this is the rumor of Jesus' father being a Roman soldier. This means that in ancient times the birth of Jesus was thought to be under unusual circumstances and this was used by enemies of the Christian church. So something to think about as we enter the final week before Christmas. What does it mean that this man's birth was to a virign?
This brings us to Matthew and Luke and their infancy narratives. First of all, Mark does not have any stories about baby Jesus. He starts off with John the Baptist. There are lots of theories why this was so. No one knows. There is good reason to think Matthew and Luke actually had a copy of Mark's Gospel in their possession when they wrote their own Gospels. The arguments make sense, but I also know life is less logical than our reconstructions are. At any rate, Matthew and Luke have two stories of the birth of Jesus which really do not easily fit together. One reason for this, perhaps the main reason, is probably because they are telling the birth story to make clear what Jesus' life really means from their perspective. We forget that ancient history had different expectations and different emphases from our history. For one thing there was an understanding that the narrative was also a construction where the author had some leeway to construct his story. [Truth be told even today that is still true. Anyone who reads a newspaper account knows that the writer leaves out many details and plays up an angle for the story. History is always written from a perspective and the writing always conveys a view point.] However, there is still more or less accurate writing and even ancient authors were expected to write in a way that respected the truth.
As I said, the birth stories are different but both agree that Jesus' mother, Mary, was a virgin. The question which I have is this, if Mark does not mention it then where did Matthew and Luke come across this idea? Compounding this is the rumor of Jesus' father being a Roman soldier. This means that in ancient times the birth of Jesus was thought to be under unusual circumstances and this was used by enemies of the Christian church. So something to think about as we enter the final week before Christmas. What does it mean that this man's birth was to a virign?
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Funerals and Survivors
Yesterday I had another funeral. In ten days I have been at Collierville Funeral Home three times. The first time it was to preach at a generic Christmas service for those who had lost loved ones in the past year. On Friday and Tuesday it was for fathers, one in his 50's and the other in his 80's. Although I had met both men they did not attend my parish church.
What is the message for people left behind? I believe strongly in mourning and weeping. Too often people seem to equate tears with weakness. I have to think that the reactions which come naturally at a time of great loss serve some healthy function. I do not understand why burying someone you love should be considered "no big deal." It seems to me frequently other people want the mourner to "hold it together" because that way it does not impinge on them.
There is no surprise that people who have suffered a great loss need to mourn. I share this more as a reminder. Many people around you are experiencing their first Christmas without someone whom they love. Compassion is a valuable response to such a situation. If you know someone who has had a loss the last few years it is generally more helpful to ask them how they are doing. Some of us are freaked out by a tear that is shed, but try to accept that the emotion you see is something buried inside of them. Losses make us feel lonely. That loneliness does not need to be compounded by the indifference, or even worse, the harsh criticism of others around us. It may not be so much fun for those who have suffered losses. Love them and be kind.
What is the message for people left behind? I believe strongly in mourning and weeping. Too often people seem to equate tears with weakness. I have to think that the reactions which come naturally at a time of great loss serve some healthy function. I do not understand why burying someone you love should be considered "no big deal." It seems to me frequently other people want the mourner to "hold it together" because that way it does not impinge on them.
There is no surprise that people who have suffered a great loss need to mourn. I share this more as a reminder. Many people around you are experiencing their first Christmas without someone whom they love. Compassion is a valuable response to such a situation. If you know someone who has had a loss the last few years it is generally more helpful to ask them how they are doing. Some of us are freaked out by a tear that is shed, but try to accept that the emotion you see is something buried inside of them. Losses make us feel lonely. That loneliness does not need to be compounded by the indifference, or even worse, the harsh criticism of others around us. It may not be so much fun for those who have suffered losses. Love them and be kind.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Cain and Abel
Brother kills brother. There is no legitimate reason for this act in the text. What is the story telling us? What is it not trying to claim and explain.Obviously, the world is suddenly populated. Cain has a wife. Cain fears that as he wanders those whom he meets will want to kill him. There is no explanation of where these people come from.
Many Christians provide explanations. Adam and Eve, after all, had many other unnamed children (Genesis 5:4-5) however after the death of Abel it seems to imply that the son Seth is a replacement of sorts. (Gen 4:25 "God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel because Cain killed Abel.") There does not seem to be an abundance of children (enough to populate numerous villages) implied by this remark.
I do not think Christians should read their own bible with a different set of demands than they read the sacred writings of other religions. This does NOT mean that I equate the truth of the Bible with the writings of other faiths. I do not. That is why my questions always center on what does the text of the Bible really say. The narrative conveys the rapid decline of the human experiment. Adam and Eve have two sons and one kills the other. There are social statements being made (farmers and herders are represented). There is a psychological/spiritual component (sin is lurking at the door seeking to master you but you can master it) which emphasizes human choice. There is an idea of human responsibility in worship and service of God (If you do well will you not be accepted?). And, of course, there is the age old tragedy of sibling rivalry. Lastly, human anger and jealousy produces murder.
All of us are prone to self centeredness. In our quest for what we want, we do damage to those who somehow diminish our sense of self. The story of Cain and Abel is a reminder that human realtionships and our relationship to God are interconnected. The tragedy of life is how often we choose to harm, even kill, one another. Yet, the Bible wants us to understand that we are connected to those early sinners. Our heritage is tainted by murder and violence. It is a sad fact of life on the planet. The reality of sin is the Problem which we all face. the strories of the Bible never shy away from human sin. These stories are a mirror in which we see our own reflections.
Many Christians provide explanations. Adam and Eve, after all, had many other unnamed children (Genesis 5:4-5) however after the death of Abel it seems to imply that the son Seth is a replacement of sorts. (Gen 4:25 "God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel because Cain killed Abel.") There does not seem to be an abundance of children (enough to populate numerous villages) implied by this remark.
I do not think Christians should read their own bible with a different set of demands than they read the sacred writings of other religions. This does NOT mean that I equate the truth of the Bible with the writings of other faiths. I do not. That is why my questions always center on what does the text of the Bible really say. The narrative conveys the rapid decline of the human experiment. Adam and Eve have two sons and one kills the other. There are social statements being made (farmers and herders are represented). There is a psychological/spiritual component (sin is lurking at the door seeking to master you but you can master it) which emphasizes human choice. There is an idea of human responsibility in worship and service of God (If you do well will you not be accepted?). And, of course, there is the age old tragedy of sibling rivalry. Lastly, human anger and jealousy produces murder.
All of us are prone to self centeredness. In our quest for what we want, we do damage to those who somehow diminish our sense of self. The story of Cain and Abel is a reminder that human realtionships and our relationship to God are interconnected. The tragedy of life is how often we choose to harm, even kill, one another. Yet, the Bible wants us to understand that we are connected to those early sinners. Our heritage is tainted by murder and violence. It is a sad fact of life on the planet. The reality of sin is the Problem which we all face. the strories of the Bible never shy away from human sin. These stories are a mirror in which we see our own reflections.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Adam and Eve
Do you ever wonder what these stories sounded like to people 3,000 years ago? Imagine their lives, so different from ours in many ways yet so similar. Think of the stories which their neighbors told, stories about warring gods and the debrise of those wars and the corpses of the fallen gods being the "the stuff" of human existence.
You and I, dealing with our own set of worries and concerns, hear the stories from our perspective. In the same way, the original story tellers and the original audience also did the same. Perspective means to see from a certain vantage point, to see in a particular way.
The Darwin debates in our own age have produced a particular interpretation of Adam and Eve. When I am asked, "Do you believe in evolution?" I answer, "It depends on what you mean by that."
I do not believe we are here by accident. I do believe there are biological processes through which God has guided our creation. To the Rationalist I am a dark age thinker because I believe God created us. To the Literalist I am a Modernist heretic who has denied the words of scripture. I guess as I thinker neither of them understands the word of God in this place, I can live with their conclusions.
We are here because God guided the process. Just as babies are created through biological processes and become human adults. It is not an accident. It has meaning. We have duties and responsibilities. At least that is how I read the beginning pages of Genesis.
You and I, dealing with our own set of worries and concerns, hear the stories from our perspective. In the same way, the original story tellers and the original audience also did the same. Perspective means to see from a certain vantage point, to see in a particular way.
The Darwin debates in our own age have produced a particular interpretation of Adam and Eve. When I am asked, "Do you believe in evolution?" I answer, "It depends on what you mean by that."
I do not believe we are here by accident. I do believe there are biological processes through which God has guided our creation. To the Rationalist I am a dark age thinker because I believe God created us. To the Literalist I am a Modernist heretic who has denied the words of scripture. I guess as I thinker neither of them understands the word of God in this place, I can live with their conclusions.
We are here because God guided the process. Just as babies are created through biological processes and become human adults. It is not an accident. It has meaning. We have duties and responsibilities. At least that is how I read the beginning pages of Genesis.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Genesis 2: The Tree
Looking to Genesis to debate the science of life on this earth seems to be missing the point to me. It implies that the stories there are presented as an alternative to modern science. It ignores THE FACT that this is an ancient text, written by and for ancient people (under God's inspiration). It is a failure to listen to what is being communicated.
So revelation says that humans are in a position of responsibility in relation to the world. Genesis 1 seems to imply that it may be a struggle (subdue and have dominion). There is a parallel to the idea of God ordering the universe to subdue chaos. Humans have a battle on their hands keeping the world under control. Human choices were meant to make the world a better place. In Genesis 2 the language is less aggressive and combative, The man is a laborer who watches over, protects or keeps the garden. But once again there is an implication that all is not well, why else must the man watch and work? So from the beginning there is a deep sense of human vocation to work and even to struggle.
The question is "what is up with the tree?" Knowledge, in the biblical sense, includes experience. That is why "to know" is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. The knowledge of good and evil is not merely theoretical. There is a sense in which one must experience evil to know what it is. Knowledge is also understanding. It is the ability to think deeply into things. There are lots of explanations about the tree. I am sure that the tree was a multi-layered image even from the beginning. But whatever else it may represent, it is clearly a symbol for limits. In the garden, man (and woman) had all that they needed. They were provided for and they were occupied. But there were limits. True freedom is dependent upon our ability to choose to do the right thing. Obedience makes us better, it grows us and allows us to become disciplined, trustworthy and faithful.
Personally, I do not think that the tree was any different from any of the other trees. What made it a tree whose fruit gave the knowledge of good and evil was the simple fact that God said do not touch that one. Once it was forbidden it changed. Once a hand reaches out to touch this fruit, to take and eat this fruit, then the human person would experience and know doing evil. Being disobedient instructs us. Once we learn that we are not to be trusted it will effect our view of ourself and our view of others. Those who know the story know that Adam and Eve experienced shame (they saw they were naked; i.e. they experienced a need to "cover up" as they became more self centered and self focused) and shame led to blame (relational break down and finger pointing. Adam blames God and Eve: the WOMAN that YOU gave me, Eve then passes the blame to the snake).
I also think it is a micro-version of the history of Israel. They are in the promised land, sin, and are exiled. The story of Adam and Eve is also our story. We ruin it all by our choices and then seek to blame everyone else. Yes, this is a deep narrative told in simple form. And it is True. Truer than those who would reduce it to debates about biology. I will write about evolution later.
So revelation says that humans are in a position of responsibility in relation to the world. Genesis 1 seems to imply that it may be a struggle (subdue and have dominion). There is a parallel to the idea of God ordering the universe to subdue chaos. Humans have a battle on their hands keeping the world under control. Human choices were meant to make the world a better place. In Genesis 2 the language is less aggressive and combative, The man is a laborer who watches over, protects or keeps the garden. But once again there is an implication that all is not well, why else must the man watch and work? So from the beginning there is a deep sense of human vocation to work and even to struggle.
The question is "what is up with the tree?" Knowledge, in the biblical sense, includes experience. That is why "to know" is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. The knowledge of good and evil is not merely theoretical. There is a sense in which one must experience evil to know what it is. Knowledge is also understanding. It is the ability to think deeply into things. There are lots of explanations about the tree. I am sure that the tree was a multi-layered image even from the beginning. But whatever else it may represent, it is clearly a symbol for limits. In the garden, man (and woman) had all that they needed. They were provided for and they were occupied. But there were limits. True freedom is dependent upon our ability to choose to do the right thing. Obedience makes us better, it grows us and allows us to become disciplined, trustworthy and faithful.
Personally, I do not think that the tree was any different from any of the other trees. What made it a tree whose fruit gave the knowledge of good and evil was the simple fact that God said do not touch that one. Once it was forbidden it changed. Once a hand reaches out to touch this fruit, to take and eat this fruit, then the human person would experience and know doing evil. Being disobedient instructs us. Once we learn that we are not to be trusted it will effect our view of ourself and our view of others. Those who know the story know that Adam and Eve experienced shame (they saw they were naked; i.e. they experienced a need to "cover up" as they became more self centered and self focused) and shame led to blame (relational break down and finger pointing. Adam blames God and Eve: the WOMAN that YOU gave me, Eve then passes the blame to the snake).
I also think it is a micro-version of the history of Israel. They are in the promised land, sin, and are exiled. The story of Adam and Eve is also our story. We ruin it all by our choices and then seek to blame everyone else. Yes, this is a deep narrative told in simple form. And it is True. Truer than those who would reduce it to debates about biology. I will write about evolution later.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Genesis 1 & 2
How are we to read the book of Genesis? When we hear all the raging controversies and all the claims made what are we to think?
I shared yesterday about the message(s) of Genesis 1. I believe God reveals, in and through that majestic text, some core, foundational truths about the world in which we live.
In the middle of chapter 2, however, there is an additional story about creation. It is a different version of teh creation of human beings. In Genesis 1:12 the earth brings forth vegetation on the third day and humans are created on day six (1:26). On the other hand, in Genesis 2:5 "there is no plant on the earth and no herb when the Lord God (in Genesis 1 it is simply God) makes the man. The Hebrew words are a pun with man/adam and dirt/adamah. It is a reminder that human beings die and disintegrate and return to dust. The beginning of man's existence includes work. He is to till the ground and to keep the garden. Work is part of the deal. Man is also in need of companionship. So we are communal. The foundation of marriage is God's plan for a man and woman to live together as one and produce new life. Lastly, the original state also implies some innocence and openness (they are naked but not ashamed).
Some people see the contradictions between story elements in Genesis 1&2 and reject the bible as untrue. Others, having already decided that because the word of God is true it must conform to their specific standards, deny there is any contradiction. They read the biblical text with the intention to make it all fit. Sorry, but neither approach is terribly helpful. If I read other sacred texts with a critical eye then I must apply the same standard to the sacred text which I hold dear. God's message is on His terms, not mine.
The creation of human beings in the bible is not about a scientific or biological explanation. It is about God's power and plan. The different order of details was known to the ones who originally compiled the literature we read. Ancient people were very adept at seeing logical inconsistencies. Clearly it did not bother them, in fact there is good reason to believe they set the two stories side by side, in spite of some inconsistencies, because they held both the stories to be sacred and true. It is no service to Scripture or Truth to deny what is before us. It is an act of trust and humility to embrace the message. God used the planet we live on to mold and shape us. Is that not what the developmental theories of biology also claim? Our task on earth is unique. We are responsible for the planet. Is that not what we all believe, secular or religious? Human relationships are needed to reach our potential as humans. Is that not what social sciences teach? A family is a man and a woman in committed relationship producing children. That is a biological actuality and social science is very clear that statistically when that breaks down it is not good for children. So, I can hear God's message here and be stunned by the beauty of words written so long ago which still resonate in my heart!
The authority of God's revelation in and through human language is my core belief. The truth of the message is believable. Time limited assumptions about truth dating to the Rationalist movements of the Enlightenment are not infallible, nor are they accurate. So read the bible for what is there and dig deep to uncover all the riches.
I shared yesterday about the message(s) of Genesis 1. I believe God reveals, in and through that majestic text, some core, foundational truths about the world in which we live.
In the middle of chapter 2, however, there is an additional story about creation. It is a different version of teh creation of human beings. In Genesis 1:12 the earth brings forth vegetation on the third day and humans are created on day six (1:26). On the other hand, in Genesis 2:5 "there is no plant on the earth and no herb when the Lord God (in Genesis 1 it is simply God) makes the man. The Hebrew words are a pun with man/adam and dirt/adamah. It is a reminder that human beings die and disintegrate and return to dust. The beginning of man's existence includes work. He is to till the ground and to keep the garden. Work is part of the deal. Man is also in need of companionship. So we are communal. The foundation of marriage is God's plan for a man and woman to live together as one and produce new life. Lastly, the original state also implies some innocence and openness (they are naked but not ashamed).
Some people see the contradictions between story elements in Genesis 1&2 and reject the bible as untrue. Others, having already decided that because the word of God is true it must conform to their specific standards, deny there is any contradiction. They read the biblical text with the intention to make it all fit. Sorry, but neither approach is terribly helpful. If I read other sacred texts with a critical eye then I must apply the same standard to the sacred text which I hold dear. God's message is on His terms, not mine.
The creation of human beings in the bible is not about a scientific or biological explanation. It is about God's power and plan. The different order of details was known to the ones who originally compiled the literature we read. Ancient people were very adept at seeing logical inconsistencies. Clearly it did not bother them, in fact there is good reason to believe they set the two stories side by side, in spite of some inconsistencies, because they held both the stories to be sacred and true. It is no service to Scripture or Truth to deny what is before us. It is an act of trust and humility to embrace the message. God used the planet we live on to mold and shape us. Is that not what the developmental theories of biology also claim? Our task on earth is unique. We are responsible for the planet. Is that not what we all believe, secular or religious? Human relationships are needed to reach our potential as humans. Is that not what social sciences teach? A family is a man and a woman in committed relationship producing children. That is a biological actuality and social science is very clear that statistically when that breaks down it is not good for children. So, I can hear God's message here and be stunned by the beauty of words written so long ago which still resonate in my heart!
The authority of God's revelation in and through human language is my core belief. The truth of the message is believable. Time limited assumptions about truth dating to the Rationalist movements of the Enlightenment are not infallible, nor are they accurate. So read the bible for what is there and dig deep to uncover all the riches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)