ADVENT TO EPIPHANY: Daily Meditations on Biblical Ideas & Words Connected to the Nativity Story.
Iain McKillop
These meditations on aspects of Nativity story were written in the autumn of the lock-down through the Covid 19 pandemic. As we approach Christmas, many realise that this is going to be a very different Advent, Christmas and Epiphany for most Christians in the world. So I thought that it might be useful to write a series of thoughts on elements of the Gospel narratives of Christ’s birth for members of my church, friends and others to read each day from the beginning of Advent to Epiphany. Please feel free to pass these on to others if you think they might be useful to them too. I hope to try to expand our appreciation of the meanings within the Christmas story, through considering afresh what some of the words and phrases in the Gospels actually meant when written, and how we might interpret them today. I suggest that the Meditations are not all read at once, but used as daily thoughts. There are 40 of them, to fit the days from the beginning of December to Epiphany on 6th January and a little longer into the Epiphany season. (I hope that many people will have more exciting things to do on Christmas Day, so give yourselves at least a day off... perhaps plenty of days off!) I apologise that they are so varied in content, length and style. They were written fairly quickly, as the thoughts came to me, as Advent approached, and as I prepare for a heart operation on 1st December. They certainly do not attempt to be anything like a full commentary on the various themes. Some ideas are fairly obvious, some are tentative reflections, several refer to the Greek words in which the Gospels have come down to us, but don’t worry, I hope that these aren’t hard to follow. I’ve transliterated the Greek and occasional Hebrew into western lettering to give an idea of their sound, and I always give the translation or alternative meanings of the words.
Around Christmas many legends have gathered, including fantasies from human imaginations that aren’t really there in the Bible text. I mention some of these, and some of the apocryphal writings in which they are first found. It is profitable to read through even the most common Gospel stories to sift the reality of what is contained in the text from the ideas that have accumulated through imagination or myths that have developed through time. |During Advent read through the Gospel stories of the Nativity and recognise what is actually in the text.
Don’t be alarmed by a few of the questions or challenges I occasionally raise. As contemporary sceptics often question the truth of the Christmas story, Christians should not be afraid of questioning, which is why I sometimes write: “If this is true...” Believers need to have an ‘apologetic’ (a reasoned defence of their faith) that stands up to the challenges of the modern world. Faith needs to be based on truth as far as we can determine it. At times through Church history some Christian traditions have supplemented truth with fantasies that give a bad impression of the Church’s beliefs. If the message of Christmas is basically true, we need to be able to have confidence in the significant parts of it. Jesus’ is believed to have come to represent the truths of God and open people to freedom and salvation through true faith.
Please do not be offended by anything I write that may not conform to your own tradition or understanding. I include some thoughts and questions that are not in my own area of belief either. You may come from a more literalist, liberal, Catholic, Charismatic, Evangelical, Orthodox or traditionalist upbringing in faith from my own. My own personal faith-development moved through many and various ways of finding how I believe, and continues to expand and modify in response to thoughts and experiences. The longer I have been committed to my Christian faith and explored what is true in it, the more I have come to recognise that there are many different ways of exploring, believing and explaining truths about God. None have the monopoly on truth, because God is SO huge a concept and so much will always remain as mystery. If faith has been the result of authentic searching for truth, even ways of faith which differ from our own will contain aspects of truth. Some of these could contain precious elements from which we may learn to supplement or modify our current understandings.
Don’t be concerned when I talk of the Christmas ‘story’: I do not intend the term ‘story’ disparagingly. I use various terms to distinguish different levels of understanding. By ‘story’ and ‘narrative’ I mean the Christmas story as written in the Gospels. By ‘legend’ I mean some of the earliest heroic figures in the Hebrew Scriptures, like Adam and Noah. By ‘invented legends’ I indicate the additional tales and legends from the early Church onward, which supplemented the biblical narrative with imaginative details. We find these in literature like the C2nd Protoevangelium of James, the C6th Syriac Infancy Gospel and the late C6th-C7th History of Joseph the Carpenter. Some may have slight links to real situations, events figures or places in the past, but have been embroidered. Often these details seem to have been elaborated for meaningful spiritual or evangelistic reasons, sometimes through sincere devotion, but that does not make them true. By ‘myth’ I mean totally invented or imagined ideas that have accumulated over the centuries around the Conception, Nativity and Epiphany, which have no possible basis in reality. They may have developed to sensationalise or sentimentalise the story, to promote a place of pilgrimage, inventing people or events and exaggerating miracles or powers, perhaps from sincere devotional motives. Many are probably based on irrational superstition or imaginative fantasies. It is not always possible to separate the truth from the invention, but often we can make intuitive guesses, hopefully inspired and guided by spiritual insight and scholarship. One should never disregard the basic undeniable fact behind the Christmas story: Jesus of Nazareth was a real person whose teaching has had a more significant long-lasting influence on the world than any other.
The most important way to use these studies is to consider them as daily contemplations, allowing the ideas to settle in through the day (like Lectio Divina), hopefully to expand your appreciation of the spiritual value within the Christmas story. Explore how the meanings in the narrative help you relate to God and appreciate what the coming of Jesus Christ into the world has opened for you and for the earth. At the end of each meditation is a thought for contemplation and prayer, but hopefully the study may open a different line of thought for you to consider. Please follow your own direction of spiritual contemplation rather than being restricted or limited by my suggestions.
I have worked on these studies as ways to sort out my own thoughts on aspects of the Christmas story. The Nativity narratives in the Gospels were not just written as ‘matter-of-fact’ accounts of Jesus’ conception and birth and earliest life. The Evangelists include the details of annunciations, angelic proclamations, miraculous signs, visitations and fulfilled prophecies as evidence of Jesus’ nature and identity. John’s Gospel certainly had concluded that he was divine, Luke and Matthew record others as coming to that conclusion. I hope that these meditations help others to similarly consider the meaning of the Nativity narratives for them. Most important: ‘Have a very blessed Advent, Christmas and Epiphany season!’
Iain McKillop - November 2020
SOME CHARACTERS IN THE STORY
1. GENEALOGY – PLACING JESUS’ BIRTH IN CONTEXT - “An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of David, the son of Abraham...” [Matt.1:1].
Genealogies? What an uninspiring theme with which to begin celebrating and considering the glorious Christmas story! But then, look at the fascinating lives led by some of the figures in Matthew and Luke’s lists: Abraham the traveller and seeker after God’s plan; Rahab the harlot and defender of spies; Ruth the faithful refugee, and David, Israel’s most significant king. Wouldn’t you be excited if you discovered them in your family tree? But, if you are anything like me, I’m tempted to skip quickly over genealogies when I read scripture. It is much simpler to leave out the parts of the Bible that don’t seem as relevant, which we don’t understand, or which we find uninteresting or difficult. It’s more exciting to move onto the more exhilarating stories, significant sayings or juicy bits of teaching. Yet we shouldn’t ignore them: Genealogies were extremely important to the ancient tribes; they still are in many world cultures. The lineage of Jesus would have been especially important to the early Jewish Christian Church. Genealogies and stories about your family and cultural history helped to tell you who you were and emphasise your significant place in history or your culture. That is why the ‘Hebrew Scriptures’ (a more culturally sensitive and appropriate term for what used to be called ‘The Old Testament’), and the Gospels and Book of Acts are so full of past history and legends of spiritual heroes and historic mistakes. Jewish genealogies were placing members of the contemporary Jewish nation in context. Jesus’ genealogies placed him and the emerging Christian Church in context.
When we read the genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew [1:1-17] and Luke [3:23-18] there are certainly some names which those with even a slight knowledge of scripture may remember - Adam, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Jesse, Zadok, David, Ruth and Boaz - but many of the other names are obscure or missing in popular history. This does not necessarily mean that they were not significant in the traditions of their families or tribes, or remembered at that time when the writers were compiling their Gospels form either oral or written memories. Today many people are interested in tracing their family tree and uncovering aspects of their family history. But for a Jewish family this was far more important than for most of us today. Their tribal background and being able to trace their line back to any significant religious or historic figures helped them to sense that they belonged to an important tradition. For those who were religious, their lineage linked them to the historic covenants with God.
Jewish lineage was considered especially important if you belonged to one of the major tribes, had royal links to the family of King David, Solomon, Josiah and the other kings or other significant figures or leaders. Jesus’ lineage as recorded by Matthew included many of the kings. Levitical priests like Zadok, Simeon and Levi were also included (the last two mentioned in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus). Jesus may only have belonged to a significant tribes, Judah, but had a lowly background, born in a relatively small village. But Bethlehem was David and Jesse’s village, so these genealogies are really significant. If one studies the references to Bethlehem in the Hebrew Scriptures one finds mention of figures who became royal kings and Levites who were significant to Jewish history and religion. If you were a Jew, your tribe and blood-line, as well as the significance of your place of birth helped to define who you were and your right to a place in the Jewish nation, your status and social position. Many in the tribes were proud of the purity of their lineage and felt exclusive. (This was one reason why the Samaritans became despised, because their racial and tribal lineage was considered to have become corrupted by breeding with Gentiles, particularly during the times of the Exile.) Lists of lineages were kept by priests and lay families. Some figures in society, like the Sadducees, believed that members of the most important tribes were socially and spiritually far superior to others. Jesus tribe, Judah, was considered one to the most significant, which gave extra credence to his later followers who regarded him fulfilling the roles of ‘Prophet’, ‘Priest’ and ‘King’.
However, getting one’s genealogy exactly accurate depended on the researchers’ sources, which must have been difficult for Matthew and Luke as the sources for their Gospels were probably primarily oral. Just as today, people then must have claimed relations through dubious connections, as happened with Ancient Roman emperors. The sources used by Matthew and Luke may have been similar in some details, but differed over other figures, probably dependent on who was reciting the tribal generations to them. In modern Judaism the linear connection through the female line is of great importance, yet following tradition both Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’ lineage through his father’s line. This was the ancient way of recounting a family tree, partly because it emphasised the right to land and possessions, which usually passed through the male line (a tradition that persists today).
Matthew also differed from most biblical traditions of genealogy by including five women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba and Mary. It seems particularly significant that the first three of these were foreigners, people considered to be outside God’s original Covenant. In most of their cases their relationships with the men were also unconventional. I am not sure if the writer was deliberately trying to communicate something by the inclusion of these three women, but it can speak into our contemporary world. We may feel that we are of the wrong gender, background, race or type of person to influence the world effectively. We may have made mistakes in our past or be impure, as was the case with both Rahab and Bathsheba. We may be foreign, a refugee widow like Ruth, or the sort of insignificant person we might think God could not be interested in including within a covenant relationship. The genealogies demonstrate that God’s covenant blessing may have come through the line of David, but they could reach to include any of us.
To me, among the most interesting aspects of the genealogies are those figures who are unmentioned elsewhere in the Bible or in historical records. These people had individual personalities, significant events in their lives and spirituality, as we all do, yet we know little or nothing of many of them. The genealogies, particularly Matthew’s, suggests that there is room for all in God’s plan and God’s Kingdom: the conventional and the unconventional, the famous and those who appear to be of lesser significance. Joseph and Mary were perhaps the poorest, humblest and least significant of all the figures mentioned in these two genealogies, yet in fact their obedience in allowing God to work through them led to the salvation of the world. That was a greater and more significant gift than events in the lives of any others in the genealogy, including King David.
Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus vary from each other in many details. This is not just because they trace Jesus’ lineage in different directions, or that Matthew mentions both parents. Matthew recorded Joseph’s lineage from Abraham forward, showing that Jesus was part of the promise made through the Patriarchs and succeeding generations of kings. He divided the genealogy symbolically into three groups of fourteen generations: Abraham to David; David to the Exile in Babylon and Babylon to the coming of the Messiah. By using this spiritual numerology of groupings of the perfect number ‘7’, he was clearly indicating that Jesus’ coming was part of God’s perfectly ordered plan to bring salvation, from the first Abrahamic Covenant until its fulfilment in Christ. Luke did not begin his Gospel with Jesus’ lineage, but introduced it after the stories of Jesus’ arrival, youth and baptism, just before Jesus embarked on his mission. Luke presents a less abbreviated lineage, probably attempting accuracy rather than symbolism, tracing Jesus backward from his father Joseph in 76 generations, all the way back to Adam. As a result he included several names that differ from those in in Matthew’s Gospel. It appears that they used different oral or written sources, or, as suggested, that Luke included figures from Mary’s lineage. This doesn’t mean that the Gospel writes were lying or that their records should be discounted. It just shows the vulnerability, variety and tendencies to invention in ancient sources. This is true of many manuscripts of classical authors too. There may be some mistakes in biblical records, but that does not invalidate the essential meaning and truths expressed in scripture. What the genealogies are basically emphasising is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historic man, who lived in real time. He was related to significant figures in the life of his nation, who were part of God’s plan to bless the world through having a caring, covenant relationship with them. Jesus was the ultimate fulfilment of an historic line of leaders, spiritual reformers and prophecy, which indicated that through this humble figure great leadership and blessings would come to the world.
‘Generation’ is an important word in Mary’s Song, the ‘Magnificat’: “from now on all generations will call me blessed” [Lk.1:48]... “His mercy is for them that fear him from generation to generation” [v.50]...according to the promise he made to our ancestors [v.55], to Abraham and his descendants for ever” [v.56] In the intervening verses [51-54] she lists some of the many ways that God had blessed his people through the generations. It was said in the legend of Adam that the first man had walked and talked with God, but humanity had lost that closeness of relationship through disobedience, hiding their nakedness from God and being expelled from Paradise. God had then revealed himself progressively to his people through ensuing generations, from the covenant with Abraham particularly, then through Moses, the giving of the Law, the creation of the Place of Meeting - the Tabernacle then the Temple, through the Prophets, and finally through sending a Son who established a new covenant. Luke’s genealogy prominently states that Adam was the ‘Son of God’ [Lk.3:18] and links him with the emphasis that Jesus “was the son (as was thought) of Joseph” [Lk.1:23]. Now God was revealing himself more directly through a Son, as Hebrews states:.. “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. ” [Heb.1:1-2]
For Jewish Christian believers of Jesus’ time the lineage of Christ was important in providing genealogical evidence of who he was. Today, though many people are fascinated by exploring their family history, it is less crucial for an understanding of who we are. The main importance occurs when people are disputing royal lineages or family inheritance. For someone claiming power, authority, or personal rights it is essential to be able to corroborate their relationship to a royal line or the one from whom they desire to inherit. The early Christians’ claim that Jesus was part of such an important lineage gave extra emphasis to the authenticity of his teachings, his claim to be building God’s Kingdom and being the Saviour of humanity.
Jesus’ lineage in both Matthew and Luke is a little artificial of course, since it is traced through Joseph, who according to orthodox doctrine was only Jesus’ ‘step-father’. But it was evidence for the first readers of the Gospels of his identity both as a Jewish leader and as one sent by God: When Matthew and Luke were writing their accounts of Jesus’ life, Jesus’ divine nature had not yet been officially recognised by early-church synods. To suggest his divinity would still have been very controversial, especially among some Jewish Christians who would havefound it almost heretical to believe that Jesus could be God in human form. (It still causes problems.) Luke’s mention that Jesus “was the son (as was thought) of Joseph...” [Lk.3:23], and the discussion of Jesus as ‘the Word’ in the opening chapter of John’s Gospel (see Meditation 32), are signs of the growing recognition of the doctrine of Christ’s divine origins. But Jewish early Christian readers of the Gospels would have been particularly impressed and convinced of Jesus’ importance through this distinguished lineage. It pointed to his significance and potential as the Messiah for whom Jewish history had been waiting for centuries. He would be a kingly leader even greater than the model King David. He would also be a prophetic figure who would lead the people towards God and restore a Covenant relationship, as Abraham. Josiah and Hezekiah had done. Jesus would fulfil the unravelling pattern of salvation, promised to God’s true people for generations (See Meditation 11).
For Contemplation and Prayer:
For Jewish believers of Jesus’ time the lineage of Christ was important in proving who he was. What convinces you that Jesus fulfils the promises of God’s blessing and offer of salvation?
2 JESUS AS THE REVELATION OF GOD “A light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.” [Lk.2:32]
Jesus is believed by Christians to be at the heart of God’s self-revelation to humanity. Mary sang in the Magnificat [Lk.1:46-55], that God was revealing Salvation through his Son. The prophecies spoken over Jesus at his Presentation in the Temple (cee Meditation 38) continue this idea {Lk.2:29-32]. Jesus said of himself ‘those who have seen me have seen the Father’ [Jn.14:9] and claimed “I and the Father are one” [Jn.10:50], which, if not true, in his culture would be heretical and considered worthy of the death penalty. Jesus claimed that he had come to reveal God and God’s truth to the world, to show the ways to authentically relate to God, and to open the door to that relationship. He said: “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him”. [Matt.11:27]. He prayed towards the end of his life: “I have made your name known to those who you gave me form the world... Now they now that everything you have given me is from you; for the words that you gave to me I have given to them and they have received them, and they know in truth that I came from you, and they have believed that you sent me.” [Jn.17:6-8]. Christ was revealing God to all: Jews and Gentiles - those who believed they knew God and those who were considered to be outside the promises of God [Matt.8:11]. He was opening the way for us all to enjoy a covenant relationship with God.
It is often said, following the ideas of the reformed theologian Richard Hooker [1554-600], that our knowledge of God is based on ‘scripture’, ‘reason’, ‘tradition’ (and ‘experience’ is a modern addition to Hooker’s list). Christians believe that our main and closest source for understanding God and the spiritual world is Jesus himself, through his teachings actions, character and achievements. So much of what Christians understand of God and God’s ways remains mysterious and veiled. The spiritual world is a mystery, yet Christians believe that it exists and is true, even if we cannot see or touch it physically. The Greek word for ‘reveal’ or ‘disclose’ is ‘apokalýptō’, (the opposite of the word ‘kalýptō’ / ‘to cover, bury or hide’). From this word we get the title of the last book of the Bible ‘the Apocalypse’ or ‘Book of Revelation’. While scripture introduces us to the ideas and history of the Jewish and Christian faith, reason helps us to work out what and why we believe, by assessing the many traditions that have developed in order to clarify and comprehend faith. Experience helps to assure us, when we see that faith works in practice.
The idea that God reveals himself in various ways is strong in scripture. Though God is invisible, the Bible makes it clear that throughout time God has wanted and worked to develop relationships with humanity. In the Hebrew scriptures God is recorded as being revealed in a host of different ways: signs, seers and prophets, giving laws and rules that helped those who adhered to them to live in his ways, through leaders and God’s spokespeople, dreams, oracles, the pronouncements of priests and prophets, ecstatic visions, through the events of history, and many other ways. But it is considered that Jesus made that communication from God much more personal and direct: Now, in the coming of Christ, “God.... has spoken to us by a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.” [Heb.1:1-2]. We rely on revelation to help to lift part of the veil between our daily experience and the spiritual world. Jesus comes closest to revealing more of the nature of God and spiritual life than had ever been opened before. He spoke with confidence and assurance, convincing his followers that he had actually experienced a spiritual reality of life with his Father, God, greater than anyone had ever known. He claimed to be revealing what God had commanded him to do [Jn.12:50]. Above all he claimed that through him people could come to a more direct relationship with the invisible God than had ever been possible before: In some way, which we call ‘redemption’ and ‘salvation’, he opened a path for us to comprehend and relate to God, which overcame the physical and spiritual limitations in our human nature and the barriers caused by sin and the limitations of our vision. He claimed: “I am the way, the truth and the life, no-one comes to the Father except through me.” [Jn.14:6].
The religious leaders of Jesus’ time (and several since!) believed that they had a monopoly of understanding and interpreting truths about God. Yet Jesus expanded this; he was now “revealing them to infants... and anyone to whom the Son chose to reveal him’ [Matt.11:25-27; Lk.10:21-22]. He was opening up a relationship with God for all of us. Jesus also indicated that through the Cross his true nature would become apparent, as was recognised by the centurion at the crucifixion [Lk.23:47]. The Son of Man’s full nature, he claimed, would be eventually fully revealed on the Last Day [Lk.17:30]. John’s Gospel indicated that the signs and miracles that Jesus did revealed his glory [Jn.2:11; 9:3]. Something new to Hebrew belief came through Jesus: the idea that in Christ himself, people had already found the Kingdom of God and this was a foretaste of an even greater relationship with God in the Kingdom’s dimension beyond death. [Mk.8:38; Matt.11:27; 16:17; Lk.17:30]. Jesus was fulfilling the relationship with God that the Covenants of Jewish history had promised [Mk.7:8ff.; Mattt.5:17]. After him he promised to send the Holy Spirit to continue to reveal, strengthen and maintain people’s relationship with God [Jn.15:26-7; 16:7-15]. The Spirit is an extension of the revelation of God which Jesus had already opened up.
It seems amazing that all this should start with a tiny child, whose birth we celebrate at Christmas and who Christians trust that we will know and worship a different and fuller way in the mysterious dimension beyond death that we call ‘heaven’. The idea that we are already partly sharing that Kingdom of God with him may seem impossible or at least improbable when we look at the state of the world and the imperfect Church today. Yet in relationship with him through our daily lives, scripture, prayer, worship and the presence of his Spirit with us, we have a way through the darkness and mysteries into the revelations upon which Jesus shed light. St. Paul wrote of Jesus ‘lifting the veil’, and of “all of us with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord, as though reflected in a mirror...” [2Cor.3:18]. The writer of Hebrews speaks of us now, though Christ’s self-giving, being able to move directly into God’s presence when we pray and worship, as a result of Christ’s priestly actions and his thorough understanding of human beings. We are able to “approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and grace...” [Heb.4:16]. All this is possible only because of Jesus revelation and achievements.
Jesus did not reveal everything. As I’ll repeat many times in these studies, faith is primarily about ‘trusting’ that there is truth behind so many ‘mysteries that remain in Christianity. He may have been an enormous, essential part of God’s self-revelation to the world. But we do not know in what ways he was that revelation, or how someone can be at the same time ‘fully man and fully God’, as orthodox theology teaches. I believe that God is in whatever proves to be truth: - whatever is the truth behind the creation of the cosmos, whatever is the truth about the spiritual world; the truth behind the force we call ‘God’; the truth behind the way that people should live; the truth behind whoever Jesus of Nazareth was and is; the truth behind whatever happens to us after death, and so much more. All this is hidden within the mysteries of life, spirituality and whatever reality God proves to be. Jesus’ teachings and actions revealed truths about all of these in clearer and more positive ways than had ever been pronounced previously. He claimed to speak with a directness of knowledge and spiritual experience which no human being had ever claimed previously. In practice, his teachings about how to live do truly work, if followed authentically. It is when we hypocritically claim to be following him, yet follow our own priorities and wander from his direction, that Christian lives and the Church become shadows of what they should be and fail to build the Kingdom of God. If Jesus was essentially speaking truth, as I believe he was, he opens up a way to physical life, spiritual and mental health and divine enlightenment that could transform all of us and our institutions.
.
The writer of the Epistle to the Colossians claimed:
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible... all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body the Church, he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything,. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.” [Col.1:15-20].
Like many of Jesus affirmations about himself, that is an enormous and audacious claim to make about any human being. If you find it difficult to be convinced that Jesus was ‘fully God in fully human form’, don’t try to force yourself into believing it wholeheartedly. Trying to convince ourselves of thing we can’t believe are true does not lead to true faith. Instead try to list the things that convince you that what Jesus was saying was true and inspirational. That may help you to consider where he gained that wisdom and inspiration. It is far more important that people follow Jesus’ ways than that they comprehend fully who he was... after all, who does know these things for certain?!... Yet if it is TRUE... it means that this tiny child, who we celebrate being born into the world, has opened something enormous for us - a revelation of aspects of eternity. I believe that Jesus Christ unveiled the spiritual world, and opened a way for us to know God and God’s truths. “Now we see in a mirror darkly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.” [1Cor.13:12]
For Contemplation and Prayer:
What does Jesus most reveal to you about God?
How much can you believe of the teaching that Jesus of Nazareth was God’s self-revelation to the world?
3. MARY “When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.” [Lk.1:19]
I have written a lot about Mary in my study “The History of Mary in the Christian Imagination”, which can be read on my website: https://mckillop.weebly.com . (It was originally given as a Companions lecture at the Community of the Resurrection in Mirfield, Yorkshire.) I do not want to repeat all of that material here. It’s sad that Christians should have created such division over Mary, a humble figure who would have probably been embarrassed and shocked by the level of adoration she receives from some sections of the Church. Yet Mary deserves far greater recognition than some Protestant churches over the years have given by reacting against Catholic and Orthodox extravagant adoration of her. Some deliberately avoid reference to her, yet Mary is a supreme example for all Christians of a responsive, obedient follower of God. She persevered despite fear, potential ridicule or defamation, and faced and endured suffering. I do not want to damage or redirect anyone’s devotion to, or ideas about, Mary in this study, I simply aim to focus some insights into the traditions that have developed about her for contemplation.
Imagination, wishful thinking, and poetic imagery led some Christians to develop traditions, legends and myths around Mary that Scripture and Reason cannot soundly justify. Some Christians’ devotion to her over the centuries has at times outweighed devotion to Christ, which is a wrong focus of spirituality. Visionary experiences of Mary often seem to have been exaggerated and many legends about the have been invented. Yet there can sometimes be valuable truths within even fictional traditions. It is important to try to separate the Mary of popular superstition from the Mary of theological and historic truth. The image of ary that the Church has developed over two millennia is no longer the ordinary, holy, woman, dedicated to God and Jesus, who we read about in the Gospels. She has developed into a spiritual mystery herself. The early decision to entitle her ‘Theotokos’ (adopted at the Council of Ephesus 431C.E.) caused confusion. The Greek term has been translated as ‘Mother of God’, which was interpreted by some to apply divine aspects to Mary herself. Actually the term should be more properly translated ‘Mother of the one who is God’, which was intended to focus belief in the divinity of Christ and the humanity of Mary. “Theotokos” was devised as a term not to honour or define Mary, but as a way to understand and honour the divine and human nature of Christ, born through a human being.
The common iconographic representation of Mary and Jesus enthroned further raised the profile of Mary to a level almost as high as Jesus. Some early and later theologians confused her with the female ‘wisdom’ side of God, attributing to her many of the characteristics of the Holy Spirit, or turning Mary into the feminine aspect of God. The 12th and 13th Centuries witnessed an explosion in Marian devotion, sometimes even replacing the name of God, Christ or the Holy Spirit in biblical texts with that of Mary, as in Bonaventura’s Psalter of Mary. I am sure that many of the non-biblical legends and traditions around Mary may have developed through sincere devotional motives, but Thomas Aquinas recognised the danger of unsound devotion and stressed that worship should be given to God alone. Mary, he insisted should be regarded with “highest honour” [‘hyperdulia’], higher than that given to all other saints, but infinitely below the “latria”/“adoration” due to God alone. The ‘Hail Mary’ prayer of praise, used in churches since the mid-C13th, is based on the Bible, bringing together two separate verses [Lk.1:28 & 42], but the last part of it, requesting her intercession for sinners is a devout invention. Mary is not intended to be the one to whom we pray: Christ, not Mary is the mediator of Salvation and God is the one to whom we intercede, pray through God’s Spirt, and offer worship. Mary’s involvement in salvation was as bearer and nurturer of the Saviour, giving him his human nature. Mary sang in the Magnificat: “He that is mighty has magnified me” (or “has done great things for me” [Lk.1:49]. But her own devotion was towards God.
The image of Mary as a perpetually pure, innocent ingénue, as some churches represent her, can tend to infantilise rather than root a woman who seems to have been intensely practical in reality. The young Mary appears to have been spiritually and mentally mature for her age. She must have matured early, both mentally and physically, if she became pregnant at the age of about 12, married about the same time, and helped to run Joseph’s household as well as nurture Jesus and the rest of Joseph’s family to maturity. I personally, find it hard to believe in the dogma that Mary was herself ‘immaculately’ conceived. The idea of the ‘Immaculate Conception’ is that Mary, like Jesus, must have needed to be conceived miraculously, to be untainted by her parents having sex. This, it was said, was necessary in order to separate her from evil, so that she would be pure enough to bear the Son of God. The idea of Mary’s immaculate conception was promoted at a time when sex was considered sinful, and a cause of impurity. Using theological reasoning rather than tradition, I find it difficult to understand why God would need to conceive Mary by immaculate means. For Christ to be born to a virgin might be an understandable belief. But it seems an anti-incarnational understanding of human nature to consider that Mary had to be divinely or miraculously conceived herself in order to be pure enough to carry him, protecting him from the stain of sin. To take the belief to its fullest conclusion, the whole of Mary’s lineage should have been immaculately conceived, so that Mary could be a pure enough vessel to carry the Son of God. The doctrine almost suggests Jesus wasn’t fully human which would be heretical. It is far more miraculous to consider that God chose a weak, humble yet in some ways stained human body as the recipient of his grace, to carry his son to the world. That is exactly what God does in living in us ordinary Christians, when he lives in us by his Spirit.
Another uncomfortable legend for many is of Mary’s bodily ‘Assumption’ into heaven. These traditions developed very late in the history of the Church. The Assumption was promoted from the C6th, the Immaculate Conception in the early C12th. But both dogmas of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption were hotly contested for centuries, even in the Roam Catholic and Orthodox churches that encouraged such beliefs. They were not adopted as Roman Catholic doctrine until very late, 1854 and 1950 respectively. If you believe in them, I wouldn’t want to offend. But I’m sure that most Christians would agree that such beliefs should not distract from the emphasis that God revealed himself through a physical human life, developing in the cells of an ordinary woman, who gave Jesus human form. To interpret Mary as a mystical, miraculous character, with all the titles and symbols associated with her, can make Christ’s incarnate nature seem more like a magical being than a physically real man, born of a natural human mother, representing God in a human life.
It would seem much more spiritually uplifting and inspirational to think of Mary as the model of the sort of human being to which we could all aspire, than as something just short of a ‘goddess’. She was holy in her commitment to God, disciplined and devoted in her spirituality, obedient and open to God’s ways, and willing to be the carrier of God’s child. Her level of human discipleship raises her to a degree of specialness, beyond most of us, by her wholehearted devotion to God. But she remained humble, as declared in the Magnificat [Lk.1:46-55]. As a ‘bearer of the one who is God’ Mary can be a model for every believer. We are all called to carry God in our bodies as ‘temples of the Holy Spirit’ [1Cor.3:16]. The Incarnation is about a real woman giving birth to a real child who was showing God to us in a way that we could touch, experience, communicate with directly and learn from his teaching [1Jn. 1:1-3]. Images of Mary and the Christ-child were originally intended to emphasise that Jesus became human for us, not to enthrone Mary.
Representing Mary as the supremely beautiful, pure, ideal woman, as in Italian Neo-Platonist Renaissance art, was intended to represent her inner beauty of soul. But representing her as an ideal beauty can again distract from the reality of a peasant woman leading a difficult life, remaining devoted to following God with the strength and determination to face the realities of life. Mary grew up struggling in a difficult world. Leaving Mary as young and beautiful can tend to infantilise her, implying that her faith remained child-like. Imagining her as ‘Our perfect Mother’ can also infantilise those who venerate her, and become dependent on prayer to Mary. We are always dependent on God. God’s commission and mandate to humanity intends us to grow into mature adult disciples, with mature adult faith and a degree of Spirit-inspired ‘independence’. The emphasis on Mary as ‘our Mother’ or ‘the Mother of the Church’ can sometimes encourage over-dependence. The reality is that she is closer to being our elder sister or aunt, following a similar journey to our own. She is an example to inspire us to purity, obedience and the mission of bringing Christ to others, rather than the one who nurtures us.
Seeing Mary as miraculously pure, as suggested by the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, can distract from the call to ordinary human beings like us to allow ourselves to be made holy by God’s Spirit’s activity, and to discipline our lives to resist sin. We don’t need miraculous births to righteously and totally devote ourselves to God’s way. Ordinary human beings, generated through sex, can be holy and used by the Spirit as messengers for God. The sexually active can become as much “temples of the Holy Spirit” as the most virginal saint, nun or monk. The idea of Mary as ever-virgin, eternally pure, may be partly attractive, because most of us are aware of our sinfulness. The strength of our sexual drive is the root of much human guilt. Purity seems attractive. An example of a woman unstained by sin, (as Jesus is an example of a man without sin), gives us something to long for, or to aim towards. It also counters the emphasis on woman as the sin-bringer that historically dogged the Church. But we need to remember that purity comes through God’s grace, cleansing and forgiveness even more than our personal discipline in resisting sin. The cleansing brought by Christ is what makes ordinary mortals like us acceptable to God, not miraculous conception and protection, or whether or not we remain virgins.
Stories of the Assumption and Coronation of Mary are often used to claim that Mary was bodily taken to heaven to intercede for us at the throne of God. But emphasising Mary or the saints as ‘intercessors-for-us’ must not distract from the biblical truth that, as Hebrews reminds us (4:16; 10:19-22), we have direct access to God in prayer and worship, through Christ’s sacrifice and the Holy Spirit. Access to God doesn’t depend on intermediaries. It is Christ who makes us right with God. Some suggest that Mary was ‘assumed’ into heaven to sit at Christ’s side to intercede for us because she understands what it is to be human. But Christ himself understands and has experienced our nature [Heb. 4:14-16]. The imagery in scripture is of Christ interceding as ‘our great high priest’ in heaven. If Mary is there, helping us along, that’s wonderful… but grace and mercy are the gifts and actions of an all-understanding God. Some claim: “I’m unworthy to come before Christ’s throne in prayer, so I humbly intercede through Mary and the saints”. That is commendable humility, but seems unnecessary… None of us are worthy: “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” [Rom.3:23]. Yet Christ’s salvation has raised us up and cleansed us, and made us worthy to approach in prayer. We may not know what to ask in prayer, but the Holy Spirit, not Mary, transforms our prayers to make them worthy and acceptable [Rom.8:26-7]. Prayer is God-inspired and God-ordained, not saint-inspired or saint-dependent.
Mary of Nazareth, the biblical Mary, was no “Queen of Heaven” in the way that she is sometimes represented in art. I doubt if she owned any blue, scarlet or green cloth, the colours she is usually represented as wearing. As she was poor, she probably wore more homespun natural colours, even though I have often represented her in blue to distinguishe her as a character in my paintings. The traditional colours for representing Mary in art are symbolic: Blue emphasised her holiness, showing that eternity came to live in her. Lapis Lazuli blue was the most expensive colour in the Mediaeval and Renaissance artist’s palette, so of course it was used to honour Mary. Red and green emphasised her humanity – the red of human flesh, the green of the earth.
In Annunciation paintings Mary is frequently shown reading scripture and praying. The real Mary may possibly have been illiterate, though equally, she may have known her letters and have taught Christ his letters, prayers, and been a founding influence on his spirituality. The imagery of Mary reading the Bible in images of the Annunciation expresses a truth about the devotion of her faith and here readiness for God to reveal himself to her. Her faith ensured that God could trust her with the nurture of a child who needed to grow up to understand that his purpose was to save God’s world. Mary’s spirituality can be like ours in many ways: whether we are literate or not we can pray and be devoted to God’s ways. Apocryphal literature, especially the C2nd Protoevangelium of James invented many legends of Mary’s spirituality, claiming that she was dedicated to the Temple as a young child, grew up there, wove the veil for the Temple that ripped open at Christ’s death, and was betrothed to Joseph after a miraculous test in which his staff burst into flower. But these legends, often represented from Mediaeval to Baroque art, are unnecessary in pointing to the specialness of Mary. She is all the more miraculous in being an ordinary, humble young peasant girl who became the only person considered worthy enough by God to entrust with the growth of his Son.
Mary is an experienced former example on our journey to achieving our potential as Christians. ‘Sister’ or ‘aunt’, as I have suggested, are perhaps more valuable metaphors than Mary as ‘mother’. Mary is more like us than many in the past recognised, even though we do not live up to her example: She was vulnerable, humble, dedicated to being holy and valuable to God. She was of use to God and open to follow what was required of her. She was hurt by life yet she showed God to the world. Rather than seeing Mary as a pure paragon of unreachable holiness, it is much more valuable to imagine Mary as a real woman struggling as we do, yet faithful to God, encountering God and given power by God’s Spirit. That way she becomes the pre-eminent saint to whose holiness we might aspire, and whose faithfulness in bearing Christ to the world can inspire our own mission. She is the model of the perfect disciple of God of any age or gender.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
In what ways can Mary be a model for your own discipleship, inadequate as you may feel?
4. HANDMAID Mary responded: “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord, let it be with me according to your word.” [Lk.1:38].
By calling herself a handmaid of the Lord, Mary was basically offering to be God’s ‘servant’ in anything required of her. Words are of course easy; many Christians call God ‘Lord’ of our lives, but how many of us are willing to serve so meekly and selflessly as Mary? Would you open yourself to the possibility of being stoned for adultery as Mary could have been? Our service and love for God are not just words to proclaim (hypocritically in some cases); they call for actions and ways of thinking that should be at the heart of our Christian lives and activities. It is much easier to claim to ‘love’ and talk of being a ‘servant of God’ than to practise love and be a caring active servant or steward of what God has entrusted to us.
After love, Jesus’ teaching about ‘service’ was perhaps the most important of his commands. Love and service go together; if we love others and love God, we are far more likely to serve them selflessly. Love of God and love of God’s world should be inseparably linked. Jesus said that if someone claims to love him they will do as he commands [Jn.15:14]. The opposite is probably true: if we disobey Christ’s commands to serve and to be diligent stewards, we do not truly love. Mary, at the Annunciation and in bringing up Jesus, showed her love and trust of God through accepting God’s request and God’s trust of her.
In the Israel that Jesus was addressing, when he told his followers to be servants as he was, a servant had very few rights other than to be offered freedom in a year of Jubilee. Women had few rights too and woman servants had even less rights, despite the leniency of the laws of the Pentateuch, which raised the rights of women and servants above those in several other ancient cultures. Jesus, St. Paul (despite his adherence to cultural norms), and the practices of the early Church, raised the status of women even higher. Today many people insist on their rights – human rights, women’s rights, worker’s rights, racial rights, children’s rights, consumer-rights, the right to self-determination etc. Such rights are personally important and help towards a just society, despite the many injustices which persist. Yet we should always remember that our greater responsibilities are not towards self, but to serve others with love. Christianity is not based on ‘my rights’, ‘self-before-others’ or ‘survival of the fittest’, which are commonly promoted in social behaviour and modern commerce. Jesus is our example of using his life for the good and advance of others: “Greater love has no one than this, that they lay down their life for their friends” [Jn.15:13]. When Jesus stripped off his upper-garments and washed his disciples’ feet before the Last Supper, he was physically demonstrating that he was withdrawing his rights as their master and showing them the example of servanthood [Jn.13:1-17]. ‘He did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited but emptied himself taking the form of a servant’ [Phil.2:6]. Mary was doing something similar when she accepted the request to bear God’s child.
The Magnificat implies that she recognised that God was raising her above what she deserved: “For he that is mighty has magnified me” But I wonder what she really felt in her quietest, intimate moments during the pregnancy and when we are told that she ‘pondered’ so many things ‘in her heart’ [Lk.2:19]. I personally would have been scared stiff, as I know several women are when they discover they are pregnant, and many of both sexes are when we take on roles of responsibility. I would not like to have been in Mary’s position. Would you have trusted yourself to undertake so responsible a role?
In Christianity the practice of serving is not a miserable one. The idea that being a servant in the Greek or Roman world was largely undignified: One was intended to act obsequiously and feel abased. In Jewish culture service was not considered unworthy. Jesus parables include worthy and unworthy stewards. In Christianity leaders often call themselves ‘servants’ and ‘stewards’ of God but sometimes over-raise themselves and their authority like the dishonest stewards in Jesus’ parables. True Christian authority in leadership is about taking responsibility, not having personal power or position, and certainly not swaggering over our place and responsibilities. Jesus did not just encourage us to be servants; he called those who are doing what he commands ‘friends’ [Jn.15:15]. While we are all servants we are nevertheless greatly valued. Jesus’ parables about servants see them as stewards; people entrusted with high responsibilities to care for the master’s world and all that the Father treasures.
The servant in scripture keeps eyes and ears open, attentive to the merest sign from the master or mistress of the house, in order to be able and ready to respond. Psalm 123 encourages our response to God to be this eager: “As the eyes of servant look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maidservant look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy…”[Ps.123:2]. Mary’s response at the Annunciation does just this; she was attentive, and responded with obedience.
There are many varied words for ‘serve’ and ‘servant’ in scripture, about twelve in all, depending on the form of service, but all include listening to the master’s word and doing his will. ‘Doúleúō’ was to serve as a slave. A ‘diákonos’ served at table and cared for the master, but a deacon was also set to empty the latrines and was expected to be willing to do the most menial or disgusting tasks without grumbling. (All Christian ministers are ‘deacons’ so would you be willing to empty the latrines or clear out the ordure, metaphorical or physical, from church mistakes?). ‘Therapeúō’ was to serve willingly; ‘latreúō’ / ‘to serve for wages’; ‘leitourgéō’ / ‘to do public service’. Jesus most often used the terms diakoneín and doúleúō, demonstrating that we are responsible for doing God’s will, yet are trusted with the care of God’s world. The Greek word for ‘handmaid’ that Mary used in response to the angel’s announcement is ‘doúlés’, feminine of doúlos, which suggests that she was regarding herself as in total servitude to whatever God might require of her.
The Greeks were strongly attracted to the concept of freedom. One’s freedom gave a person personal dignity. For Plato, the only slavery that a Greek would accept was their personal responsibility towards God. But when Jews talked of slavery they often used ‘doúlos’ of enslaved service. Jacob became enslaved to Laban [Gen.29:18]; Israel was enslaved in Egypt [Ex.13:3; 14:5; Lev.26:45]; conquered nations became slaves [Judg.3:8; 1 Sam.17:9]. However a doúlos or doúlés could also have dignity. Saul and David’s courtiers were called douloi [1Sam.18:5; 2Sam.14:9-10.]. Doúlos is used throughout the Septuagint, (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, hitherto indicated as ‘LXX’ in these meditations,) to indicate service of God. This word often translated as ‘slave’, was probably intended to demonstrate the wide difference in status between God’s power and authority and our own position. Abraham [Ps.105:42], Jacob [Isa,48:29], Moses [Josh.14:7], Joshua [Judg.2:8] and David [Ps.89:3] are all referred to in the LXX as ‘doúlos’, yet their service of God was dignified.
The opposite to being a doúlos or female doúlés servant would be to be disobedient. The impression of my personal reading of Luke’s account of the Annunciation, and that of many commentators and scholars far more knowledgeable than myself, is that although the angel told Mary fairly directly that she would conceive and bear a son [Lk.1:31 & 35] Mary had a free choice to serve in this way, since she said in response “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord, may it be to me according to your word”. My belief is that God does not force us to do anything, let alone something so dangerous and out of character. Yet Mary’s humility and desire to serve is perfectly reflected in this encounter with the angel and her willingness to follow God’s way, despite any natural misgivings that she may have had.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Is service truly at the heart of your life and ministry? If you felt that God or your conscience were asking you to do something significant that would make you vulnerable, yet could change the lives of others for the better, how would you respond?
5 VIRGINAL CONCEPTION “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means God with us.”[Matt.1:23].
As if the controversy about whether Jesus was God was not enough of a challenge, with this subject of the ‘Virgin Birth’ we continue to jump into the pool of faith at the deep end. This is a dangerous place to start swimming, but it gets over a few problems early in our studies. In no part of this series of meditations do I want to damage anyone’s belief or disbelief by over-challenging their concepts of faith in subjects like the virginal conception of Christ, or the divine nature within Jesus. So much of our Christian faith is based on mysteries, so there needs to be room within Christianity for many different ways of comprehending or interpreting what we try to believe to be true. Most of us in different churches or outside churches are at different places on our paths to trying to understand. Yet what we believe about Christ is such an important subject to consider. In preparing for Christmas celebrations we are considering the place of God in our lives, the truth of who Jesus of Nazareth was, and the way his salvation came into being. Studying and contemplating our beliefs should encourage a strong, thoughtful faith, and help us to work out what we can believe to be true, rather than set stumbling-blocks. In these studies we are dealing with mysteries, which have been pondered, studied, explored and wondered over for centuries by ordinary Christians, deep-thinking theologians and a whole spectrum of thinkers in between. We have to be very careful when discussing deeply held beliefs not to hinder the faith of anyone. Gentleness and openness to different ways of believing need to be a feature of all sensitive commentary and discussion of faith.
A distinctive feature of Matthew’s Gospel is the repeated use of quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures as evidence to his readers that Jesus was the Messiah to whom Jewish history and the Hebrew prophets had been pointing for centuries. [see Meditations 14 & 30]. In the verse: “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means God with us.” [Matt.1:23], the Evangelist was quoting the prophecy in Isa.7:14. But a challenge occurs immediately: Matthew was quoting from the Greek translation of Hebrew scripture. The Greek word in the LXX (The ‘Septuagint’ Greek translation which Matthew seems to have used), is ‘parthenos’ which does mean ‘virgin’. But the Hebrew original text of Isaiah 7:14 used the word ‘almah’, which merely denotes a ‘young woman’, particularly a young woman of ‘of marriageable age’ (anything from 12-14 years onwards). Presumably in that culture, this ‘young woman’ was expected to be a virgin if she had not yet married, but if Isaiah had intended to mean a woman who was ‘virgo-intacta’ he would have used a different term: ‘betûlâ’. So the passage in Isaiah was not necessarily referring to the virginal conception of Christ. It is thought that Isaiah’s prophecy was probably originally pointing to the birth of a leader who would be closer to Isaiah’s own time and would bring reform to the nation. This was probably referring to someone like King Hezekiah or King Josiah, who instituted significant religious and social reforms in the nation after their return from Exile in Assyria and Babylon. There seems to have been no expectation in Jewish tradition or literature that the Messiah would be born by virginal conception. Nor is it found in pagan literature, since whenever even divinely generated heroes or Gods were born, they were created by the seed of another God (implanted in sometimes rather unusual ways). This is one reason why it is incorrect to try to make too much of supposed connections or parallels between the birth of Christ and legends of ‘sons of gods’ in classical myths.
Some critics claim that the virginal conception of Jesus was a later invention by the evangelists and the early Church, and point to it not being mentioned in the rest of the New Testament. But that is not necessarily true. In Rom 1:3 Paul wrote of God’s Son: “on the human level he was a descendant of David, but on the level of the spirit – the Holy Spirit – he was proclaimed Son of God.” Paul was primarily talking there about the role of the Holy Spirit in Christ’s Resurrection, but some commentators see it also as a reference to the Incarnation. Gal.4:4 and Phil.2:7 are also sometimes used as corroboration, though they do not make the idea clear. In Gal.4:4: “God sent his son, born of a woman, born under the law,” Paul used the term ‘ginomai’ [‘to be born’], not the more obvious ‘gennaō’ [‘to beget’], which would have indicated a natural conception. This may suggest Paul’s knowledge of the story of Jesus’ miraculous conception. Phil.2:7 uses a similar unusual choice of words and an elaborate construction “Christ Jesus... taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men, and in fashion being found as a man”. This may well be a recognition that the conception and birth of Jesus had not been normal or natural.
But none of this adequately answers the problems which many people have over the potential of Jesus’ conception being miraculous. Even reasoning people, sceptics and doubters should accept that ‘parthenogenesis’ (virginal conception or the development of an embryo without fertilisation by a sperm) does occasionally happen in nature. Scientists point to several instances where it has occurred. Aphids, daphnia, komodo dragons and sharks do. It is far from common, and only a few instances of it happening in human beings have been mooted. But nevertheless it could happen. Matthew’s verse isn’t the only verse that refers to Mary being a virgin. Luke 1:27 and 1:34 mention it too. Mary says “How can this (pregnancy) be, since I have known no man?” [Lk.1:34]. Joseph is also said to have not had sexual relations with his betrothed wife until after the birth of Jesus [Matt.1:25]. The culture of ‘betrothal’ [Lk.1:27]. described below, would have allowed Joseph and Mary to have been sexually active, but Joseph asserts that this had not occurred.
Matt.1:18 and Lk.2:5 use the same Greek verb ‘mnēsteuō’ to describe the relationship between Mary and Joseph at the time that she became pregnant. ‘Mnēsteuō’ is sometimes translated as ’betrothed’, ‘pledged to be married’ or ‘engaged’. It is clear that they were considered not yet fully ‘married’ since the angel tells Joseph to take her as is wife in Matt.1:20. Some critics believe that the idea of the virginal conception developed to defend Jesus’ legitimacy, but such an invention would not have been necessary. The Greek verb ‘mnēsteuō’ is used 8 times in Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, (which the Evangelists would have known and from which Matthew quioted) [Deut.22:23, 25, 27, 28, Hos.2:16,19-20]. It translated the Hebrew verb ‘aras’, used of the Jewish two-part marriage. In the Jewish marriage practice of the time of Christ, the groom would have paid a ‘bride-price’ (mohar) to the bride’s father [Gen.34:12], which was regarded as a firm contract between them [Lk.1:19]. This was the ‘kiddushin’ the last stage of the courtship and the first stage of a two-part wedding. It was as legally binding as if the wedding ceremony had been performed. They were legally ‘married’ from the time that the contract was paid, and at this stage Mary and Joseph would have been regarded as ‘husband’ and ‘wife. Betrothal lasted about a year, during which time the bride remained in her father’s home, though she was already considered ‘married’. ‘Nusuin’ was the second part of the marriage, with a ceremony and feast, marking the husband bringing his wife into his home. As the Rabbinical code said: “Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce." If Joseph had publicly denounced Mary because she was found to be pregnant, the community would have stoned her as an adulteress, since she was legally married to Joseph yet the child was not Joseph’s.
Matt.1:20 & vs.24-5 imply that either the full year of formal betrothal had passed, or Joseph and Mary began to live together early, perhaps having had a marriage ceremony or not, since he took her into his home [v.24]. Matthew stresses that they did not have sexual intimacy until after the birth of Jesus [v.25]. Lk.2:5 implies that when Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlehem they were still ‘betrothed’ as opposed to married, though under ancient Jewish law, if they were living together, sexual activity would not have been prohibited, as in the story of Ruth and Boaz [Ruth 3:4, 8-9].
As with the false emphasis on virginity as being associated with greater purity than the marriage state, it is sad that the Christian Church has had such an uncomfortable attitude to sexuality over the centuries, and that its stigma still remains. It has caused many problems over the years, particularly false senses of guilt. Good people have been expelled from churches or rejected from ministries because they do not comply to the often-double-standards or hang-ups of others in the church. In the legend of Adam and Eve, if the couple had not been told to multiply the human race would have died out. So sex was regarded as an important instinct from the start. The important genealogies of the first study in this series would not have occurred without natural generation! There are obviously perimeters and moralities to be observed, but the church often seems too narrow in its legalism and priorities over sexuality. Of course sexuality got people like Kong David into trouble over his lust for Bathsheba, and several misuses of sexuality are denounced in scripture [Gen.19:4-9;Lev.18; Judg.19:22-29]. But there is nothing reprehensible about sexuality in itself, nor should we feel guilty about the strength of the sexual drive. It was the hang-ups of figures like St. Augustine of Hippo, great theologian though he became, that caused many of the guilt-trips that still dog Christians. Augustine was so ashamed at his incontinent sexuality in his youth that his writings associated sexuality with shame and emphasised that virginity was of greater purity than leading a sexually fulfilled life. His unfortunate teaching was expanded by many other Church leaders, leaving many believers uncomfortable over their natural instincts. If you study the sexual history of the Church you find that far too many leaders have succumbed to hypocrisy and immorality, possibly through the emphasis on repressing completely natural sexual drives. Restrictive teaching and double standards still persist today in the teachings and attitudes of many churches.
The biblical text implies that Mary and Joseph may well have gone on to have other children in the natural way after Jesus. Jesus is described as Mary’s ‘firstborn son’ [Lk.2:7]. We are told that he had brothers and perhaps sisters [Matt.12:46-50; Mk.3:31-3:35; Lk.8:20-21; Jn.7:3-5]. St. James was one of these; Joseph, Simon and Judas are also mentioned [Matt.13:55]. Non-biblical legends in the C2nd Protoevangelion of James, the Golden Legend etc. were promulgated in the Middle Ages to try to explain the difficult anomaly of Jesus having kin. They claimed that Joseph had been married previously and brought to his marriage with Mary other children (‘adelphoi’) by his former wife. There is no biblical or other evidence for this, but it is still the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church and many Catholic churches. St. Jerome considered that the ‘adephoi’ of the tradition were Jesus’ ‘cousins.’ However, the few references in the Gospels, and Jewish marriage and cultural tradition about the importance of children in a family, suggest that Mary and Joseph would have had no qualms about having sexual relations after the birth of Jesus. If any want to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, as many churches still teach, it should not be a problem. It has little to do with the idea of the miraculous conception of Jesus. It should just not make people think that Mary was any purer by not having had sex than someone today who might live a righteous life yet have sexual relationships with their legal partner. To consider virginity as better than or superior to continent sexual activity would be an aberration of our natural instincts and the importance of procreation.
Mediaeval science attempted to get round the idea of any connected with sexuality in relation to Mary’s conception of Jesus. In art she was often represented baring her breast to suckle the child, but that was considered natural, not shameful. In many late-mediaeval and Renaissance paintings of the Annunciation, as the angel announces the coming of Jesus to Mary, lines of golden light carry either the dove of the Holy Spirit, or a tiny Christ-child towards the devout Mary. They are sometimes shown directed towards Mary’s ear. Some sermons and treatises of the time taught that the miraculous conception of Christ came through Mary ‘hearing’ the word of God through the angel and the child entered her by way of the ear. In medical understanding of Mediaeval times the woman herself had little to do with the conception of the child. It was believed that the male seed implanted in her womb grew into the child, rather than the male fertilising a female egg. In Mary’s case, the child in her womb was considered to have been totally the result of God’s intervention. That is why she became called “the bearer of the one who is God”. Today we might try to reason such a conception in rather different ways, perhaps imagining the divine and the human becoming united in the complexity of Jesus’ D.N.A., as the embryo’s cells divided and divine nature became part the child’s nature and character.
What might be the relationship of all this to us and our relationship to God today? One consideration might be to not over-exaggerate the extent of our spiritual, historical or medical knowledge. We should not discount miracles, or the possibility of parthenogenesis, but neither should we invent answers as the early-church theologians and mediaeval minds did. We do not need to understand everything, especially in areas that ore beyond our abilities to understand. Nor should we try to think God’s ideas for him. Sometimes in faith we need to be willing to accept that some things will always remain mysteries. Yet we have been given minds that grow by searching to understand truth. Over many decades, in many different kinds of churches, I have heard several dogmatic preachers going beyond humble speculation to pronounce dogmatically over a broad number of religious subjects from the nature of Christ, the relationship of the ‘persons’ of the Trinity, the way that Christ achieved salvation, those who are definitely saved and not saved, what exactly happened at the Cross and Resurrection, ‘Predestination’ etc.. All these are mysteries, at which scripture only hints: the workings of which one cannot work out by reason.
The issue of whether Jesus was miraculously conceived or not has never particularly worried me. His teachings, his offering ways to understand and connect with God, and his offer of Kingdom life are, to me, the particularly important features of his life and ministry. His offering of the expansive concept of ‘salvation’ (explored in these studies in Meditation 11 on ‘Saviour’) is, to me, far more important than needing to try to explain or defend how or in what nature he came into the world. Trusting in what Jesus achieved and following what he taught are far more important than insisting on belief in his virginal conception. We have little clear understanding of so much in spirituality and faith. The story of the Annunciation explains that he came from God, but not the way in which Jesus represents God or was God incarnate. The imagery of the Trinity is a concept developed by theologians and Church doctrine as a way of trying to understand the mysteries only touched on in scripture. It is our ongoing relationship which Christ and with God through Christ and the Spirit which helps us to find the reality of spiritual life which Jesus opened for us.
As the angel guided Mary to a place where she could accept her role in the bringing of salvation, we too have the role of bringing the truths that we have found in faith to others in the world. The famous fresco of the Annunciation by Fra Angelico, in the upper corridor of San Marco in Florence, was a reminder to the Dominican friars, who passed it dozens of times each day, that they like Mary, were intended to carry Christ to the world. As Mary carried the Christ-child in her womb and trained him as a child in preparation for his revelation to the world, so the preaching friars believed that they carried Christ within them, through his Spirit and were responsible for communicating the truths about him through their lives, teaching and preaching. Our own responsibility as Christians is to unveil Christ to others and enable them to find ways to understand the benefits of faith. We should not to put stumbling blocks to belief in their way. If any have difficulty in believing in the Virgin Birth, I do not believe that we need to insist on it, since there are so many more important features of faith to enrich people’s lives. With years of the benefit of faith behind us, certain mysteries that we cannot understand become less significant. Living the abundant, righteous life that Christ opened to us through a relationship with God is far more vital than understanding and accepting doctrines..
For Contemplation and Prayer:
In what ways does God expect you to remain pure in your life? We often carry misguided ideas of what we should be like and what our relationship with God should entail. God has made us as we are and we are in the situations that we are for unique purposes. In your present situation how can you follow God more righteously?
6. JOSEPH ‘Joseph went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from them house and family of David. He went to be registered with his wife Mary....’ [Lk,2:4-5].
Part of me personally identifies with Joseph, Jesus’ father, because I was born on his feast-day (19th March) and because he was an artisan, like myself. But I feel a bit sorry for Joseph in the New Testament because he doesn’t get much kudos in the nativity story and disappears quickly from the Gospels. Like most figures in scripture we do not have much background knowledge about him. I have already discussed Joseph’s lineage under ‘Genealogies’. His home town at the time of his betrothal to Mary is describes as being Nazareth in Luke [Lk.2:4], but we cannot be certain whether he was born in the northern Kingdom of Israel or the southern Kingdom of Judah. Perhaps he originated in Bethlehem, or somewhere close and had moved north to Galilee for work. Luke just states that “...Joseph went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David”. [Lk.2:4-5]. Matt.2:21-23 gives the impression that he intended to return to Bethlehem after the Flight into Egypt but decided to settle in Nazareth because of the greater security there than under Archeleus in Judea
Despite the genealogical lineage in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels, already discussed, Joseph seems to have been quite low in social standing in the family tree of “the house of David.” [Lk,2:5]. Matthew names Joseph’s father as Jacob son of Matthan [Matt.1:16], which may be drawing an intentional parallel with the patriarch Jacob and his son Joseph in Genesis. Unfortunately Luke calls Joseph’s father Heli son of Matthat, but at least the gradfathers’ names are similar. From the sacrifice of two doves, which Joseph and Mary offered in the Jerusalem Temple at the Purification [Lk.2:24], we can be pretty sure that they were a poor couple, as that was the lowliest of the sacrifices which could be offered. We are later told that Jesus’ parents went yearly to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover [Lk.2:41], and that they were astonished at finding Jesus in the Temple discussing with the elders after they found him missing from the train of returning pilgrims. [Lk.2:48]. After that, Luke makes no more mention of Joseph except a disparaging reference by Jesus’ compatriots that his father was just a carpenter [Lk.4:22.].
Matthew’s Gospel is a bit more detailed over the character of Joseph and his reaction to Mary’s pregnancy. When he heard that Mary was pregnant, he could easily have divorced or denounced her, in which case she would possibly have been stoned by the community. However Matthew tells us: “Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. But just when he had resolved to do this, and angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream…”. He was reassured that the child in her womb was conceived through the Holy Spirit, and was destined to save his people from their sins... “When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the Angel of the Lord commanded him: he took Mary as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son and he named him Jesus.” [Matt. 1:20-21; 24-25] Joseph resolved no to cause any scandal for his betrothed and obeyed the angel’s directions, which Matthew obviously intended as evidence of his righteousness and obedience to God. He is described as keeping the religious laws of sacrifices, circumcision, purification and regular attendance at festivals, so is implied to be a pious Jew. His sense of morality is inferred from his first idea of dissolving his marriage, then going ahead with it and protecting his wife and her child. He knew it could not be his own, so it must have taken some courage in the gossipy community of a small village.. The trip into temporary exile in Egypt must have gone above and beyond the call of duty, especially as he would have been leaving behind whatever business and contacts he had built up in Judea But again , he was obedient to a dream, as he was in returning after the death of Herod [Matt.2:13-15; 19-21]. Here we come to an apparent anomaly in the two Gospel stories. Luke stated that Joseph travelled from Nazareth to Jerusalem. But Matthew implies that Joseph must have come from somewhere further south, perhaps even Bethlehem itself, as the Gospel states: “Then Joseph got up an, took the child and his mother, and went to the Land of Israel. But when they heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled: “He will be called a Nazarean.” [Matt.2:20-23].
Unfortunately we do not know where Matthew found this later prophecy; it is not in the canon of our present scriptures, unless he is relating Jesus to prophesies about Samson’s ‘nazarite vow’ not to cut his hair, [Judg.16:17], which seems unlikely, or a variant reading of Isa.11:1. The meaning and etymology Greek for Nazarean [Nazoréos] are uncertain. It could mean an ‘inhabitant of Nazareth’ or as in Judg.13:5, 7.a ‘Nazarite vow to live an ascetic life, consecrated to God. It could be a word-play, associated with the term ‘nazirite’ meaning ‘Holy One of God’, which was used of the remnant who remained devoted to Jerusalem in Isa.4:3. The exiled Syrian Christian community, for which it is believed Matthew originally wrote his Gospel apparently called themselves ‘Nazarenes’. So Matthew may have deliberately been including the term to help them feel united with Christ by their holy devotion.
The last mention of Joseph in the Gospels is his search for the lost young Jesus and finding in the Temple [Lk.2:41–49]. Apart form legends about his age at death (mentioned below), scripture tells us nothing of the circumstances of his death, which is considered to have occurred before Jesus began his public ministry and well before the crucifixion [Jn.19:26-27].
Translations tell us that Joseph was a ‘carpenter’, though the meaning of the term used is rather broader. Joseph is described a ‘tekton’. which then could referred more generally to a ;jobbing builder, a skilled or semi-skilled craftsman, artisan or maker of objects in various materials, including wood, stone and metals. It is unlikely that Joseph had a nice neat workshop, like that portrayed by painters like J.E. Millais Christ in the Carpenter’s Shop or Holman Hunt’s The Shadow of Death. He may well have been an itinerant worker. From Nazareth he could well have been employed on the building of the Roman city of Sepphoris about 4 miles to the north-west, which was undergoing extensive reconstruction after destruction by the Romans in 4B.C.E. The assumption that Joseph worked with wood, is of ancient origin in the early Church. Justin Martyr [died c165] wrote of Jesus himself making ploughs and yokes. Apocryphal literature mentioned below describes Joseph as working in the timber yards of Galilee. Alternatively in the Talmud the Hebrew terms 'naggar' / 'carpenter' or the phrase 'son of a carpenter' were sometimes used of a learned man, literate in the teaching of the Torah. This is less likely in Joseph’s case, but it is possible.
Other than the few biblical references all that we suppose about Joseph comes from traditions and legends, some of which are from the Protoevangelium of James, The History of Joseph the Carpenter or the later popular mediaeval book ‘The Golden Legend, compiled by he Dominican friar Jacobus de Voragine. This included material from early apocryphal gospels and other traditions. It is assumed that Joseph was older than Mary and traditions suggest that he died when Jesus was fairly young. But just as the Bible does not say much about Jesus’ mother Mary, it says even less about his ‘father’ Joseph. It is the imagination of Christians over centuries that has expanded people’s thoughts about both Jesus’ parents. The Eastern Orthodox Church follows the tradition that Joseph was married prior to his betrothal to Mary. They name his first wife as Salome, Melcha or Escha and claim that she died leaving him with children who became known as Jesus’ ‘brothers’ mentioned in Mk.6:3; Matt.13:55-56. It claims that his first marriage was at the age of 40 and lasted 49 years. Other traditions claimed that the other children were those of Mary’s sister, another ‘Mary’, wife of Alphaeus, so were cousins of Jesus, as the term used for ‘brothers’ /’adelphoì’ in Mk.6:3; Matt.13:55 and Jn.7:5 could also mean ‘cousins’, ‘close relatives’ or even ‘close friends’. In context, however, it would seem to be intended to mean direct siblings. In Christian tradition the author of Jude was traditionally said to be Jesus’ brother Judas, and Jesus’ brother James became the leader of the church in Jerusalem.
The apocryphal ‘Protoevangelium of James’, written c150 C., was mooted to have been written by Joseph’s son the disciple James the Less. It claims that Joseph was an elderly man when he became betrothed to Mary. (This is a very convenient way to gets over the possibility of a sexual relationship.) The compiler claims that Joseph was chosen as Mary’s protector by lot, indicated by a staff that miraculously budded. This was just the start of legends about Joseph, no-doubt making up for the paucity of mention of him in scripture. They particularly expanded during the rise in devotion to Joseph after c800C.E. The late C6th-C7th apocryphal ‘History of Joseph the Carpenter’, (some date it to a century earlier) was claimed to have been written by Jesus as a biography of his father. It states that Joseph was 90 when he was betrothed to the 12 year old Mary to protect her, alongside his four sons James, Joses, Simeon (or Simon) and Judah (or Judas), and two daughters whose names are variously reported as being, Salome, Lydia, Miriam (Mary) or Anna. It claims that Jesus’ mother Mary was finally ready to be married at the age of 14 years 6 months, then that Joseph died at the age of 111. Eusebius claimed that Joseph had a brother Clopas, whose wife was one of the witnesses of Christ’s Resurrection. With the rise of the cult of Joseph he became seen not just as a protector of Mary and Jesus, but also of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1889 he was officially declared the Catholic Church’s patron, which is partly why so many modern Catholic churches and schools are devoted to him.
Like Mary, Joseph’s primary importance is that he was an ordinary man, devoted to God and committed to doing right. He was a worker and is regarded by many as a model of fatherhood, a diligent provider for his family and is regarded as patron saint of workers. He may also have been a model teacher of Jesus as his apprentice, but we have no firm evidence that Jesus himself became a ‘tekton’, though in that culture it is likely that his father apprenticed him. His integrity is implied by his support of his family, and doing right by the pregnant Mary, when she could so easily have been shamed. He is implied to have been religiously devout in that he and Mary yearly visited the Temple regularly for the necessary feasts [Lk.2:41]. Like Mary, through perhaps a bit more hesitantly, Joseph is described in scripture as obedient to God’s leading, with a the moral sense of responsibility as well as sensitivity to spirituality and dreams.
For Contemplation and Prayer.
Are there any parallel between Joseph or the situations in which he found himself, with your life and situation?
7 THE VISITATION OF MARY AND ELIZABETH “In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth”. [Lk.1:39-40]
The visit of the pregnant Mary to Elizabeth, who was expecting the future John the Baptist, is only recorded in Luke’s Gospel [Lk.1:39-56]. The chronology of the narratives of the Nativity is difficult to harmonise as, in several scenes it is hard to reconcile the stories in Luke and Matthew. Luke implies that Mary left Nazareth soon after the Annunciation and travelled "into the hill country ... into a town of Judah" [Lk.1:39]. But in Matthew, Joseph is said to have ‘taken Mary into his home’ after the dream in which he was assured that the child was not illegitimate [Matt.1:19–25]. Was Mary’s three month stay with Elizabeth prior to Joseph taking her into his home? Was that perhaps the period during which Joseph was considering what to do over Mary’s pregnancy, before becoming resolved as a result of a dream? Or had Joseph made his resolution to support Mary, yet decided to take Mary to stay with her relative Elizabeth and her husband, to prevent local gossip? Some assume that he would have accompanied Mary to and from Judah but returned to Nazareth during the period of Mary’s visit. One might have thought that if the intention of the visit was to hide the pregnancy Mary might have gone to her relatives as a slightly later date, when the pregnancy was beginning to show. We’ll probably never know.
The Western Church now celebrates the Visitation on 31 May. From 1263, it had been celebrated on 2nd July, before the liturgical calendar was revised in 1969,. The changed of date was made to place the visit logically between the Feast of the Annunciation (25th March) and the celebration of the birth of John the Baptist (24th June). However, this brought the celebration of the Visitation to the end of the period of Mary’s supposed stay with Elizabeth, rather than near the beginning of Mary’s pregnancy as Luke implies. Lutheran and Catholic churches in Germany, still celebrate the feast on 2nd July, as does the church in Slovakia and the traditional Anglican Book of Common Prayer. Eastern Churches celebratethe Visitation on 30th March, soon after the Annunciation, which allows 9 months before the celebration of Christmas. The Syriac Church celebrates it in the period before Christmas, which appears a little odd. However the date is relatively unimportant, since we cannot be sure at what time of year Jesus was actually born. It is the significance of the meeting of the two woman and their children which are the significant elements of the story, and the ecstatic responses both of the children and the mothers’ declarations.
Other than that Mary travelled to ‘hilly country”, Luke is not precise over the location of Elizabeth and Zechariah’s home. The term ‘òreinén’ / ‘hilly’ or ‘mountainous country’ was sometimes used of Judea itself. The area around Galilee was itself hilly, as was the area around Bethlehem. As a priest Zechariah could have lived near Jericho, an area where many who served in the Temple lived. Some suggest that it could have been Hebron, which was over 80 miles away and was certainly more mountainous. A tradition since the C6th was that their home was in ‘Ein Karem’ (alternative spelling ‘Ain Karim’) 6 miles from Jerusalem, but there is no firm proof of this tradition.
Commentators suggest that there are parallels in Luke’s story of the Annunciation and Visitation between Mary carrying Christ and the Ark of the Covenant carrying the promises and presence of God, but this may be taking the biblical symbolism too far. Some Roman Catholic commentators have suggested that that the purpose of Mary’s visit was to carry divine grace to Elizabeth and her unborn child. They suggest that Christ’s presence cleansed John in the womb from original sin, in order that he could become Christ’s forerunner. But the theology of such ideas is suspect: Elizabeth is certainly described as responding to the visit by celebrating the coming of grace to her: “This is what the Lord has done for me when he looked favourably on me...” Lk.1:25... “Why has it happened to me that the mother of my Lord comes to me!” [Lk.1:43]. The whole story of the conception of John suggests that Elizabeth was already aware of and enjoying God’s grace and was filled with the Holy Spirit as she celebrated the meeting with Mary [Lk.1:41]. John himself, was already a blessing to his parents and the angel had said that “even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit” [Lk.1:15]. Luke seems to be intending us to imagine the child already being prepared by God’s Spirit for his future prophetic role. Luke had shown us already that Zechariah was a faithful priest and that Elizabeth was descended from the priestly family of Aaron [Lk.1:5]. She had been pregnant for 6 months and both she and Zechariah were being blessed by God.
When Elizabeth declares that Mary was most "blessed" among women, the word used is not one of general blessing or happiness ‘makarios’ but a much stronger word: ‘eùlogimeni’. This is only used in this one verse in the New Testament. It is the feminine of the word "eùlogimenos" which is only used in connection with Jesus as he entered Jerusalem to the praise of people waving palms: "Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord... the King of Israel" [Jn.12:13]. It is then used once in the plural by Jesus in referring to the righteous who will be raised to life in the Last Judgement. So the term seems to be one of ecstatic praise for special blessings directly from God. How often is our own praise of God so enthusiastic?
The earliest representations of the Visitation in art before the C12th showed the two women greeting each other very formally. Occasionally in Syriac art they were represented embracing more tenderly. Mediaeval art then developed a more emotional representation of the greeting with a stronger embrace, and the two figures often rushing into each other’s arms. As the cult of devotion to Mary developed in the C15th Elizabeth was shown kneeling at Mary’s feet. In Northern European art the figures are sometimes represented more intimately as touching each other’s tummies. About the C15th another iconography of the Visitation developed, which had Byzantine origins: John the Baptist and the child Jesus were displayed, visible as though the wombs of their mothers were transparent. This imagery was supressed by the Council of Trent during the Counter-Reformation, as it was considered irreverent and undignified. Following the Council the pose of Elizabeth kneeling was recommended, to indicate her subservience to Mary and John’s to Jesus..
It often seems strange to me that Zechariah isn’t given more significance in the story. Luke gives a lot of prominence to women in his Gospel, but one would have thought that Christ having a priestly relative would have been given more stress, even though he was only related by marriage. The story of his being struck dumb as temporary punishment for his doubt [Lk.1:20] may possibly have been intended to indicate lack of faith and trust among the priestly order, which would later lead to the Sadducees, Pharisees and Scribes rejecting Jesus. This contrasts with Joseph’s immediate obedience in response t the angel’s message. However, both Zechariah and Elizabeth are described as “righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord” [Lk.1:6]. The barrenness of Elizabeth would have been considered a curse, and a sign of lack of blessing on the couple. The conception of John would have been considered a miraculous blessing like the blessing to Sarah [Gen.18:6-15], Rachel [Gen 29:31; 30:22], Hannah [1Sam.2:1-10] or in a more obviously Messianic sense ‘The Song of the Barren Woman’ in Isa.54:1-7, which I once painted:
“Sing O barren woman, you who never had child,
burst into song and shout, ‘you who have not been in labour!
For the children of the desolate woman will be more than the children of her that is married...
Do not fear, for you will not be ashamed;
do not be discouraged for you will not suffer disgrace...
You will forget the shame of your youth...
For your Maker is your husband,
the LORD of Hosts is his name,
the Holy one of Israel is your redeemer...
With everlasting love I will have compassion on you,
says the LORD your Redeemer.”
There are several parallels between the stories of the conception of John and Jesus, and the conceptions of previously barren women in former Jewish history. The parallel with Hannah is especially strong, since the songs and declarations of both Elizabeth and Mary closely reflect the triumph song of Hannah [1Sam.2:1-10]. Their songs, (further explored later in Meditations 34 & 35) celebrate the extravagance of God’s blessing of humble people who recognise that they do not deserve the blessings lavished upon them by the promise of their children.
There are various important aspects in the story of the Visitation: It emphasises the prophetic nature of John the Baptist and implies that the Holy Spirit’s involvement was active in both Jesus and John’s lives from conception. Their meeting links the Old and New Covenants: As John and Jesus met the prophetic age and the age of salvation touched one another. The mothers’ songs, greetings and declarations teach us a lot about how to praise God. But more practically, Elizabeth and her husband were instrumental in the protection of Mary’s life and the survival of her unborn child. Without their and Joseph’s protection, Mary might otherwise have been stoned and the forming child lost, or if he had been born, he might have been considered illegitimate, and thus not worthy of being listened to. The three months with Elizabeth and Zechariah must also have helped the inexperienced and young Mary prepare for her pregnancy, spiritually, physically and mentally, especially if, as seems likely, she attended the birth of John.
We are not told anything of what Elizabeth and Zechariah offered to Mary during her stay through this period of pregnancy. One can assume that the maturity, life-experience and spiritual integrity of the older couple helped to prepare Mary for the trials ahead, even though they had not previously had children. Elizabeth’s statements about Mary, and Mary’s singing of the Magnificat suggest that they strengthened her spiritually as well as providing material shelter and care.
At one extremely vulnerable point in my own life, a wonderful, gentle and wise Christian couple took me into their own home for several months and protected my life in a similar way to the protection that Zechariah and Elizabeth offered Mary. Other friends at various times have also drawn close and embraced me in periods of intense need and insecurity. These are models of Christian care. In the Visitation a sensitive couple disregarded the surface, dubious appearance of Mary’s pregnancy. A less enlightened couple, or a narrow-minded community, might have not been so sensitive and summarily condemned her, as churches have often done in morally questionable situations. The reaction of John in Elizabeth’s womb, and Elizabeth’s reaction seem intended to indicate that John’s parents had spiritual insight into the reality of the situation. But whatever the situation, their compassion took the young girl into their home, protected, nurtured, offered guidance and provided for the immediate physical and emotional needs of the situation. Mary must have felt particularly afraid: For a young child, of possibly about 12-15 years, facing pregnancy and motherhood, Mary must have been particularly vulnerable, especially as the situation could have been considered dubious. Her relatives’ love and security reflected the love of God to her.
For Contemplation and Prayer
Elizabeth and her husband were a spiritual family who sheltered Mary at a time when she was most vulnerable. To whom can you go when you feel vulnerable or in need of spiritual support? Are there any who you recognise as vulnerable, who you could help in any way, and how could you best support and protect them?
8 JOHN THE BAPTIST "Elizabeth will bear you a son and you will call him John" [Lk.1:13; 2:60].
Tradition considers that John was close to Jesus from early in their lives, not just that they met in the womb at the Visitation. Scripture gives little indication of this: Legends of John largely derive from later apocryphal legends like the Protoevangelium of James. We cannot be certain of John’s exact relationship with Jesus. In Luke’s account of Mary’s Visitation to Elizabeth [Lk.1:38-44] Elizabeth is described as a ‘relative’ or ‘kinswoman’ / ‘syngenís’. Some translations call Elizabeth Mary’s ‘cousin’, but the Greek word is not so specific. The as-yet-unborn John is supposed to have recognised the holy presence of Jesus even as a 6-month old baby in the womb [Lk.1:41 &44]. At that time Elizabeth is supposed to have rejoiced and prophesied [v.42-45]. If this actually occurred and is not a story, invented to enhance the spirituality of the tewo children, it can probably only have been handed down from Mary. John is traditionally called Jesus’ ‘cousin’, though that is not in scripture. As with the word syngenís’. used of Elizabeth’s relationship with Mary, we cannot be sure of the exact relationship; it just appears that they were related in some way through the their mothers.
The biblical account has been expanded by many legends over the centuries. One suggests that John and Jesus were sheltered, together with their mothers, by angels. When Mary and Jesus returned from Egypt they are said to have found John in a cave being fed by angels, since his mother had died. This is the subject of Leonardo da Vinci’s two paintings of ‘The Virgin of the Rocks’. Fascinating as some of the myths, legends and tales about saints are, they are often exaggerated, sometimes by Christians with the best of intentions, who believed that fantasies and invented miracles could expand the Christian story to give further proofs and make faith more attractive. The opposite is true today; we should be evangelising by promoting truth not idealism, fantasies or inventions. God is in truth, and only truth can convince and set people free [Jn.8:32]. Legends tell that John then continued to live in the desert, nurtured and taught by angels, until the start of his ministry of preaching repentance and baptism in preparing the world for the revelation of Jesus’ own ministry. John was ‘Making straight in the wilderness a highway for the coming of God” [Isa.40:3]. Zechariah was told in the angel’s announcement of John’s birth: “He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him...” [Lk.1:16-17]. John himself claimed not to be Elijah returned from the dead [Jn.1:21] yet Jesus implied that John did represent the prophecy that Elijah would return to herald in the coming of the Messiah [Mal.4:5; Matt.17:12]. John’s manner, unconventional costume and message certainly seem to have been modelled on Elijah. His message was forthright and drew many followers and converts to his message of repentance. Significantly, despite growing success in his ministry John said of Jesus: “He must increase, while I must decrease.”[Jn.3:30]. This is a key principle for all preachers, ministers and other Christians: Our role is to be catalysts to point people to God through Christ, not to point to ourselves or be the centre of attention. (Quite a lesson for many ministers!)
John the Baptist was far from being a ‘shrinking violet’. Like his wild appearance, there seems something slightly frightening about the power with which John ministered, especially the way he confronted Herod and other hypocrites who he called to repentance. I’ve a Christian friend who admires the way that John demonstrates that followers of God can be individual. We’re not intended to be clones of one ‘spiritual’ type - neatly dressed, always smiling, praising, at peace, believing the same things in the same way. We vary enormously; we have come to faith in different ways; have different life experiences, psychologies and social and cultural backgrounds. The church would be boring if we were all the same, and we could not communicate faith to the wide variety of people in this world if we all believed, thought and expressed faith in the same ways. John the Baptist demonstrates that finding the way to faithfully follow God by being yourself can be spiritually truthful and effective. John certainly appears to have communicated well and convinced many of the need to reform their faith. He can’t have been so weird that people avoided him!
Josephus the Jewish historian, writing within living memory of John, recorded him as a good man, eloquent in communicating and exhorting the Jews to live righteously. Like Jesus, John must have had a charisma that convinced people to follow his teaching. Crowds might have flocked to the spectacle of a dishevelled eccentric, but they wouldn’t have followed him or adopted his message and reformed if he was just a wild celebrity preacher. Even if he had been physically attractive or had a charismatic personality, I doubt that so many would have turned their lives round, as his followers are said to have done. There must have been an appeal and truth in his message that convinced people and drove them to righteous action. Would that the contemporary Church had a bit more of that intensity, integrity and reforming zeal in the ways that we communicate! We are meant to be those who herald the message of Christ winsomely to the world. We need to be shown to be giving a message that the world, with all its problems and inadequate priorities truly needs, as John did!
The parallels between Elijah and John are so strong that Elijah was almost certainly a major inspiration on which John modelled himself. His costume of camel-skin and other attributes seem to have been deliberately emulating the former prophet. Elijah and John appeared at times when society was being corrupted in seductive ways – not too different from today’s world. Ahab’s rule was materialistic, sensuous & violent, as were the royal and religious rulers in John’s time. Queen Jezebel introduced worship of foreign gods, as did the Romans. People today follow a plethora of secular, religious and pseudo-religious ideas. The societies to which Elijah and John ministered had become morally degraded. John called for a return to purity, integrity and reform to follow true faith not false institutional religions. Like Elijah in exile, John in the wilderness and in the countryside called people to return to truly following God. He was also fulfilling Isaiah’s call to raise valleys and lower mountains to create in the desert a highway for the coming Lord. [Isa.40:3]. That also reflects our calling to raise, strengthen and bring confidence of faith to the weak, and to lower the proud to receptive humility, so that we are all ready to receive God in Christ and comprehend his message to us.
Traditionally in Western art, John is accompanied by a lamb and points to Christ as ‘the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world’ [Jn.1:29, 36]. On my wall I have a 19th Century Russian Orthodox icon of John the Baptist that depicts him with wings. He wasn’t an angel of course; the Gospels describe him as fully human with two normal parents though conceived through God healing their childlessness [Lk.1:7, 24]. In some Orthodox traditions Elijah, Moses and other prophets are also shown with wings; sometimes Jesus is painted with them too. We will find later in Meditation 25 that the Greek word ‘angelos’, which we translate as ‘angel’ literally means ‘messenger’. John is represented literally as ‘God’s messenger’, God’s ‘angel’. The imagery implies that he was inspired by God and sent ahead of Jesus as a messenger to herald his coming. In the icon, his eyes radiate rays of light as well as a tearful expression, suggesting his insight into the joy and light that Christ is bringing to the world, but also his sorrow, recognising that this lamb will be sacrificed and that he himself will be martyred. This icon type is called ‘John the Baptist the Forerunner’. John was sent before Christ to ‘prepare the way’ for people to be ready to receive Christ into their lives. He called people to ‘repent’ - literally to ‘turn around’, to recognise the truth of who we are and to amend our lives to go God’s way. John baptised to bring spiritual cleansing and a new start with God, helping people to be cleansed by God and make covenant vows to follow him and receive God’s forgiveness, ready for a new start.
In John’s hand in the icon, he holds a chalice containing the infant Jesus. Sometimes, in the iconography of John, the chalice hold’s John’s decapitated head, showing the extent of his commitment to God’s mission and to truth. John experienced martyrdom through standing for truth. More often the chalice holds the infant Christ as in my icon. or a lamb, which may be represented sacrificed, as in Rev.5:6, 12. John is shown to be offering to the world, Christ, God’s salvation, and all else that Christ brings. The words on John’s scroll are often one of two texts: “Behold, Christ the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”, or “Christ is the Light of the World”. The chalice offers the viewer the entirety of what Christ means and can bring, saying: “be cleansed, be holy, be filled with Christ, receive salvation”. It also reminds us that we are called to holiness in allowing ourselves to be filled with Christ. As St Paul said, Christians are meant to be “Temples of God’s Holy Spirit” [1Cor.3:16-17; 6:19]. Since Christ lives in us by his Spirit, we are meant to remain clean, Christ-like & truthful; to minister by reflecting Christ to our world - a huge responsibility, privilege and challenge. The infant Jesus depicted in the chalice reminds us that, in some mysterious way, Christ is now present in us as well as in John’s message. We have God’s Spirit and we have shared in the body of Christ in sharing the Eucharist together, so Christians have Christ living in us to offer to the world.
John, like the Church, was to declare the coming of salvation to the earth. When first used in the Hebrew Scriptures the term ‘Salvation’ meant ‘rescue from enemies’, then its meaning was expanded to include ‘triumph over problems and sin’. Later after the Exiles & Maccabean revolts it became used for ‘life beyond death’, expanded further in all the visions of heaven in the Book of Revelation. In Jesus’ & Paul’s teaching salvation included being freed by Christ to be fully the people we are capable of being, released from sin & all that might hold us back from being what God intends. In the message of John the Baptist ‘salvation’ was brought by pointing people to Christ, the source of salvation.
John’s wings in the icon remind us that we too are called to be messengers offering and explaining Christ’s salvation effectively to others. In the icon the infant’s raised arm touches John’s heart. It reminds us that we need to feel intensely the value of salvation and all that Christ achieved if we are to offer salvation to the world sincerely. Does Christ’s love for you, and the salvation Jesus has brought to you, thrill you so deeply that you ache to pass it on?
What attracts me to this icon is its powerful focus on John saying to all of us ‘clear yourself of everything that is wrong; be clean an d ready for God in Christ to live in you; let him reveal his truths to you and through you’. The chalice that we share in communion, like the chalice John offers, contains in microcosm ALL that Christ has given us. In communion with one another and with Christ, we share together the enormity of what salvation means.
Jesus claimed that ‘anyone who has received Christ’s message is as important as, even more blessed than John the Baptist.’ [Matt.11:11] This is a reminder of what we are meant to be individually, and our significance as a Church. We are all meant to be faithful, holy, and enthusiastic messengers for God to those around us, just as John was. A few of us, like John the Baptist, may be more strange and eccentric than others. Yet God has chosen and called us. We are meant to be holy chalices to offer Christ’s forgiveness, healing and holiness to the world. Our ministry like John’s is to introduce people to Christ’s presence and enable them to receive Christ’s healing, restoration and filling.
John, like Elijah is one of the strangest good characters in scripture. I don’t think that gives us the excuse to be totally weird ourselves, but it might suggest that we shouldn’t be afraid of individualism. Some Christians seem to feel the need to try to be clones of one ‘spiritual’ type of person - neatly dressed, always happy, smiling, praising, at peace; all of us believing the same things in the same way. But of course we all vary so much; we have come to faith in different ways; we have different life experiences and very different psychologies and social and cultural backgrounds. The church would be boring if we were all the same, and we couldn’t communicate faith to the wide variety of people in this world if we all believed, thought and tried to explain faith in the same ways. So, good for John the Baptist! - He shows that being an eccentric, faithful follower of God can be spiritually truthful and effective!
John certainly appears to have communicated well and convinced many of the need to reform their faith. There must have been an appeal and spirit of truth in his message that convinced people and drove them to action. John ‘The Forerunner’ encourages us to find the best ways to convey Christ’s message to our own contemporary world. We too are chalices to offer Christ to the world. John the Baptist shows that being true to ourselves and our calling in following of God can be as effective, spiritual and truthful, if we are naturally unusual people, as we might be if we were a socially acceptable socialite. What matters is our sincerity in our relationship with God, our integrity in being our true selves in following God’s calling, and our priority in showing Christ to others rather than primarily promoting ourselves. I’ve known several eccentric Christians who strangers avoid like the plague. But others are authentic in the way they give themselves wholeheartedly to God’s way. They put many of us to shame by their devotion, integrity and obvious love for others and for God. I wonder if it was similar with John the Baptist. Scripture says he was filled with God’s Spirit from before birth. That might suggest in that from early on people recognised a sincerity and truth in him that was more than personal charisma. Perhaps they recognised his authenticity and knew that they wanted something of the spiritual truth that filled him. It would be wonderful if that were true of more of us who claim to follow Christ.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
What has God called you to be and do in pointing people to Christ? In what ways can you do this naturally by being your true self, with your natural and spiritual gifts, rather than needing to falsely aim at emulating others?
SOME NAMES AND TITLES FOR JESUS IN THE NATIVITY STORY
9. NAME HIM JESUS “She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” [Matt.1:21].
What’s in a name? The Bible is full of significant names. Heb.1:4 states that Jesus’ name is superior to that of all heavenly beings. But what name is the writer taking about: ‘Jesus’, ‘Christ’/’Messiah’, ‘Emmanuel’, ‘Lord’, ‘Saviour’? There are SO many names and titles associated with Jesus in scripture. By not stating a particular name, perhaps the writer of Hebrews was implying that he was talking about ALL that Christ is and stands for, since a name represents the entirety of the one it describes. As YHWH - ‘I am want I am’/ ‘I will be what I will be’ represents the whole of God, ‘the name of Jesus’ or ‘the name of the Lord’, when mentioned so many times in scripture, represents the whole of what Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ, is and was.
Jesus’ parents were told to call the child ‘Jesus’ [Matt.1:21; Lk.2:21]. Using his full name, he would probably have been known as ‘Yeshua ben Yoseph’ / ‘Jesus, son of Joseph’. ‘Yeshua’, means ‘YHWH is my salvation’. ‘YHWH’ was the distinctive name for God, and the closest to a personal name for the mystery of the invisible God, which the Jews were given through Moses [Ex.3:13-15]. The human name ‘Jesus’ is the Greek form of the Hebrew and Aramaic name Yeshu'a, which is itself a contracted form of Yehoshu'a / ‘Joshua’. Earlier in the Bible the name was ‘Hoshea’ [Num.13:8, 16]. Under Moses the name was changed to ‘Jehoshua’ [Num.13:16; 1 Chron.7:27], or Joshua. After Israel’s exile in Babylon the form Jeshua emerged, and later became the Greek form ‘Iesoûs’ / ‘Jesus’. Yeshua is not a name confined to Jesus of Nazareth; it was and is still, the name of many other men in Israel. Jesus’s name, therefore, was not particular to himself, nor did it emphasise that Jesus was anything other than an ordinary person. However, in Jesus of Nazareth the meaning of the name is particularly significant, since it indicated not just a trust in the promises of God’s salvation, but Jesus’ own mission, to save.
A ‘name’ was considered to carry the essence of a person or thing. Adam ‘naming’ the animals of creation in the Genesis legend, implies that he was gaining knowledge or understanding of them. One of the reasons for God’s name initially being anonymous in Hebrew history may have been to emphasise that God remained mysterious, above understanding and beyond the control of any. But in the case of Mary and Joseph being told to name their child ‘Jesus’, it seems to be a deliberate indication that he was coming to reveal God’s saving power and to be involved in bringing that salvation.
Today people often consider the original meaning of a name when giving it to a child. (Melanie means ‘dark’, John meant ‘God has been gracious’; Mary originally meant ‘bitter’, Joseph meant ‘May God increase’). People’s names throughout the Bible similarly often carry significant meanings: ‘Jacob’ the twin means ‘supplanter’ or ‘follower-behind’; ‘Israel’ means ‘contended with God’ or ‘wrestled with God’; ‘Judah’ means ‘thanksgiving’ or ‘praise’ yet Jeremiah prophesied a new name for Judah: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’ [Jer.23:6]. One feels sorry for the children of some prophets, who were saddled with names that sound vindictive: Hosea’s children [Hos.1:3-9] were particularly hard-done-by: ‘Jezreel’ was named after the valley ravaged in battle, ‘Lo-ruhamah’ meant "No Mercy" or "No Pity" and Lo-ammi’ meant ‘Not My People’. Thankfully Hosea anticipated that they would be eventually renamed ‘Ruhmad’ / ‘Shown Mercy’ and ‘’Ammi’ / ‘My People’ [Hos. 2:1,23]. The Book of Revelation prophesies that the redeemed will similarly be given a new name in heaven and will comprehend God more directly and personally, as implied by an as-yet unknown new name by which to be known and to know God. [Rev.2:17; 3:12].
Philippians tells us: ‘…at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.’ [Phil.2:10-11]. Much of who Jesus was, is, and what he achieved remains ‘mystery’. But we give thanks and worship whatever is the whole truth of Jesus of Nazareth, believing him to be whatever is the truth about Christ. Jesus said. “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” [Matt.18:20]. Christians meet as part of the body of Christ: ‘In his name’ we share in the totality of what he is, what he taught, and all he achieved. We don’t fully understand the mystery of how Jesus achieved salvation, what ‘salvation’ fully means, or whether that applies to Christians alone or acts more widely within the cosmos as St. Paul implies [Rom.8:19-25]. Yet when we thank Christ for the gift of salvation we express gratitude for the totality of whatever ‘salvation’ stands for and whatever truth is contained in the words: ‘there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.’ [Acts 4:12] or “I am the Way, the Truth and the Light, no-one comes to the Father except by me.” [Jn.14:6]. Surely, in a multi-cultural, multi-faith world, it cannot mean that God gives eternal blessing only to those who follow Christ. Did Christ’s self-giving open a way for many more? If we are worshipping in spirit and in truth we would be presumptive to believe that we understand these mysteries fully, though human minds and many theologians may speculate. Jesus did claim, nevertheless, that the ‘eternal life’ he brought is: “that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”. [Jn.17:3].
Knowing God ‘by name’ is associated with being in a secure relationship with the mystery of a power far beyond our understanding. It suggests that we can trust in that power and live in close relationship with the entire truth that the name of God represents. Believers in God are meant to remain constantly responsible for maintaining the good reputation of God and building the understanding of the truth of God in the wider world. Unfortunately, whenever individuals or the Church fail God, we damage both our reputation and that of God’s perfection, which we are meant to represent. St. Paul condemned both false Jews and false Christians when he said: ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’ [Rom.2:24]. We are meant to be allowing ourselves to be ‘led in paths of righteousness for his name's sake’ [Ps.23:3]. Our faithful and authentic witness should be long-lasing: ‘I will cause your name to be remembered in all generations; therefore nations will praise you forever and ever’ [Ps.45:17].
The name of Jesus, meaning ‘God is my salvation’ may be a fairly common name among Jewish male children, but Jesus of Nazareth represents the meaning of the name in a fuller sense. Christians believe that in him God revealed himself most fully to the world, and through his achievement of ‘salvation’ God restored the world to a closer relationship than people had ever known with their God.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
In your relationship with Jesus, in what ways do you feel that you appreciate the enormity of all that Jesus is and the breadth of what he achieved? Try to immerse yourself in what Jesus’ name, ‘God is my salvation’, stands for.
10. EMMANUEL “They shall name him Emmanuel, which means God with us.” [Matt.1:22-23]
‘Emmanuel’ or ‘Immanuel is the Hebrew word for ‘God With Us’. ‘Im’ means ‘with’ and ‘El’ / ‘The One’, was one of the early names for God. The name links with Jesus’ own personal name, which meant ‘God is my salvation’ or ‘God saves’ and is interpreted as indicating that this child was coming as God’s representative to bring salvation. The name is found in Isa.7:17, in a promise that God will protect and be with the House of David. So, like Bethlehem, the home-town of King David, it is another link with David’s lineage [see Meditation 22].
When Isaiah originally made this prophecy, it was a time of war, when King Ahaz was considering turning to Assyria for alliance against attack from Israel and Syria c734-2 BCE. Isaiah predicted that a future child would rise who would defeat Judah’s enemies and revive the nation. This was first interpreted as sons after Ahaz’s own faithless reign, like Ahaz’s son Hezekiah. Isaiah prophesied that Assyria under Tiglath-Pilezer III would destroy both Israel and Syria, then would over-run Judah [Isa.8:1]. However God would provide a figure or figures who would eventually save the people. In Isaiah chapters 7 and 8 the prophet mentions four prophetic names of children who would see the despoiling of the nation then the salvation of God’s people. Isaiah named his own sons symbolically to indicate this future : ‘Maher-shalal-hash-baz [Isa.8:1], which means ‘Hurrying to the spoil’ or ‘He hastens to plunder’, and ‘Shear-jashub’ [Isa.7:3], meaning ‘a remnant shall return’. But Isaiah predicted that two future figures would restore Judah and Israel: ‘Emmanuel’ / ‘God is with us’ [Isa.7:17]; and another name associated with Jesus in the Nativity story ‘Pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom’.[meaning ‘his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace’ [Isa.9:6]. This is the name used so powerfully as the message of the angels in Handel’s ‘Messiah’, though unfortunately it is not in the biblical Nativity account itself. Matthew interprets that Jesus is the consummate figure who prophetically fulfils the name ‘Emmanuel’ and assures the destiny of God’s People, as the ‘Christ’, the anointed ultimate Saviour
It has been interpreted by enthusiastic Christians that both the names ‘Emmanuel’ (‘God With Us’) and ‘Jesus’ (‘God Saves’) indicate the future doctrine that Jesus was God in human form. But this stretches the meaning of the names too far, even though Matthew uses Isaiah’s prophecy to confirm that Jesus fulfilled the meaning of the title ‘Emmanuel’. They are both names with symbolic meanings, which were given to other children as well as Mary and Joseph’s child Jesus of Nazareth. They merely indicate that the owner of the name represents belief that there is truth in God’s promises. Orthodox Christian doctrine believes that Jesus Christ was and is fully human and divine, but that is based on more than the meaning of his names..
What Jesus being God’s representative on earth fully means may always be a mystery. If Jesus was and is ‘God’, as the doctrine teaches, it is still difficult to explain what that truly meant and implies in practice. To question or even thy to explain the idea might be regarded by some Christians to be heresy. But it is a question with which thinking Christians, seekers of faith and sceptics have struggled for two millennia. If it comes as a challenge to our minds we shouldn’t be afraid of searching for answers. Questions of faith that we leave unchallenged can never make us strong enough to witness effectively. Even though we know that we will never fully know the answer to the mystery of the Incarnation or the Trinity it would be wrong to leave the mystery unexplored.
I have to say that I, like most people, have no idea of how a man could be fully God at the same time . Jesus never actually made that claim to be God, (he would probably have been immediately stoned as a heretic if he did), But he came so close to it in several of his statements that it seems clear that the Gospel writers, especially John, were pointing towards that understanding: He seems to have deliberately used divine phrases like the ‘I am’ sayings in John’s Gospel [ “I am the bread of life” 6:35, 41 2; “I am the light of the world” 8:12, 9:5 3; “I am the door for the sheep” 10:7, 9 4; “I am the good shepherd” 10:11, 14 5. “I am the resurrection and the life” 11:25 6; “I am the way, the truth and the life” 14:6 7; “I am the true vine” 15:1, 5 and “Before Abraham was I am “ 8:58]. These all reflected the most intimate and holy Hebrew title for God ‘YHWH’ which meant: ‘I am who I am’ or ‘I will be what I will be’ [Ex.3:14]. He claimed that he and the Father were ‘one’ [Jn.10:30]. The author or authors of the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John seem particularly convinced that Jesus was divine, as it is the Johannine literature where the clearest evidence is given. Many other Bible passages are cited as evidence of Jesus’ divine nature, about which I have written elsewhere. It is not possible in this study to discuss all the evidence.
It took a long time for Church leaders to become convinced about the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, followed by centuries of wrangling in synods, for it to be widely accepted and explanations attempted. Even today many sincere Christians who are convinced of the value of Jesus’ way and his teachings, find belief in his divinity too difficult a challenge. I cannot imagine that God would condemn them for their questions, as some church-people might. In the past disbelievers in Christ’s divinity would have been persecuted as heretics, but the problems that people have in accepting such belief is understandable. An enthusiast might say: “Just believe and trust in the tradition which the Church decided centuries ago and handed down.” But the ancient Church did not have the depth of scholarship of present theologians and sometimes made decisions on more questionable evidence, according to the influence of different religious or political factions. We need never be ashamed of doubt; working through it to come to conclusions that personally satisfy us, if only for now, can make our faith and our message stronger.
What we are considering here is what it implies for us if Christ is God’s representative to us, and what those promises about ‘Emmanuel’ imply. Taking on trust that Jesus was God’s representative with us, the implications include:
- That Jesus spoke, lived by, taught and communicated the truth about God through his knowledge gained through closeness to his Father.
- That his power came from God.
- That he did God’s will, obeyed and passed on what was communicated to him from God.
- That Jesus was so close to God that he knew God’s ideas and plans. However, concerning ‘the Last Days’ Jesus claimed not to know all that the Father had in mind and the timing of God’s plans [Matt.24:36; Mk.13:32]. This is almost the only time when Jesus did not claim to have full knowledge.
- That Christ was truth in himself.
- That he had insight into God and life, greater than that of any other ordinary human being.
- That Jesus had insight into the spiritual dimension and knew the truth of what happened after death.
Despite all his knowledge, power and depth of insight into spiritual things, a key aspect of Jesus was his humility in following what he believed and trusted that his Father wanted him to do [see Meditation 16]. Jesus did not regard his equality with God as something to be utilized for his own gain, advance or advantage [Phil.2:5-8]: !Let the same mind be in you that was[ in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, and being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross.”
This Philippians passage continues by claiming that Jesus came to live among us to serve us and to serve God in bringing salvation to the world. ‘God with us’ shared our human nature, mind, physicality and spirituality. He knows what our humanity, sufferings, limitations and needs truly are, because he has lived like us. Beyond us now in heaven, scripture assures us that because of Jesus’ experience on earth, as well as though divine insight, God understands us thoroughly, identifies with us, loves us and guides us by his Spirit. The Holy Spirit, with us and in us now, continues this idea of ‘Emmanuel’/’God with us’, bringing to completion what Jesus fulfilled and achieved. ‘God with us’ should not be split up into three separate images: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are one and do not work independently. ‘God with us’ is revealed through the imagery of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but they are not separate, they are one loving, caring, wise, holy, personal, divine force working in unity to bring about the renewal and salvation of the world. Jesus, Christians believe, is the epitome of this presence of ‘God with us’.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
If Jesus is the promise that ‘God Is With Us’, what does it mean for your life right now, and all that you will be doing in your life today?
11. SAVIOUR ‘My spirit rejoices in God my Saviour’ [Lk.1:47]...’ He has raised up a mighty Saviour for us’ [Lk.1:69]... ‘The angel said to them “Do not be afraid, for I am bringing your good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day, in the City of David a Saviour who is the Messiah, the Lord.”’ [Lk.2:10-11].
We hear the word ‘Saviour’ said & sung so often each Christmas, at other festivals and in liturgies and hymns that familiarity may reduce its meaning or impact. The term implies that in and through the fragile baby announced by the angels to the shepherds, enormous promises were being made. Even to the shepherds, who were probably relatively uneducated, ‘Saviour’, ‘Christ & ‘Lord’ would have had deep historic and cultural resonance.
There are two words for ‘saving’ in the New Testament. One, ‘rhýomai’, is mostly used to translate the Hebrew term ‘nṣl’, meaning ‘to protect’, ‘to guard’, ‘to deliver’, ‘to ward off’, ‘to preserve’. ‘Rhýomai’ is less commonly used in the New Testament than ‘sṓzó’, which more often translates the Hebrew words: yš‘ meaning ‘to save’, ‘to help’, ‘to free’ It also used to translate ‘g’l’ meaning ‘to release’, ‘to buy back’, ‘to free’, ‘to redeem’, ‘to keep’, and ‘mlṭ’ - ‘to save’, ‘to escape’, ‘to achieve safety’. The title ‘Sótḗr’/‘Saviour’ as applied to Jesus, contains all these ideas of salvation – saving, helping, freeing, keeping safe, redeeming, releasing, achieving safety and escape. In classical literature ‘rhýomai’ was used of protection by the gods, leaders, guards and priests. Sṓzó was used of rescue or preservation from death or destruction, from battle, the perils of life or evil, keeping alive, being pardoned, protected, kept from want, brought to a safe return, keeping a flame alive, preserving a memory or something that is treasured. It was also used of wellbeing, benefitting, keeping good health, preserving one’s inner being or nature, the preservation of the inner health of humanity. Jesus, as ‘Saviour’ was bringing the possibility of all of these.
Both Greek words ‘rhýomai’ and ‘sṓzó’ are used with similar broad intentions throughout scripture. The blessing of ‘salvation’, as described in the Bible, is a hugely expansive gift. Sṓzó has a connotation of ‘being roomy’, implying the spaciousness of God’s care, deliverance and mercy towards us. Salvation includes God’s care for the cosmos and the spaciousness of what he is leading people towards. In the Hebrew Scriptures God promised to lead his people into a ‘spacious place’ [Ex.3:8; Judg.18:10; 2 Sam.22:20; I Chron.4:40; Ps.18:19; 31:8]. The Bible regards salvation as a sign and result of the enormity of God’s mercy [Neh.9:8]. Salvation is part of God’s nature, not a magical gift.
‘Saviour’ was often used of Jesus [Jn.4:42] as ‘Deliverer’ [Isa.63:16] was often used as a name of God. So ‘salvation’ means far more than protection by God in this life and existence beyond death. It is part of God’s nature to save what has been created. Sometimes how we read ‘saviour’ and ‘salvation’ depends on context: sometimes it means human deliverance [1Sam.11:3], bringing justice, divine help in precarious situations or victory in battle [Zeph.3:17]. Often, similarly, the way God ‘saves us’ depends on the context in which we find ourselves.
As the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish religion developed, ideas about what happens to the body after death modified and changed. In early Jewish faith there seems to have been little concept of life beyond death. When the grave was believed to be the final end of life, God’s ‘salvation’ was related to protection of people and the tribes. Gradually as belief in a continued existence beyond death expanded, first ideas of ‘sheol’ as a place of rest for the dead, then belief that there would be rewards for righteous life developed. This expansion of the ideas of salvation became stronger in the periods between the testaments, particularly after the death of so many Jewish heroes in the Maccabean Revolt. The theologians reasoned that God would not just end the lives of heroes who had defended God’s ways. Surely there must be rewards for righteousness in life beyond death. Arguments about this divided the Sadducees and Pharisees: the former refused to accept the idea of life beyond death, because they could not find it in former scriptures. The Pharisees accepted it: hence Jesus was able to goad the two factions over the disputed issue {Matt.22:23-45]. This led to his denouncement of their double standards in the ‘woes to the Scribes and Pharisees’ [Matt.23]. The changing understanding of life beyond death expanded the meaning of salvation to include rescue from death and gifts and rewards in a life beyond. Several Hebrew apocryphal books reflect this. In 4 Esdras those who are saved are judged by their works and evil is eliminated; in the Ethiopian text of Enoch ‘salvation’ is seen as God fulfilling all the prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures and freeing people and the world from sin.
In the New Testament ‘salvation’ includes rescue from extreme perils [Matt.8:25; Mk.15:30; Jn.12:27]. Faith is described as saving the whole person, not just healing physical symptoms or rescuing from danger or death [Lk.7:50]. John the Baptist proclaimed the remission of sins as part of the ‘knowledge of salvation’ [Lk.1:77], but pointed forward to the coming of a Saviour far greater than he, who would redeem in a more eternal and expansive way [Matt.1:21]. Mk.8:35 talks of the saving and losing of both present and eternal life. Lk.13:23 links salvation with entering God’s Kingdom, while Lk.19:10 makes it clear that salvation is not just looking forward to a future beyond death but also, in our present lives, finding salvation and being part of God’s Kingdom here and now.
St. Paul took this further. With his pharisaic training and knowledge of Jewish scripture and tradition he expanded the understanding of salvation to include justification and reconciliation with God [1Cor.2:15; 5:5; Rom.13:11], rescue from judgement [Rom.5:9; 1Cor.3:15], the gift of eternal life, redemption and glorification of our bodies [Rom.8:24; Phil.3:20-21]; spiritual gifts in our present life to make us effective parts of Christ’s body, and our gradual transformation in righteousness to become images of God’s Son [Rom.8:20; Gal.5:5]. In Rom.8:24 he assured his readers that when we received Christ’s gospel we have already received salvation. This is echoed by the writer of Ephesians who speaks of us being saved by the message of salvation [1:13], but though we have been saved, the consummation of salvation, like that of Christ’s Kingdom, is still to come in the future [Eph.2:5-7]. Salvation may not just relate to human beings; some scriptures imply that the created ‘cosmos’ and the whole world will be transformed as part of Christ’s saving act [Rom. 8:21; Jn.3:17; 12:47; Rev.21:1].
As the one who brings all this about at his Father’s bidding, Christ is called ‘Saviour’ / sótḗr. In the ancient world this title, when applied to a person, also had the connotation of a rescuer, deliverer from perils, protector, preserver of life, physician, helper. In the Hellenistic world and among Egyptian and Seleucid rulers (who ruled Palestine prior to the Romans) and later Roman Emperors, ‘sótḗr’ was also used as a royal title, and implied that the ruler was the son of the deity. We have no proof that this idea of ‘a divine ruler’ was understood or implied when the term was used of Jesus during his lifetime, but it is interesting in relation to later development of understanding of his divine nature. ‘Sótḗr’ was used in the Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures to describe God as Israel’s ‘Saviour’ and ‘helper’ and also occasionally used of God’s human helpers, heroes, judges, kings, and in Isa.49:6 and Zech.9:9 of the Messiah. God is called ‘Saviour’ in Mary’s song of the Magnificat [Lk.1:47], before his coming Son, the Messiah, is given the title ‘Saviour’ in Lk.2:11. Jesus later acknowledged that he fulfilled the role of Messiah in Jn.4:25-26 when talking to the Samaritan woman at the well: “The woman said to him: “I know that Messiah is coming… When he comes he will proclaim all things to us.” Jesus said to her: “I am he, the one who is speaking to you.” In taking his gospel to the Samaritans Jesus was also demonstrating that he was Saviour for the Gentiles as well as the Jews: Her neighbours responded to her witness and to Jesus’ teaching “...we have heard for ourselves and we know that this is truly the Saviour of the world.” [Jn.4:42].
So Jesus’ coming, offering and achieving salvation for us, further expanded the understanding of the meaning of ‘salvation’. He came not just to offer forgiveness of sins and eternal life: He would bring those who he had redeemed and salved into ‘a spacious place’ - the Kingdom of God - both in the present and future. The term ‘Kingdom of God’ itself has an expansive meaning. Jesus expanded believers’ vision and imagination in offering us ‘salvation’. Cynics sometimes accuse Christians of narrowness, or believing in ‘pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die’. But with Christ’s message of ‘salvation’, we are offering to the world a huge gift from God to expand and consummate life now and in the future. How Jesus’ incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascended life actually achieved this remains ‘mystery’ within the process of God’s activity. But the inner life of believers is lit by a spiritual flame that recognises it to be true.
Sadly many people today find it hard conceive that this expansive promise could be real. It certainly can appear to be too good to be true, so many sceptics believe that Christianity is based on a fantasy invented by wishful-thinking, or a fairy story like Santa Claus. Many don’t bother to try to open God’s gift of Christ to test if he is true or if a life of faith works. Others don’t persevere when faith challenges us or life isn’t easy. I’ve certainly been tempted to walk away at times when the life of sincere faith seemed to much of a struggle. Yet perseverance has proved worth it! For many of us who HAVE received that present and persevered with it, Christ’s way proves to be the most truthful way in the world, worth giving up much to follow wholeheartedly. Christ isn’t a Christmas present to ignore or try to change into something you might like better. He needs to become an all-demanding passion and an authentic lifestyle to follow to the full, if we want him to change our lives for the best. Christ’s followers need to demonstrate the living and transforming power of salvation given by Christ, in a far more authentic active ways than the universal Church demonstrates at present, if we are to convince the world.
Jesus’ titles given by the angel: ‘a Saviour’ who is ‘Christ’ ‘the Lord’, contain many meanings. If we allowed his ways to rule, the world, the Church and human life would be far better places, reflecting God’s intentions for his perfect Kingdom. World society, world politics and world religions are all in messes: Too many religious people go their own ways, not God’s – even high leaders in the Church. If you are given the present of a divine Lord, you don’t say “How nice, I’ve got power on my side and the rights to do things, so I’ll live and make decisions exactly as I want.” Look what that arrogant self-delusion of God being on their side has done in modern Israeli and American politics and land-ownership, and in a number of churches around the world. So many people have left or are leaving churches which are out of touch with society’s thinking and needs. Christ meets people where we are; he gives them the sort of salvation that they need to truly free them. He came to heal and bring peace and freedom to people, opening truths that should bring us spiritually alive. He did not intend us to become mired in legalism, negative rules and disabling traditions. God’s truth evolves with people. That’s perhaps partly why Jesus was born human and grew up to challenge, by his life and teaching, the ways that political and religious leaders had deadened life for the people of his time. This Saviour is ‘Lord of life’; his salvation is intended to bring us to life ‘in its fullest abundance’ [Jn.10:10].
We’re given the Christmas present of a Lord of life, anointed with truth, to follow with life-giving gratitude. His ways are the best ways to liberate and unite humanity if we live sincerely by them, not manipulate them for our own selfish motives, which often distort and falsify God’s gift. The true Christ can bring us life, freedom, righteous living, truth to live by and understand partially, unity and love. The angels’ message to the shepherds was announcing a world-wide gift. The good news of Christ certainly spread wide. But over the centuries Christ’s true original message has become entangled by church and national politics, factions competing for power, far too many institutional regulations, moribund insistence on some dogmas and doctrines which were meant to bring life. Sometimes church proclamations can display an inhumanity that Christ wouldn’t recognise as coming from his original teaching. 500 years ago Luther encouraged Christians to return more closely to Christ’s original teaching. A new, perhaps even more powerful, world-wide reformation is needed today to return Christians to following what Christ really came into the world to bring: - Peace on Earth, good will among all; worldwide unity embracing all cultures, truth, love, enriched spiritual life and worship, and so much more!. May the true, full meaning of Christ’s coming as Lord, anointed Saviour & Lover fill your lives this Christmas & through the coming years!
For Contemplation and Prayer:
‘Salvation’ is a hugely expansive subject, but in the reality of your situation today and now, what does Jesus as your ‘saviour’ offer to you? What can he save you from here and now?
12. SON OF GOD “the child that shall be born of you will be holy and shall be called. “Son of God” [Lk.1:35]
Three verses earlier in the Annunciation story, Jesus was described as ‘the Son of the Most High’/ ‘huios hýpsístou’ [Lk.1:32]; here he is ‘huiòs Theoû’ / ‘Son of God’; both have a similar intended meaning, as ‘the Most High’ is a term for God. Mark’s Gospel particularly seems intent on emphasising that Jesus is the “Son of God”: It is stressed three times in the first chapter alone: the opening verse of the Prologue [Mk.1:1], at Jesus’ baptism [1:11], and in the healing of the man with an unclean spirit [1:24]. Later it is proclaimed at the Transfiguration [9:7] and the centurion proclaims and confirms it at the foot of the Cross [15:39].
Millions of words have been written exploring the potential meaning of ‘Son of God’ which the angel is said to have used of Jesus and which Jesus implied when he so intimately calling God his ‘Father’ [Mk.14:36], and talked of himself as the ‘Son’ [Mk.13:32; Matt.11:27; Lk.19:22] . At his trial Jesus was condemned partly for claiming to be one with God. But the term ‘Son of God’ was sometimes used in scripture of an ordinary human being, particularly of Israelites and kings, probably because they were recipients of God’s special blessing [Ex.4:22; Hos.11:1; 2Sam.7:14; Ps.2:7]. It was also used of angels [Gen.6:2; Deut.32:8; Job 1:6-12]. Adam himself is called ‘son of God’ in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus [Lk.3:38] and God calls several people ‘my son’ in scripture. More often, however, ordinary human beings are designated ‘Son of Man’, a term Jesus more often used of himself [Matt.8:20; 9:6; 10:23]. ‘Son of Man’ was a relatively uncontroversial term; it could mean any ordinary human being, though Jesus seems to have used it of himself partly to show that he was ‘representing human beings before God.’. People have been branded heretics by their interpretation of how Jesus was ‘Son of God’; others have been martyred and gone to war to defend belief in it; doctrines of Christ’s divinity are based on it. Yet neither the angel messenger nor Jesus explained exactly what it meant. There are many possibilities, but all certainly carry the connotation that Jesus came from or was sent by God. It is often suggested that the idea of Jesus being God’s ‘Son’ is similar to the Hellenistic ideas of heroes being fathered by the gods, but in those situations the divinely engendered men were not considered to be equal to God, as Christians came to believe Christ to be. The comparison is therefore not particularly valid.
The term ‘Son of God’ was used by the Qumran communities to describe the expected Messiah [1QSa.2.11f; 4QFlor.1,10f]. If it was in common usage in Jewish spiritual circles, this may have encouraged the early Church and Gospel writers to adopt it. The title ‘Son of David’ also used by a few followers when referring to Jesus [Matt.1:1; 9:27; 12:23], was another term partly associated with the Messiah [Matt.12:21; 21:9; 22:42]. Nathaniel is recorded as concluding that Jesus was the ‘Son of God’ [Jn.1:49]; Peter proclaimed that he was “the Messiah, the Son of living God” [Matt.16:16] and “the Holy One of God” [Jn.6:69]; Martha came to the same conclusion by Lazarus’ grave: “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world” [Jn.11:27]. In several places in the Gospels the term ‘Son of Man’ is also directly related to the role of the Messiah [Matt.1:1; 16:16; 26:63]. In the wilderness Jesus was tempted to test “if you are the Son of God” [Matt.4:3] and demons are described as calling him by the title [Mk.3:11]. At his baptism and the Transfiguration a voice from heaven is recorded to have attested: “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased, listen to him!” [Matt.3:17; 17:5]. Jesus talked of himself doing his Father’s business [Lk.20:49]; doing “only what I sees the Father doing... whatever the Father does the son does” [Jn.5:19; 10:32, 37; 15:10; ]. He claimed to speak and pass on to his disciples what he heard from the Father [Matt.10:20; Jn.5:36; 8:28, 38; Jn.12:50; 15:15]. He claimed that the Father would do what he asked [Jn.14:16; 15:16].
St. Paul talks of the ‘spirit of sonship’ [Rom.8:15] which we inherit by being spiritually adopted by God through faith in his true son Jesus Christ. John’s Gospel particularly stresses Jesus’ closeness to his Father: Jesus is spoken of as being ‘close to the Father’s heart’ [Jn.1:18]; he ‘came from the Father’ [Jn.16:28], was ‘one with the Father’ [Jn.17:21; he had life because “The Father has life in himself”[Jn.26:36]. He lives because of the Father [Jn.6:57]. But he recognised “the Father is greater than I” [Jn.14:28]. He came in his Father’s name [Jn.5:43] and God set his seal on him [Jn.6:27]. He would send the Spirit from the Father [Jn.15:26]. He loved people as the Father loved [Jn.15:9]. He would return to the Father to prepare a place for his followers [Jn.13:1; 14:2-6]. He claimed a special, perhaps exclusive way of bringing people to the Father [Jn.14:6]. He was “in the Father and the Father was in him” [Jn14:10-11] and the Father was “glorified” through him [Jn.14:13]. Those who had “seen him have seen the Father” [Jn.14:9]. His biggest claim was “The Father and I are one.. The Father is in me and I am in the Father” [Jn.10:10. 38], which is the furthest he went in declaring his divinity.
Even accepting that there may have been exaggerated interpretations or interpolations by the Gospel writers to emphasise what they believed about Jesus, these are incredibly audacious claims. If they are true, which they claim, Jesus has a very distinctive relationship with God. For many believers it is enough to accept the orthodox conclusion, wrestled with through years of debate by early Church theologians and synods, that defines Jesus as “fully Man and fully God”. Yet how Jesus relates to God remains hotly debated and mysterious. It is probably for the individual believer to consider how they can understand the complex belief that Jesus represented God in human form. Traditionally we confess what the early Church creeds say, written to counter some of the contemporary interpretations, which were considered heretical: “God from God, light from light, true God from true God” [Nicene Creed]. But exactly what Jesus being ‘Son of God’ means in reality remains a key mystery within the Christian faith.
Presuming for the moment that orthodox theology of Jesus’ divinity is true and that the Gospels are accurate records, (though the writers obviously interpret the stories of Jesus according to their beliefs), what might Jesus divine sonship mean to us? They imply that Jesus was not just living, teaching and acting on his own, or giving just his own interpretations of God’s laws and ways of life. He certainly seems to have been driven by a truer, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful spirit than many of the greatest philosophers. Whether one believes in Jesus Christ’s divinity, or finds it hard to believe, Jesus’ teachings definitely feel and seem to be the most true way for human beings to live, with the most positive and life-enhancing focus. For a young a man with the limited background of growing up in the small northern, Galilean village of Nazareth, probably with limited access to home-education and rabbinical training in faith through the local synagogue, his practical, theological and philosophical knowledge was prodigious. So too was his ability to communicate through direct teaching and parables. Even if Jesus training in the synagogue was good, under gifted rabbinical teaching, by the time he began his public ministry around the age of 30, he had already expanded his theological and practical knowledge way beyond most of his contemporaries and was outstripping them in his ability to debate faith. I have the sort of mind that questions everything, and cannot be satisfied with brush offs in apologetics like “just believe”. Yet the universality of Jesus’ mind and the of application, wisdom and insight in his teaching and theological knowledge must have developed somewhere. His words and life have truths within them, which I feel assured come from way beyond the limitations of his human background and the local culture..
How we interpret Jesus’ call for us to be ‘one with me as I am one with the Father’ [Jn.17:11, 22-23] might depend on our own interpretation of his relationship with God. But in linking ourselves in discipleship with Jesus and his ways and teachings, I am sure that we have found the truest way for people to live in harmony both with each other and with whatever spiritual truth lies beyond. Christ seems to have had a relationship with truth that is far greater and more expansive than even the Church with its limited vision and horizons has yet reached. In becoming disciples, followers of Christ’s truth we are in a small way linking ourselves to God and becoming lesser ‘sons and daughters of God’, receiving that ‘spirit of sonship’ which Paul relishes in Rom.8:15. (Today we need to try to make the term less gender specific, as it includes all of us). Paul’s statement that we are “children of God and joint-heirs with Christ... to be glorified with him” [Rom8:16-17] is not an over-statement of the high position into which Christ’s saving achievement has drawn us. In several of the New Testament Epistles Christians are described as God’s adopted children, inheriting the glories that Christ has made available to us: [Rom.8:23, Eph.1:5]. We are, to use another Pauline metaphor ‘branches in-grafted into the life of Chris’ to drawing sustenance and life from him [Rom.11:17; 23].
It is a glorious calling to become one with Christ, but being a child of God also calls for responsible stewardship of all that Jesus opened up for us: Jesus said: “You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father...” [Jn.15:14-15].
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Jesus has linked us to a great resource for truth. Do you live sufficiently by that truth? In what ways could you live and act as a more authentically as a glorified child of God?
13 KING “Where is this child who was born to be King of the Jews?” [Matt.2:2]. “The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” [Lk.1:32-33].
The prophecy of the Angel Gabriel to Mary at the Annunciation included foretelling that Jesus would reign from the throne of David over the House of Jacob for ever and that his Kingdom would never end [Lk.1:32-33]. The experience of history would seem to suggest that this reign is metaphorical, spiritual and psychological at present rather than over a literal geographical kingdom. Jesus’ rule would seem to be for the moment in the hearts, minds and lives of those who follow him by faith. They have inherited God’s covenant promises. He does not yet literally reign over a political Kingdom, even though many countries, and empires at various times have labelled themselves as ‘God’s blessed or holy lands’. Looking at the state of the universal Church it is clear that even it does not always allow itself to be ruled by his ways.
We are told at the opening of Matthew Chapter 2 that Herod the Great felt threatened by the prophecy that a king greater than himself would come into the world. Herod had killed several of his own sons, his wife and other presumed rivals, to make sure that they did not usurp his power. Yet Herod himself was only a vassal or client-king of the Romans. He may have been a friend of the current Roman Emperor, but he was a relatively weak leader, subservient even to the Roman governor. [For more on Herod see Meditation 39 on the Massacre of the Innocents.]
We know from Jesus’ response to Pilate under questioning on the day before his execution, that temporal power was not of interest to him or a priority: “My Kingdom is not of this world.” [Jn.18:36]. Jesus emphasised that he wasn’t a rival to the Romans, Herod, or any legitimate earthly powers. He told his followers not to challenge those powers that were not their concerns [Matt.22:15-22; Lk.12:13-14]. God’s kingship isn’t about sitting on a throne, ordering around the peoples of the earth, exacting tribute like taxation or expecting adulation like a despot. The Church should not aim to exercise power in those ways either. However there have been many times in ecclesiastical history when it or certain clerics have tried to do so. God’s rule is primarily something more interior and all-encompassing, challenging our hearts, minds and spirits to think and act with the God-like, out-going love, as Jesus commended. I think that many Christians have often interpreted the idea of the ‘lordship’ or ‘kingship’ of God wrongly. Scripture may use the earthly imagery of God or Christ on a heavenly throne, surrounded by cherubim or enthroned saints, apparently in an ordered hierarchy. But if we remember Christ’s teaching, he reversed ideas of hierarchy: The greatest should be the least, and be willing to serve self-sacrificially as he did [Matt.23:11; Lk.22:26; Jn.15:13-17].
Through the history of the Church many have assumed, as the Jews did in considering God and awaiting the Messiah, that God is some sort of autocratic ruler, expecting worship and offerings and demanding that we obey as subservient slaves. As a result many believers in the past feared God inordinately, as a petulant dictator needing to be appeased. That may be the impression in a few Psalms and other passages in the Hebrew Scriptures. But it is not Jesus’ teaching about his Father. Believers were taught by churches to fear God to prevent him zapping us for disobedience, for being too full of ourselves or not showing him sufficient deference. The humility of Christ’s birth implies a very different attitude to power and authority. The apparent reticence of God to immediately exert judgement when we fail so often, seems evidence of God having a different attitude to power from the vengeful imagery found in a few parts of scripture and in popular religious ideas. I wonder sometimes how much those vengeful sections of scripture were inspired or edited more by human minds than directly inspired by God’s spirit.
Dictatorship may be the concept that some still have of God, as it was for the gods of many ancient empires. The idea remains in the minds of some religious people who have a literal and legalistic reading of faith today. But one wonders how much they read scripture in the light of Jesus’ teaching. It was certainly not the sort of kingship and lordship that Jesus exemplified and taught. Neither is it how he intended us to understand God in having a relationship with the Divine. ‘Awe’ at God’s holiness is very different from ‘fear’. If God was king in that way, ruling and ordering all that happens in creation, as some believe, and as some passages of scripture suggest, then perhaps God could be blamed for disasters that happen in the world, or for letting someone die when we wish and pray for their healing. But I cannot believe that God causes bad events in that way. I think that disasters and tragedies are most often natural results of the complexity of interrelated forces that God set in motion in the cosmos. Movements of tectonic plates may cause earthquakes that have resulted in disasters. But they have also formed the beautiful variety of the landscape: mountains to fiords, varieties of rock strata, climatic conditions that form clouds and rain, providing nutrients for survival, the aquifers and water sources that nourish earth. Bacteria and viruses may cause disease by they are also part of our biology that fights infection or breaks down cells when they are no longer useful. If God stopped the earth’s movements that cause earthquakes, or the bacteria that break down cells, the world wouldn’t work, nature could not flourish, and more people would die.
So I don’t think that God’s rule and Christ’s ‘Kingship’ are about directing the detail of the world and life in that way. In practical terms I believe that the divine kingship in Jesus is about showing and leading the way. The best human leaders initiate ideas and actions, gives the lead, encourage right ways of living by making rules that will help a kingdom run smoothly and flourish. The ways taught in scripture come from divinely inspired wisdom and particularly the insights taught by Jesus and inspired by God’s Holy Spirit. These are intended to rule our minds and guide or inspire us towards the best righteous ways to live, think and act. By following his ways the best possible Kingdom-life will result. As subjects of the Kingship of Christ we take on and take into ourselves the essence of what Christ achieved and follow the example he gave in showing us how to be human. That would help us live by selfless loving, peace-making values, valuing others, valuing and protecting the world in such ways that we act self-sacrificially to support all that God created. Those who authentically follow Christ the King’s ways are worthy of a place in his Kingdom. Jesus described how we do this in practical ways: supporting the needy, feeding the physically and spiritually hungry, welcoming the stranger, caring for the ill, oppressed and vulnerable, alleviating the needs of the physically and spiritually poor. Those who truly live by these ways show that the true nature of Christ is enthroned in their lives. Less recognisable as belonging to Christ are those who fail to support others, think primarily of themselves, and have lesser priorities that longing for the principles of the Kingdom of God. [Matt.25:31-46]. We need to reflect Christ in all that we do and are. This should be at the heart of what being Christians and being Christ’s body should be. If we are true subjects of Christ the King, we should imitate him in everything useful, until it becomes second nature to live like the loving, self-sacrificing, holy, just and righteous King of Heaven, who has given us the lead, example and spiritual resources to succeed.
Notionally Christians believe that Christ should be King of our lives, King of the Church, King of all we do in the world. We often proclaim this in our hymns and liturgies. Yet words are easier than actions. If Jesus’ teaching was truly regulating us, Christian influence would be establishing the Kingdom of God in the world more effectively. We pray for God’s Kingdom to come each time we pray the Lord’s Prayer: “Your Kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” But I’m not sure that any Church I know, or most Christians including, I admit, myself, REALLY want Christ to be fully King of our lives. We call God ‘Lord’, and Christ ‘King’; we pray for God’s Spirit to ‘direct, guide and rule’ our life. But actually, don’t most of us, if we’re truly honest, want God to be a ‘constitutional monarch’, allowing us to do what we want? We often make our decisions independently before asking God to affirm and bless our ways and plans, even if they slightly or greatly deflect from the direction of Jesus’ teachings? The unworthy Christian disciple is rather like a politician who promises so much in order to get elected, but then follows their own path and neglects their manifesto promises.
Human beings so often go for the easy way out, political expediency, the lazy compromise that will best satisfy and be comfortable for ourselves and maintain the status quo, rather than doing what our conscience tells us is right. I’m sad to confess that in much of my own life, I want to be in charge, rather than following God’s ways too closely: Much of the time I sit on the throne of my life. I haven’t any ambition for personal power, influence or to attain an eminent position - that’s never been my character. But I like to do what I want, even when I recognise that following Christ’s teaching more closely would be the far better way. Are you like that too? The mistaken decisions and priorities of some church institutions indicate that they have the same temptations.
The way to gauge our personal holiness, or the level of our discipleship, is not by how ‘spiritual we feel, but how true we are to the teaching of Christ, and how we keep to God’s ways in every aspect of our lives. That includes our practical as well as our spiritual lives: - what is visible only to God, as well as what is observed by the world. Such issues may include how we use our money, sex, power, social position over others, our strength of will, our survival instincts, our will to be in charge of our lives rather than to serve others, and the ways our churches wisely steward their money, resources and personnel. Jesus said “Those who truly love me will keep my teachings, and my father will love them, and we will come into their life and dwell with them.” [Jn.14:23].
If we truly want Christ to be king of our lives, for God to truly be Lord, and for God’s Kingdom to be built in the Church and in the world, our resolution for us and for the whole Church should be to follow God’s ways in every aspect of our lives. Don’t make God your ‘constitutional monarch’, wanting God to rubber-stamp and bless your personal wishes, decisions, lifestyles and actions. Rather, let God’s ways direct what we do, following his teaching, submitting to his will all the strong drives we have. Submitting to Christ entails getting to know what God wants us to do with our lives, our time, our resources, our gifts and skills, and using them to serve God and help establish his Kingdom on earth: We may only be a small bud in the growth of that kingdom – a bud that could easily be broken off or rubbed away, but that was how the Kingship of Christ on earth started, in the form of a tiny vulnerable child in a manger.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Can you truly say in your life and in your church : “Lord, Your Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as in heaven”?
14. CHRIST / MESSIAH “For to you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour. who is Christ, the Lord.”
The term ‘Messiah’ is sometimes used in common language to implying that someone is the one for whom we or a community have been waiting. A few politicians, media stars, health-workers are occasionally called ‘Messiah figures’. But that cheapens the weight of the Hebrew word ‘Messiah’ [‘māŝīaḥ’], translated in the New Testament as ‘christós’ / ‘Christ’ This was a special ‘Anointed One’ (the literal meaning of the word), who would be specifically anointed by God to bring salvation to God’s people. Several people were anointed in Hebrew society, particularly king and priests, sometimes prophets, and figures who were being designated for specific roles. As Christ or Messiah, Jesus was spiritually anointed by God to carry out his divine purpose as King and High Priest of God’s people. His anointed action also included giving himself self-sacrificially.
According to the Torah (the essence of the Jewish law and teachings as laid down in the Hebrew Scriptures, Oral Law and traditions), the Messiah would be:
- A male descendant of King David: 2Sam.7:12-16: [Matt.1:1; Lk.1:32-33; Acts 15:15-16; Heb.1:5.
- But he would be greater than David: Ps.110:1-4: Matt.22:41-45; Mk.12:35-37; Lk.20:41-44; Acts 2:34-36; 1 Cor.15:25-28; Heb.1:3, 13;4:14-5:10].
- He would be a prophet like Moses: Deut.18:15–19: [Matt.13:57; 21:46, Luke 24:19; Jn.1:21, 25, 6:14, 7:40; Acts 3:22; 7:37].
- He was expected to be human: He would certainly have human parents and have a human birth. He would be a ‘Son of Man’: Dan.7:13-14: [Matt.9:6; 12:8; 13:41; 16:13, 27; Mk.8:31; Lk.6:22; 9:22; Jn.1:51; 3:1314; Acts 7:56].
- He would perfectly teach God’s law and God’s way.
- He would turn people to God.
- He would be a great and inspirational political and religious leader.
- He would judge righteously as a good and just man.
- He would rebuild the Jerusalem Temple.
- He would usher in a time when Jews would return to Jerusalem and true worship would be restored.
- He would be a ruler who would lead humanity with kindness and understanding.
- He would establish the rights of the meek and oppressed [Isa.11:4] and establish God’s covenant and peace with the lowly for ever [Isa.54:10-11], raising the humble and contrite [Isa.66:2].
- He would be a light for the nations of the earth: Isa.42:1-7: [Matt.12:15-21; Lk.2:27-32; Jn.8:12; Rev.21:23-24]. He would be the great light for his people, as well as for the world: Isa. 9:1-2 [Hebrew Bible 8:23-9:1]: Matt.4:13-16; Lk.1:76-79; 2:32]
- He would bring peace to the world by uniting humanity.
- He would establish God’s Kingdom on Earth where all would live in peace.
- All would recognise him and turn through him to the one true God,
- The bounty of the earth under his leadership would be plentiful.
- He would come at a time appointed by God: [Dan.9:24-27: Matt.24:15-16; Mk.13:14-15; Gal.4:4].
- He would be a descendant of Abraham and through him all nations would find blessing: [Gen.12:3: Acts 3:24-26]
- He would usher in a new and renewed covenant with God [Jer.31:31; Matt.26:28; Mk.14:24, Lk.22:20, 1Cor.11:25, 2Cor. 3:6, Heb.8:6-13; 9:15; 12:24]
In Meditation 32 on ‘Prophecy’ I include a lot more beliefs that the Christians developed, when they searched the Hebrew Scriptures to point to aspects of Jesus’ life that they believed were fulfilments of Messianic prophecies. Many of these may not have been originally intended as prophetic of Jesus; they often pointed to figures nearer the writers’ own times. But the early Christians understandably searched for every fine detail in scripture that might help them to prove to their contemporaries that Jesus was the one who had been long expected. Soon after the founding of the Church St. Paul may have reflected Christians’ practice in his Epistles, by so often linking the Messianic title with Jesus’ name, so that “Jesus Christ” was almost regarded as his personal name.
Although the above list indicates the theological and political expectations of those who knew their scriptures, it is not clear how much detail about the Messiah would have been known or believed by the general population. Many would have received teaching in the synagogues, but the level of teaching they received there must have been as varied as it has done in Christian churches. Many of Jesus’ contemporaries would have been illiterate and relatively uneducated, especially in small villages and rural areas. Most would not have known their scriptures directly; many would have based their faith on popular beliefs and superstitions. It has been the same through centuries of the Christian Church. The expectations of the people were possibly very different from those of theologians and educated social leaders. But there were also varying ideas of what the Messiah would be in different educated groups in Israel in the C1st. C.E. Many people were frustrated with the Roman occupation, and with political and moral corruption in their own society, so it is understandable that some may have expected the Messiah to be a rebellious political leader who would evict the Romans, dethrone corrupt client rulers like Herod’s dynasty, and restore freedom and former traditions to society and religion. Some, including several leading Pharisees and the group that forms the C1st B.C.E. Psalms of Solomon, considered the Messiah would be an anointed ‘king’ [like David 2Sam.19:22]; others that he would be a ‘prophet’ [as in Isa.61:1] or a ‘priest’ [Lev.4:3, 5, 16]. The Maccabean revolution had been largely led by priestly figures; the Qumran community appear to have expected that there might be two Messiahs working together: an anointed prophet [11QMelch.:18] and an anointed priest [1QS9:11].
Jesus himself is thought to have initially avoided claiming the title ‘Messiah’ or being too closely identified as the Christ. This may have been because many of his contemporaries were expecting the Messiah to lead a violent revolution against the occupying Roman forces. Jesus may have wanted to disassociate himself from that interpretation of his mission. But by the time the Gospels were written, the evangelists were not afraid of identifying Jesus as ‘the Christ’: Peter proclaims it in Mk.8:29; Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem reflected the expectation of the coming of the Messiah in humility, rising on an ass [Matt.21:1-16] and the claim about Jesus being the Messiah was questioned in the interview with the high priest [Mk.14:62]. Some ancient Jewish literature implied that there was a contemporary belief that the Messiah would remain silent about his identity until he had achieved his mission and been vindicated by God. (This is represented by his silence before the High Priest, Herod and Pilate. Jesus resurrection was regarded by many early Christians as that vindication.
It was unclear when the Messiah would appear: Those who awaited him believed that it would happen in God’s appointed time, and hoped that the prophecies of the Messiah would be fulfilled soon. Some believed that he would come when humanity was most in need, and then only when humans had proved themselves sufficiently worthy of welcoming and responding to him by their behaviour. He was expected to be preceded by a messenger: Mal.3:1: [Matt.11:10, Mk.1:2; Lk.1:76], a ‘forerunner’:Isa.40:3-5: [Matt.3:1-3; Mk.1:1–3; Lk.1:76; 3:1-6; Jn.1:22-23]. The Torah suggested that this messenger would be the reappearance of the prophet Elijah who would precede the Messiah, which may be why some imagined that Jesus was calling for Elijah from the cross [Mk.15:35]. At the Messiah’s appearance the dead would rise from their graves. [Mal.4:5-6 (Hebrew Bible, verses 3:23-24): Matt.11:14-15; 16:14; 17:9-13; Mk.6:14-16; 9:11-13, Lk.1:16-17, Jn.1:21]. This belief that the dead would rise might account for the comment in Matthew’s Gospel that between Jesus’ death and resurrection figures rose from their graves [Matt.27:52-53]. Christians interpreted John the Baptist as fulfilling Elijah’s role as a forerunner, and some associated the raising of Lazarus and other life-healing miracles of Jesus as fulfilling the latter prophecy.
In considering the ‘Messiah’ / ‘Christ’ as ‘the anointed one’, we are not just thinking of the dedication of the leader. In the Hebrew Scriptures anointing with oil or grease was used to create wellbeing, and was intended as a sign and act of blessing for a particular purpose or role. In surrounding cultures, as in Israel, both rulers and officials could be anointed for fulfilling their positions. Priests and kings were anointed: The anointing of Saul, David, Solomon, Joash, Jehoaz, Jesu and Hazael are all described in scripture. Though the priest or a prophet may have done the anointing, it is God who is regarded as actually spiritually anointing and blessing the person and equipping them for their role [1Sam.9:16; 10:1; 16:3]. The anointing oil, poured from a horn [1Sam.16:13] was far more plentiful than the symbolic, slight anointing with a cross that western churches usually use today. Ps.133:2 describes copious oil flowing over Aaron’s hair, beard and robes. There seem to have beeen no worries about the oil disfiguring the richly embroidered robes: the psalm imagines the priest relishing the flowing oil as a sign of blessing. It seems significant that Jesus was regarded as of the line of David, because only kings of David’s line appear to be described in the Bible as ‘The Lord’s anointed’. The only exception is in Isa.45:1 where Cyrus the Persian king who would bring God’s judgement on Israel is described in the same way. Anointing was a sign that God’s Spirit had come upon the leader. Baptism and anointing are different, yet in a sense Jesus’ baptism became regarded as a sign that Jesus was being anointed by John for his prophetic and priestly role in leadership, since at the baptism the voice from heaven declared his sonship and his mission.
Ideas of the Hebrew Messiah developed through Hebrew history. The Royal Psalms [Psalms 2; 18; 20; 21; 45; 72; 101; 110; 132; 144] appear to record some of the expansion of Messianic ideas. The Messiah was interpreted as a king who would lead his people to peace, freedom, victory and fulfilment. He would develop the promises made to the Davidic order. This expanded towards the ideas of the Messiah being a final king who would ultimately fulfil salvation [Isa.9:5-6]. Jer.23:5-6 and Ezek.34:23-4; 37:22ff. speak of a future leader, the second David who would restore the Davidic monarchy [Amos.9:11-12; Hos.3:5; Mic.4:8; Isa.32:1; Jer.30:9]. After the exile the Messianic hope increased, with the idea that a figure like Zerubbabel would be a representative of God’s true ruler [Hag.2:20ff]. Zech.4:1ff; 6:9ff. speaks of two anointed figures - a priest and a political ruler, who would usher in a future rule, or alternatively a ruler would arise who would be both a priest and king [Zech.9:9-10]. Later the post-exilic prophets and supplementary additions to their prophecies continued to broaden the idea of the future ruler [Ezek.17:22; Mic.5:1ff; Isa.11:1ff]. He would be both righteous and powerful in his rule; pious, wise, humble, peaceful and dignified [Isa.11:1ff; Zech.9:9-10]. A main hope was that the Messiah’s rule would be universal [Isa.11:1]; he would end disunity and affliction [Isa.16:4-5] and regain the image of paradise which the world had lost [Isa.11:6ff.]. The concept of the Messiah expanded even further with Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical literature and in the Rabbinic writings.
Jesus appears to have fulfilled almost all of these expectations, except those of the establishment of a physical, political rule and physical military overthrow of evil. Some Christians still believe that these will happen too, in the Last Times. It is my personal belief that those are not what God intended in the promise of the Messiah. Certainly past military emphasis, when the Church raised armies and battled to create the Kingdom of God against those who they called heretics or pagans, does not show Christian history in a good light. Surely the Kingdom of God can only be created by means that reflect the character of Christ: love, humility, honesty, vigour for the truth, servanthood and valuing and saving others. The images of Christ as a victorious military leader in the Book of Revelation seem to be more like metaphors for his triumph than intending us to be military warriors. He rides a white horse [Rev.19:11], indicating his purity, faithfulness and truth. His people are given white robes to indicate that we too need to allow themselves to be made pure by him [Rev.7:14].
For Contemplation and Prayer:
In what ways does Jesus Christ fulfil the idea of a longed-for ‘Messiah’ for your life?
15 LORD “The mother of my Lord comes to me”[Lk.1:43]... “A Saviour who is Christ the Lord” [Lk.2:11] “Prepare the way of the Lord” [Matt.3:3; Mk.1:3].
‘Lord’ seems a simple word, but it carries huge implications when we relate it to Christ, as scripture and Church doctrine attest. In the Bible the word is used with various connotations. It is can designate human lords, national or tribal rulers as well as translating the Hebrew names for God. The most special title reserved for God: YHWH / Yahweh / Jehovah, means ‘the one who is’ / ‘I am what I am’ or ‘I shall be what I shall be’ [Ex.3:14]. It was treated with particular respect and, out of reverence was not spoken by Jews. YHWH is capitalised as ‘LORD’ in some modern translations of the Bible. The more general names for God ‘Adonai’ and ‘Elohim’, translated as ‘Lord’, were also respected but could be spoken. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures the work ‘Kýrios’ / ‘Lord’ was chosen to translate all the Hebrew names for God, possibly because it suggested one who is absolutely superior, rather than just because it had connotations of ‘power’ and ‘control’.
The title ‘Lord’ combines the ideas of holding power, authority, control, being the principal figure, strong and large. (The root of its Greek term ‘kýrios’ means ‘to swell’.) God in this context was believed be the principal one, holding absolute power, control and authority over all; he is ‘Lord of lords’ [1Tim.6:15]. Everything in Creation was regarded as subject to God. God’s laws were regarded as regulating all in the cosmos, while rejecting subordination to God or God’s rules was regarded as sin.
‘Lord’ is also used in the New Testament in its secular sense for owner of land, animals and servants. To call someone ‘Lord’ recognised their superiority over you, as the jailer acknowledged Paul and Silas in Acts 16:30. So when Jesus was called ‘Lord’ by his followers in the Gospels, it was not necessarily implying at that time that his nature was divine. However, passages in several New Testament Epistles point towards his oneness with God [e.g. Col.2:6; Rom.10:9; 12:11, 14:4ff; 1Cor.15:28]. To St. Paul the Resurrection was a distinctive sign of Christ’s lordship [1Cor.15]. Paul concluded that “as there is one God, the Father, so there is one Lord, Jesus Christ” [1Cor.8:6]. Belonging to him as our ‘Lord’ gives members of his body, the Church, a personal relationship with our Lord [Rom.15:30; 1Cor.1:2], which is meant to distinguish us in some ways from the world [Rom.16:18]. In very few world religions is a saviour or God who is also regarded as in intimate friend and brother, as in the relationship possible between Christians and Christ.
Yet, as with the term ‘King’, how much do the contemporary Church worldwide and our individual lives allow God and Christ to be ‘Lord’ of our lives? Jesus himself recognised that not everyone who called him “Lord, Lord’ was truly part of his Kingdom. That distinction is reserved for those who also obey his word and follow his ways [Matt.7:21]. How far is this true of our lives? Our salvation is not dependent on our actions but on God’s grace, as Ephesians stresses. But our obedience to God’s commands should reflect our recognition of God’s lordship.
The connotation of ‘largeness’ and ‘swelling’ in the term ‘kýrios’ is also a challenge to us as Christians. As we develop in our Christian lives, our understandings of who Christ was, and what God should mean to us, should be constantly expanding. J.B. Phillips wrote a significant book for Christians entitled: “Your God is Too Small!” God is related to the truth about everything and Christ’s teaching can be applied to all that we do. The ‘Lordship’ of God and Christ thus relates to everything with which we are involved. We often tend to pigeon-hole our religion and separate it from certain parts of our lives. Christ’s teaching should direct and guide every aspect of our life, thought and priorities. Only if that is true of us can we authentically ne calling Christ our ‘Lord’. How Christ’s lordship applies to us will be different for different people. It may also change as our lives and understanding of faith develop. Our response to God’s lordship needs to expand as our faith needs to constantly expand, mature and deepen. It is not a simplistic matter of just taking every law in scripture literally. We need to try to apply the ‘mind of Christ’ [1Cor.2:16] to issues, considering them with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, to interpret how scripture applies in contemporary situations. We may always make mistakes because none of us directly ‘know the mind of the Lord’ [Rom.11:34]. Yet if we attempt to follow Christ’s way and behave as though God is ‘Lord’ of all aspects of our lives, we are more likely to find the fulfilment that God offers: “The mind controlled by the Spirit is life” [Rom.8:6].
A recurrent problem with the Church throughout history, as well as today, has been that it too often prioritises itself as a lordly institution over the expectations of the ‘lordship’ of God. Too many Church leaders become ‘lords’ in their small empires. e.e. cummings wrote that “the busy monster manunkind... plays with the bigness of his littleness.” This has happened too many times in Church history. It has rejected the Lordship of God’s truth in covering-up of abuses, building its empires and institutions, using stewardship money for promoting or increasing the Church materially, rather than putting Christ’s mission first. Sometimes churches have promoted, advanced and lauded individuals until they seem to behave as if they are God’s special chosen ones or are more important than Christ.
As an artist producing work to be shown in churches, and someone who loves good church music and architecture, I recognise that we can celebrate and praise God through creating beautiful buildings to encourage worship. But nothing we do as Christians or for the Church should have greater priority in our lives than Christ’s lordship and our responsibility to advance his mission. I have become increasingly aware of the danger in the Church of people putting themselves and their institutions before God. I have seen certain leaders advancing their positions and ‘empires’, often by promoting themselves at the expense of others and disregarding Christian values of honesty, humility, love, peace and unity.
In contemporary Christian popular literature and some preaching, populism has been put before enriching Christian education. This goes against Christ and St. Paul’s wish to deepen people’s faith and spiritual maturity. It is almost as if some church leaders are trying to keep the mass of their congregations uneducated spiritually, in order to dominate them. Making the Church’s teaching more important than Christ’s Lordship was the heresy of the Mediaeval Church; it should not be the case for Christians today. For God’s Kingdom to flourish all Christians need to be enabled to be built up in faith to as mature and educated a level as they are capable of developing. The Church needs to be able to face strongly the challenges of our complex world. For Christ to be truly ‘Lord’ of our lives, minds and spirits, we need to be able to maturely understand how his teachings and expectations truly apply to all aspects of our lives, We need then to apply that understanding of Christ’s lordship in practice in all areas of life, if we are to approach developing the Kingdom of God.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Can you truly say that Christ is Lord of all aspects of your life? Which of your priorities should you change?
SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF JESUS AND HOW THEY RELATE TO HIS FOLLOWERS
16. HUMILITY “... God my Saviour has looked with favour on the lowliness of his servant.” [Lk.1:47]
The humility of Mary is also a characteristic of God and of Jesus. In Ps.113:5-6 the incomparably great God is described as humble enough to value, regard, protect and nurture all that has been created. Jesus, as Lord of Life said “learn from me for I am gentle and humble in heart.” [Matt.11:29]. He entered Jerusalem “humble and mounted on a donkey” [Matt.21:5; Zech.9:9], a sign of a gentle leader offering peace. In Ps.18:35 and 2Sam.22:36 David, as God’s servant, recognised God’s humility in having ‘stooped down’ to make him great.
The praise of humility in scripture [e.g. Prov.15:33; 18:12], may seem anachronistic in a modern world where important leaders are rarely characterised by humility. Many may often claim in speeches that they ‘feel humbled by the trust or adulation that the public have laid upon them’, but their actions often betray lack of humility and arrogance. The humblest leaders are often praised in scripture, rather than those who promote themselves or ‘blow their own trumpets’. This should be a lesson for all Christians. God is often said to bless the humble [e.g. Moses in Num.12:3] and to put down the arrogant [like Belshazzar in Dan.5:22]. This is exactly what Mary sings about in the Magnificat: She celebrates God abasing the proud, and dethroning arrogant leaders, yet raising up the lowly [Lk.1:51-52].
Matt.23:12 emphasises that humility is a requirement for preferment by God, while arrogance leads to deflation. The lowly, humble of heart and poor in spirit will be advanced by God and inherit God’s Kingdom of [Phil.4:12; Matt.5:2]. Jesus provided us with the perfect example of humble leadership, and was exalted by his Father in consequence [Phil.2:8]. All Christians are encouraged to imitate Christ’s humility:
‘If there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross.’ [Phil 2:1-8]
Col.2:18 & 23 contrasts this perfect example by declaring that God sees through false or sham humility. Teachers and leaders who are puffed up with their own self-importance are criticised. The Colossian readers, like us, are warned against false humility as well as false arrogance and exhorted to authentic, humble devotion and ‘compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness patience, tolerance forgiveness, genuine love and peace’ [Col.3:15].
The Nativity scene in a common stable or cave is a supreme example of God’s humility in coming into the world as a servant of humanity, not as a didactic overlord. In Jesus’ character and teachings he primarily represented God as a Father with great power who, in grace, humbles himself and restrains his requirements, for the good of his people. Jesus exemplified this. He had times of anger and exasperation, with the traders in the Temple [Matt.21:12; Jn.2:13-16], the hypocrisy of the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees [Matt.23:13-33] and frustration with the disciples [Lk.9:37-56]. But rather than no insist on his own way he followed what he knew was right and what his Father wanted [1Cor.13:5b; Phil.2:5-11]. Jesus led people by his humble example, by teaching, by love and forgiveness, not by arrogance, negativity or excessive demands or tyrannical reprimands.
In the Incarnation, God was humble enough to became dependent on Mary - dependent first on her saying “yes” to the proposal to accept the carrying of the Messiah. God was humble enough to take human form in Jesus and become dependent on Mary for the child’s safety, protection, nurture and training until he was prepared for his mission and ready for ministry. This reminds us that God is in some ways dependent on us and trusts us, limited, sinful and human as we are, to carry him to the world.
In Greek the word for ‘humble’, ‘tapienós’ could mean several things, including ‘lowly’, ‘meek’, week’ ‘poor’ and ‘ oppressed’. It was particularly related to a person’s lowly status. But it could also mean ‘modest’ and ‘obedient’. In the cases of Mary, Joseph and Jesus, all of these interpretations are true. In the Greek LXX version of Hebrew Scriptures the word was often used of ‘to bow down’, ‘to bend’, to abase oneself’ or ‘to cast oneself down’. In relationship with God it encourages people to regards themselves in correct perspective. The Messiah was prophesied as the one who would establish the rights of the meek and oppressed [Isa.11:4] and establish God’s covenant and peace with the lowly for ever [Isa.54:10-11], raising the humble and contrite [Isa.66:2]. The ‘Suffering Servant’ of Isa.53 would be exalted after his humiliation. Jesus fulfilled all of these, and they should also be examples to us as his followers.
Humility is linked to ‘lowliness’. ‘gentleness’ and ‘meekness’ [‘praǘtēs’], in the New Testament. When Jesus said ‘blessed are the poor in spirit... and blessed are the meek” [Matt.5:3, 5] he was not declaring that we should be subserviently submissive; he wanted his followers to be strong in faith and active but not arrogant towards God or towards any others. Meekness, like humility, acknowledges the greatness and the gracious will of God and reflects God’s mercy and gentleness in our own use of power and attitude towards others and to the world. Jesus’ humility and lowliness were a result of having his heart fixed on following his Father’s will, not on pleasing or advancing himself. That is the greatest example that a Christian should both follow and give to others.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Is the form of humility shown by Jesus and Mary a feature of your own discipleship, which others would recognise and follow?
17. GREATNESS “He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord will give him the throne of his ancestor David.” [Lk.1:32].
Several young friends and children of friends use the idiomatic expression “MEGA!” when describing something they consider absolutely wonderful. They may recognise that it means ‘very big’, as in ‘megaton’ ‘megalith’, ‘megabit’, ‘megacycle’, even ‘megabucks’. But I doubt if any of them know that it is the word used for the greatness of Christ. I am slightly tempted to read the Christmas Gospel in church and declaim: “He shall be ’Mega!’ and shall be called the Son of the Most High...” The term ‘mega’ is used four times in the Gospel narratives of the Nativity [Lk.1:32, 46; 49; 2:10]. In the first Jesus is foretold to be ‘great’, in the second Mary ‘magnifies’ / ‘megalýnei’ the Lord, which means that she ‘makes great’ or ‘extols God’s greatness’. In the third Mary celebrates the ‘great things’ / ‘megála’ that the ‘mighty’ / ‘dynatós’ God has done for her; in the fourth the angel announces to the shepherds good news of ‘great joy’/ ‘charàn megalén’. The emphasis is certainly on the idea that Christ is ‘great’, in that he is above all things, and is bringing something greater than ever before into the world.
The first chapter of Colossians emphasised this greatness:
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible... He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body the Church, he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything,. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.” [Col.1:15-20].
Scripture claims that God has raised Christ above all things. Philippians describes this in verse that may have been a song or chant used in the early church:
‘Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father’. [Phil.2:9-11]
The Greek term ‘Mega’ can mean ‘great’ in terms of being ‘big’, ‘high’, ‘wide’, ‘powerful’. It could be used of gods, rulers, natural forces, dangers and emotions. In scripture it is used of the ‘great supper of the Lamb’, the banquet prepared for God’s followers in heaven [Rev.19:17]. Jesus used it of the ‘great faith’ of the Canaanite woman who trusted him to heal her daughter [Matt.15:28]. But it is most significantly used in speaking to God as the ‘great king’ [Matt.5:35]. In 1Cor.13:13 Paul considered ‘love’ as the ‘greatest’ alongside ‘faith’ and ‘hope’. Love of God and neighbour are the ‘greatest commandments’ [Matt.22:36-40]. Nathaniel would see the glory of Jesus which would be ‘greater’ than anything he has yet experienced [Jn.1:50-51]. Jesus is described as ‘greater than all who preceded him’ [Jn.4:12; 5:36; 8:53].
In a few places in these studies I have talked about our need to expand our understanding and ideas about God, Christ, faith and truth. Our growth of faith should expand and advance us, as well as expanding our comprehension of God and the effectiveness and authenticity of our discipleship. This word ‘great’ emphasises that, to adopt Cassius Clay’s phrase, “Christ is the Greatest”. He remained obedient and subservient to his Father’s will, yet was the supreme one, both in his role in heaven and his role on Earth, within creation.
Mary must have felt very inadequate to carry such a great promise in her womb, as she was so inexperienced and young. The shepherds must have felt very lowly in the light of the angels’ declaration about the child who they were directed to visit in Bethlehem. The magi appear to have had some insight into Christ’s greatness, through their wise learning and their interpretation of astral portents. But none could have known in what ways Jesus would prove to be great. He was not to be the typical ruling Messiah for whom many in Judea were waiting, who would establish a great physical and geographical rule by defeating and expelling his enemies and restoring the nation to greatness. He would come in humility; he would seek to rule in and through people’s hearts, rather than from a physical seat of earthly power; he would shine in splendour, not with gold but by lighting the world with God’s truth.
When Jesus’ disciples disputed over who was or would be the greatest, Jesus gave them the example of a humble child, (as he himself had been in the Incarnation) [Matt.18:1-4; Mk.9:34; Lk.9:46-48; 22:2426]. He showed them that the greatest among them must act as the ‘servant’ [Matt.23:11] and be prepared to be ‘the least’ [Lk.9:48]. We have a slight dichotomy as Christians: On the one hand we have the privilege of serving and being valued by the greatest power in the cosmos. This gives us a high and responsible status and an empowering sense of aim and mission. On the other hand, we have the example of the Son of God, wrapping a rowel around his waist, washing his disciples’ feet and offering the example of servanthood, which would eventually lead him to the Cross. I personally think that it is better to follow that example of acting as a servant, than to swan around preening ourselves in response to our high calling. God is the great one; we have the privilege of being God’s trusted stewards.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
What makes Christ ‘great’/’mega’ in your eyes? How can you explain that to others?
18. GLORY “The angel of the Lord came upon them and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and they were terrified.” [Lk.2:9].
The association of Jesus’ coming with ‘glory’ id directly linked to his relationship with God. The term ‘doxá’, meaning ‘glory’ is almost always related to God when used throughout scripture. Whatever this vision was, which we are told that the shepherds experienced, it is described as if it was a revelation of a segment of heaven. It is implied to be more than a great light shining around the shepherds, with angels in it. The term ‘the glory of the Lord’ implies that something of the divine presence of God was sensed by these lowly peasants, who would have been regarded by the Sadducees as ritually unclean as a result of their profession. They were being entrusted with a greater revelation than even the highest priests in the land were given, an audience in Bethlehem with the one who would grow to be their Messiah.
In speaking of Jesus as God’s Son, the writer of the Hebrews said: “He is the reflection of God’s glory, and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” [Heb.1:3-4]. This is the figure who the shepherds were sent to greet as an infant.
The Greek word for glory ‘doxá’ originally had little of the meaning of light and radiance. In Greek world and ancient literature, it was originally used to describe the ‘good opinion’ of a person, a philosophy or an idea. Its meaning developed in Hellenistic writings, including the Jewish writings of Josephus and Philo, to mean the ‘honour’ in which a person or idea was held, and hence developed further to mean ‘splendour’, ‘glory’ and ‘divine radiance’. What the shepherds were described as seeing may not have therefore just been imagined as light from heaven radiating around them, but also a sense of being in the splendid presence of a power that they should honour, feel in awe of, and feel a high opinion towards. No wonder Luke tells us that they were ‘terrified’; most of us would be! (The Greek of Lk.2:9 describes it as “they feared an exceedingly great fear!”, using a term we still use: ‘phóbia’. The text tells us that they experienced a ‘megá phóbia’! [Actually the Greek reads: ‘phobon mégan’.]
When we use the term ‘glory’ of God, of course, we recognise that God is invisible, at least to our dimension. So the splendour and glory with which God is describes are more an existential metaphor rather than describing God as visibly physical. The word was used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew term ‘kāḇôḏ’, which meant ‘importance’, ‘wealth’, ‘honour’ and ‘the manifestation of glory’. In the Psalms it is used of the ‘honour of God’ [Pss.24:8; 66:2; 138:5]. In Ps.19:1 it is used of the ‘glory and honour in heaven’. In Exodus it describes the awe-inspiring presence that came down on the Tent of Meeting, and dwelt above the Mercy Seat, [Ex.40:34ff.]. It also described the radiance of God on the mountain as Moses encountered God and received God’s laws [Ex.24:15ff.]. In that case, as in the Tabernacle, the place was being held in awe, because the presence of God was there. In Ezekiel it represents the divine glory on the throne [Ezek.3:12, 23; 8:4; 10:4; 43:2]. The rabbis used the term of both human and divine honour. Glory was regarded as an essential part of God’s nature, the essence of God’s being wasn ‘glory and honour’, just as Jesus described ‘love’ as an essence of God’s being. By the time of Jesus and in the later writings of the New Testament the sense that ‘doxá’ previously meant ‘good opinion’ had mostly disappeared and the term was primarily used to represent ‘splendour’. Yet when used of God in the New Testament ‘doxá’ denoted the honour of God’s reputation and power as well as his character of splendour and radiant presence.
What a contrast to the humble image of an ordinary-looking new-born child, lying in a manger in a smelly stable! The shepherds had witnessed glory in the heavens, but they came to Bethlehem and found a simple peasant scene. The divine light often shown shining around the crib or from the infant in Renaissance and Baroque paintings of the scene is unreal, as are images of angels and clouds of putti surrounding the scene. Light radiating around Jesus’ crib in pictures is only metaphorical way of representing the presence of the ‘Light of the World’ within the manger. It was a feature taken from the influential Bridget of Sweden’s C14th description of the Nativity, but is not mentioned in scripture. Bridget wrote: “I saw that glorious infant lying on the earth, naked and glowing in the greatest of neatness.…” But what the shepherds most probably witnessed was an ordinary dark, relatively unlit interior, with an ordinary peasant couple and a child. The glory of God was interior within the baby. The poet Richard Crashaw [c1613-1649] used a beautiful series of metaphors for the glory of the Christ-child:
“Welcome, all wonders in one sight!
Eternity shut in a span;
Summer in winter; day in night;
Heaven in earth, and God in man.
Great little one, whose all-embracing birth
Lifts earth to heaven, stoops heav’n to earth. [from:’On the Holy Nativity of Our Lord’]
When we talk of glorifying God or glorifying Christ, we are attempting by our praise, contemplation or actions to recognise the presence of one who deserves the highest honour. The priest and people had a sense of awe at the presence of the glory of God in the Tabernacle. They were in so much awe and perhaps ‘mega fear’ that only one person could approach God, just once a year in the Tent of Meeting on the Day of Atonement. Before that could be undertaken tremendous sacrifices were required. Even then the priest had a rope tied around his body, in case he was deemed unworthy or unclean, and was zapped dead in the holy presence. This would require his corpse to be hauled out of the tent by his rope. What a difference in the Nativity story, where the glory of God’s presence with angels was opened up in the heavens, and unwashed, unclean peasants were encouraged to rush form the fields to greet their spiritual leader in Bethlehem [see also Meditation 24 ‘Shepherds’]. The same unworthiness is true of us: The only thing that enables us in awe to approach God’s presence, and prevents us from being zapped (either metaphorically or physically), is the grace of God, which is offered to us through the achievement of Christ. The child in the manger is that glory of God in microcosm.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
The high priest’s awed approach to God in the holiness of the Tabernacle and the shepherds’ unclean intimacy in approaching their Messiah in the manger are both images to inspire a healthy balance in our relationship with God. Does your approach to God when you pray and worship have a true balance between holy awe and the intimacy of feeling welcomed and made worthy by Christ?
19 BRINGER OF PEACE ON EARTH “Peace on earth, good will towards all...” [Lk.2:14] “The Prince of Peace” [Isa.9:6]... “to guide our feet into the way of peace” [Lk.1:79].
We usually mostly associate ‘peace’ with relationships between previously warring factions. Peace in the context of the verses above, and the Christmas story, is more connected to the bringing of ‘salvation’ (see Meditation 11 on ‘Saviour’). When Jesus talks about ‘peace’ in phrases like ‘my peace I give you, my peace I leave with you” [Jn.14:27], he meant far more than lack of discord or warfare. Spiritual ‘peace’ is a sense of wholeness and the warmth of inner contentment, and security. It includes satisfaction with ourselves, our situation, our companions and our ministry. The awareness of being at peace should result from an authentic spiritual wholeness, rather than from being blinkered to problems, not recognising hypocrisy, or deliberately avoiding disquieting issues.
The opening and sometimes the ending of most New Testament Epistles nearly always includes the joint blessing of ‘grace and peace be with you” [Rom1:7; 1Cor.1:3 etc.]. Sometimes the term ‘mercy’ is added [1&2 Tim.; 2 Jn.; Jude]. Hebrew greetings often emphasised ‘grace’, while ‘peace’ was often part of a Roman greeting, ‘Grace from God’ was a Jewish Rabbinic greeting, and ‘peace’ possibly came from a Roman prayer of blessing as well as the ‘Pax Romana’. But ‘peace’/’shalom’ [Hebrew] or ‘eirene’ [Greek], is as much a Jewish concept as the Roman idea of ‘pax’. In Greek ‘peace’/‘eirene’ carries the idea of being secure in a treaty or covenant, the absence of hostile feelings, security, even redemption, all of which relate to God’s covenant with his people. The coming Messiah would be the ‘Prince/King of Peace’ [Isa.9:5; Zech.9:9-10] establishing an eternal, paradisal ‘shalom’. Micah said of the Messiah: “He is our peace” [Mic.5:5], for he would be the means by which God establishes peace.
The Hebrew concept of ‘shalom’ embraced a plethora of blessings: overall wellbeing. health, good fortune, stability, national and personal prosperity, security and wholeness. It particularly meant being in securely stable relationship with God, who would provide these holistic blessings. Unlike many of their Jewish contemporaries, Jesus and St. Paul did not regard material prosperity as important as a sign of blessing. They recognised the difficulties and inequality of human life. The ‘poor’ and ‘persecuted’ would inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, the ‘meek’ would inherit the earth [Matt.3:3-11]. They would find eventual peace through God’s justification of them. Paul claimed that he could feel content in whatever situation he found himself [Phil.4:11-13].
For Jesus and for Paul, ‘peace’ was a universal wish for God’s people. Jesus encouraged his disciples to give a blessing of peace to the homes of all who welcomed them hospitably in their mission [Matt.10:12-14]. But he also recognised that involvement in his mission would separate some and cause hostility and division rather than unity and universal peace. “I have come not to bring peace but a sword” is a difficult passage [Matt.10:24]. Jesus’ mission intended peace not division, but he recognised that others, both individuals and other powers, had different priorities. Our present divisions in churches are often for different and various reasons like obstinacy over interpretations of doctrine, preferential practices, self-centredness, power-struggles etc. This is far from being the unified body, working together in harmony, which Christ encouraged.
Jesus wanted to bring people peace with God and peace between people. ‘Be at peace among with one another” [Mk.9:50]. Such unity was one of the signs of the Messiah’s mission. We are told that Christ achieved spiritual peace through the offering of his body on the Cross [Rom.5:11; Eph.2:14]. He encouraged his followers to be ‘one’ with each other ‘as he and his Father were one’ [Jn.17:21]. His followers would inherit his peace and should pass it on: ‘Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you’ [Jn.14:27]. That peace and unity among Christians should act as a witness to the world: “As you Father are in me and I in you, may they also be in us so that the world may see that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one as we are one.” [Jn.17:21-22]. Sadly the present witness of all churches and Christians falls far short of this glory and unity, even when religious communities are at peace with one another. What might we do to create greater personal peace and spiritual peace within churches?
So many people today long for peace, yet the contemporary political, social and economic ethos often encourages the promotion of power at the expense of others. Many more political leaders want to assert themselves or attain dominance by their use of power than to create an equitable situation of peace. Peacemakers and peace-making attempts are often side-lined, especially by nations who want dominance or who are intent on making money by selling expensive armaments. It is easy to talk ‘Peace’, just as it is easy to pretend to ‘Christianity’; but fewer truly want the way of peace, just as fewer allow God and God’s way to be the motivation for their lives. However, to be truly at peace within ourselves, attaining selfish ambitions needs to be our least priority. To aim at harmony with all is more important than to advance oneself or one’s limited vision.
Jesus’ concept of peace and peace-making was not quietist pacifism. He recognised that his message of bringing truth, righteousness and justice would divide people who had different priorities. In one of the most difficult passages of his teaching [Mtt.10:34], he foretold that even close families would find themselves divided by his message. The militaristic imagery of some aspects of scripture is also uncomfortable: when, for example Jesus is pictured as a warrior in the battles of the Book of Revelation. How literally we are meant to take such imagery is difficult to interpret. At different times in history it has led to militarism by the Church, which has not always been characterised by righteousness - particularly in the contexts of the crusades, papal armies, Reformation and Counter-Reformation antagonism and Christian justifications for wars throughout the centuries. Peace and peaceful reconciliations are ideals for which we should always aim strive and work, since ALL human life is precious. The Church should also always be working to promote truth, justice and equity.
The ‘Pax Romana’, the peace by which the Roman Empire sought to subjugate and unify peoples, was maintained largely by threat. The power the Empire deterred rebellion. For centuries the Church similarly maintained social stability by threats of persecution, inquisition, torture, anathematisation, expulsion from Church and the saving sacraments, withdrawing the possibility of salvation and grace, or the threat of hell and damnation for any whose practices, ideas or doctrines disagreed with accepted Church dogma. Peace-making in contemporary Christian communities should be attained by more loving means. Paul called for disputing parties to be reconciled in love. Jesus taught: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” [Matt.5:9]. In the world and sadly in the church, there often seem to be many who prefer to stir up trouble rather than to reconcile. If we want to be true ‘children of God’ we need to learn to bring reconciliation through love and unity between those of different ways of understanding faith or with different lives and cultural expectations.
Too frequently in world history and the contemporary world, working for truth is based on revenge, standing for one’s rights or extracting compensation for injustices. The Bible does not say much about human rights; it recognises the value of all in God’s eyes and calls for the weak, disadvantaged and unrepresented in society to be supported. But it does not emphasise that any of us have ‘rights’. In fact Jesus and St. Paul did not insists on their rights [Phil.2:6; Matt.26:53; 1Cor.9:1-15 ; 2Cor.11:7-12]. Rights are a more humanistic concept. The Hebrew Scriptures assert that God has certain rights: to recognition of his supremacy, obedience, worship, praise. But in our lives God rarely asserts those rights; God’s dealing with humankind is more often a request for recognition and involvement; calling on the better sides of our nature rather than asserting obligations. That is how peacemakers often work best, not by asserting military or judicial rights but by working on the consciences of disputing parties and moving them towards reconciliation.
Are there areas of your own lives and relationships, or relationships within your community which would benefit from you stepping in as a peacemaker? Peace-making is rarely a speedy process. Even if all parties involved want peace, past resentments can run deep. Long-lasting peace-making requires a forgiveness of the past and a recognition, admission and repentance of sometimes terrible sins. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa is a positive example of this at work. Too often disputing parties, even among churches, do not model such patience. Divisions between different churches, theological positions, liturgical practices, even tastes for styles of worship can cause rifts, which damage drastically the witness of Christian churches. Similarly failure to admit where we have gone wrong can cause long-lasting spiritual damage and destruction of our reputation and witness, as in the failure of churches to deal with situations of abuse by clergy or other prominent leaders. Peace cannot be created if a sense of injustice remains.
Christ’s own example of peace-making is characterised at the time of his Passion. He protected the disciples at his arrest in Gethsemane and called from the Cross for God’s forgiveness of his persecutors. There are so many situations all around us where we need to be peacemakers, and Christ’s model is for us to follow.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Do you feel at peace with God through Christ’s achievement? Are there others who you might be able to help to find his peace?
20 GOOD WILL “Peace on earth towards people of good will.” [Lk.2:14]. Other ancient versions of Luke can be translated as: “Good will towards all on whom God’s favour rests”.
The original message of the angels would of course have been communicated to the shepherds in Aramaic, Hebrew or possibly the local dialect. Variations in phrasing in different Greek texts of Luke 2:14 suggest that there might have been confusion of the exact meaning in the versions of the story which circulated, or mistakes in writing them down. The basic meaning of the communication is similar: God is being glorified for the the sending of Christ to offer peace to the people of earth. Christ is being given to the world out of God’s ‘good pleasure’ and the news offers ‘good pleasure’ to all people. It is not indicating that God’s favour rests only on a select few, ‘elected’ by God to receive his grace. It suggests that God’s favour is offered to all who open themselves to Christ’s blessing.
The main emphasis of the whole Nativity story of the shepherds is that Jesus came into the world for everybody. God was offering his favour and inviting all to share the good news. Christ came to welcome and show the way for all people, even ordinary people like the shepherds and us, to live in a peaceful relationship with God. God’s favour was towards people of ‘good will’, just as God was reaching out to them through God’s ‘good will.’ We live in a world that often seems to have too little ‘good will’. Christ came to bring peace to all of good will. The Church’s responsibility is to continue that good will by being peacemakers, reconcilers & carers in the broadest sense. We are not meant to isolate ourselves as some Christian sects attempted to do in the past. ‘Good will’ means that we should have outgoing hearts and minds deliberately focused towards God and the good of others. We are not to be self-centred, conceited or determined to get our own way if that might be against God’s will. People of good-will are recipients of God’s grace and good will through the coming of Christ.
The Greek term ‘good will’ / ‘eudokia’ was not used in classical times. It occurs for the first time in the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was used to translate the Hebrew world ‘rāṣôn’ which described God’s ‘good pleasure’ in sacrifices [Lev.19:5], ‘favour’ towards people [Ps.5:12], ‘blessings’ [Deut.32:33], God’s ‘will’ [Ps.40:8] and God’s ‘consent’ and ‘acceptance’ of people and offerings that come in love and sincerity. It was also used to describe a secular king’s favour towards his people. In the apocryphal book The Wisdom of Ben Sirach, the term is most found in scripture. There ‘eudokia’ was used to mean God’s desire, good pleasure, or will for satisfying others
So this initial greeting to the shepherds, which we often gloss over quickly when reading is actually quite profound. It isn’t just an innocuous generalised greeting, or a spiritual way of the angels saying “Good evening!... Go well!” At its heart is the message that this child is being sent to earth out of God’s favour to a world that is loved by God and needs this precious gift. If the people of this world, who are exemplified by the shepherds, open themselves and their hearts to the gift of Christ, they are promised to find peace and fulfilment as well as the blessing and favour of God.
The idea of ‘good will’ towards people is expressed even more powerfully in Gabriel’s greeting and message to Mary at the Annunciation. In most English translations it seems just a friendly greeting, saying that she had ‘found favour with God’. But it is much stronger in Greek. The word used of God’s good will towards her is not ‘eudokia’ but ‘cháris’, which implies that she is especially loved and favoured because she has been considered a worthy recipient of God’s ‘grace’ [Lk.1:30]. ‘Charis’/’grace’ is also at the root of the title with which Gabriel initially greeted Mary two verses earlier: “Hail having-been-most-favoured-one!” / ‘chaīre kecharitoméne’ [Lk1:28]. As we share in the blessings that Christ brings to us, we are partly included in that loving, gracious favour because of God’s ‘good-will’ towards us.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Imagine yourself immersed in that ‘good-will’ of God. How can you practically share that loving favour within the community of which you are part?
21. LIGHT “... in him was life and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it.” [Matt.1:4-5].
One of the main emphases of John’s Gospel was that the coming of Jesus brought light into the world. Light is a wonderfully expansive metaphor for the overcoming of darkness and sin, the glory of God, the enlightenment of people’s lives and minds, and so much more. One reason why Jesus’ birth is represented as coming at night, may be that he was shown to be bringing God’s light into a dark and needy world. Dark was considered to be associated with evil; light with good. The verse “The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it.” [Matt.1:5] implies that the opposition to Jesus and even his death was not able to overpower the strength of what Christ was bringing into the world.
‘Light’ in Hebrew [’wr] and Greek [phṓs] can mean both daylight, sunlight, brightness, shining and a lamp. Its use as a metaphor in scripture is replete with meanings that relate to Christ’s coming: Light helps us to see, so the imagery of light was used for being able to understand and master both spiritual knowledge and the world. Wisdom and the Law were described in scripture as ‘light’ [Eccl.2:13; Ps.19:8; 119:105]. God is described as ‘our light’ [Ps.27:1], the ‘light of life’ [Ps.56:13], the ‘Lord of light and darkness’ [Amos 5:8; Ps.104:2;], resplendent and shining in light [Isa.42:16f], shining the light of God’s presence on us [Ps.90:8] and the source of light [Gen.1:3; Job 37:3]. Light is seen as ‘good’ [Gen.1:4] and was also associated with ‘salvation’ and ‘joy’ [Ps.36:9; Ps.97:11]. The Psalmists ask for the light of God’s face to shine upon us [Ps.4:6] and for God to give light to our eyes and minds [Ps.13:3; 19:8]. God’s coming and judgement will be a day of light [Amos 5:18] and will bring light to Israel [Isa.30:26; 60:1f; Zech.14:6-7]. In Isaiah, light is a feature of the Messiah’s ministry [Isa. 9:2; 10:17; 42:6; 53:11; 58:8; -10; 60:1, 3, 19-20]. Matthew saw this promise of light as fulfilled in Jesus [Matt.4:16]. All of these references to light add potential meaning and breadth to Jesus’ statement about himself: “I am the light of the world” [Jn.8:12; 9:5; 12:46]. The metaphor relates Jesus to divine power, wisdom, the fulfilment of God’s true law, bringing light, judgement, salvation and joy. The word for light is also at the heart of the term ‘epiphany’, ‘the revealing’ or ‘shining forth’ [Matt.17:5].
Jesus’ calling himself ‘the light of the world’ was interpreted by many in the early church to mean that he was bringing true enlightenment. Amid all the varying philosophies and lifestyles of the ancient world, he claimed to be the one who showed the true way to fulfilled, holy life. There is much potential in this for our world which offers such a variety of philosophies and lifestyles. We belong to a multi-cultural world, with many faiths and multiple ways of living that offer positive paths to fulfilment, as well as destructive ways. The wholeness in Jesus’ teaching can shed light into many of these. His message offers a way to balanced, abundant, righteous and spiritual fulfilment if people truly follow it.
The claim to be ‘the light of the world’ has far broader implications for a modern scientifically enlightened world than even the long list of biblical references above. We recognise the importance of light for the life of our planet. Some life, we know exists in total darkness, within the earth or caves, or in the deepest ocean, but most terrestrial life is dependent on light. Light is a prerequisite for human health, the development of Vitamin D, photosynthesis for healthy plant growth. The programme of Jewish yearly religious festivals, which partly regulated society, reflected the changing agricultural seasons and often used light within its symbolism. A light was kept permanently burning in the Temple, as it is in many churches, reminding people of the ever-presence of God. Tall lamp-stands also stood above the Temple walls, as beacon to remind travellers and peoples surrounding Jerusalem that God was in their midst.
Superstitiously, light was also believed to drive out demons, so Jesus’ words could be interpreted as offering cleansing and release. Light as a contrast to darkness was a feature of several Middle-Eastern mystery and magical religions, philosophies, Gnosticism and the idea of true knowledge of oneself, so Christ could be interpreted as bringing full and true light, by contrast to their partial lights. Jesus revealed the mystery of God to the world and showed up the presence of darkness. Light was also a feature of the ‘lógos’ in philosophy, which is related to the celebration of Christ as ‘The Word’ in the opening of John’s Gospel, in which Christ’s true light is related to bringing life to the world. [See Meditation 32: ‘Word’].
Jesus told his disciples that in following his ways we should also be ‘light to the world”... “Let your light shine before others so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.’ [Matt.5:14-16]. Preaching in Antioch of Pisidia, Paul reminded God’s people that they were commanded by God to “be a light to the Gentiles, so that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth” [Acts 13:47 quoting Isa.49:6]. Jesus told us to “let your whole body be filled with light” [Matt.6:22; Lk.11:36]. We are told to “walk in the light as (Christ) is in the light.” [Jn.12:35]. Some are seen as ‘loving darkness instead of light’; the evil are described as ‘hating’ light. By contrast, those who live by the truth ‘come into the light’. [Jn.3:19-21]. We are encouraged to “lay aside the works of darkness and put on the armour of light” [Rom.13:12]. Jesus taught “If the light in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” [Matt.6:23]. In the previous verses he told us to keep our metaphorical eyes healthy by focusing on what is positive and helpful. This isn’t just talking about living good lives; he intended us to focus our minds on God and truth as the source of that light. We are told to be ‘children of light’ [Lk.16:8; Jn.12:36; 1Thess.5:5; Eph.5:8].
Conversion to becoming a follower of Christ’s way was regarded as turning from darkness to Christ’s “wonderful light” [1Pet.2:9; Eph.5:8]. Paul wrote that judgement will bring to light what is hidden [1Cor.4:5; 2Cor.5:10] and reveal what is good [1Cor.3:13]. 1Jn.2:9-11 emphasises that “darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. Whoever says “I am in the light” while hating his brother or sister is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother or sister lives in the light, and in such a person there is no cause for stumbling.” By contrast we are told to ‘walk in the light while we have the light’ [Jn.12:35; 1Jn.1:7].
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Consider the light that Christ has brought into your life. What areas of darkness does he reveal in you, that needs to be removed, and what light opens you up and enlivens the health of your life?
THE NATIVITY STORY
22. BETHLEHEM “Joseph went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David, called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David called Bethlehem. [Lk.2:4].
Bethlehem is mentioned several times in the Hebrew Scriptures. The town was in the hills and remained small despite being relatively close (but not close enough) to trade routes from Egypt and the Mediterranean port of Gaza to Jerusalem. The Bethlehem regarded as the place of Christ’s birth, 5 miles south-south- west of Jerusalem, should not be confuses with another Bethlehem in the area of Galilee, 6 miles north-west of Nazareth, which was given to the tribal territory of Zebulun in Josh. 19:15. The name Bethlehem, or ‘Bet Leḥem’ in Hebrew, literally means ‘House of Bread’. In Arabic ‘Bayt Laḥm’ means ‘House of Meat’ so ‘bread’ in this context means a place of ‘sustenance’, as it did when Jesus called himself ‘The Bread of Life’ [Jn.6:35].. In Genesis the settlement is called ‘Ephrath’, which may either mean a ‘fruitful’ or ‘fertile place’. [from Hebrew root פרה / para / ‘to be fruitful’], or ‘exhausted’ [from the verb אפר / 'pr’ / ‘to be depleted’]. In a way the history of Bethlehem through the centuries fulfils both those meanings.
Bethlehem-Ephrathah, or Bethlehem-Judah, as the town is named in the Hebrew Scriptures was a very ancient settlement, possibly first mentioned in Egyptian Tell el-Amarna documents as early as C14th BCE. In the C2nd C.E. Justin Martyr identified the site of the Nativity as a cave close to the village, now beneath the nave of the Church of the Nativity which the Empress Helena (c.248–c.328) initially commissioned to be built. This was later destroyed but rebuilt by Emperor Justinian (r.527–565). The church was later divided between the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Armenian Orthodox faiths, which rather negates the idea of Christian unity, for which Christ came. However Bethlehem has been a centre for pilgrimage and monastic settlements for centuries: St Jerome built a monastery there in the C5th, where he translated the Hebrew scriptures into the Latin Vulgate aided by the rabbis of the town. He had previously translated the New Testament from Greek before going to Palestine.
Mention of Bethlehem as ‘the city of David’ does not fully represent the significance of this small place in Jewish history. Rachel, the wife of the patriarch Jacob, died on the wayside just north of the town in giving birth to Benjamin [Gen.35:19; 48:7]. She was buried in a tomb at the entrance to the town, which became one of the holiest pilgrimage places in Judaism. This gives extra meaning to the mention of Rachel in the story of the ‘Massacre of the Innocents’, recalling Jeremiah’s prophecy of Rachel ‘weeping for her sons’ [Matt.2:18; Jer.3:15]. As ancestors of sharing the same covenant promises, Jesus and the children killed in the massacre would be regarded traditionally as ‘her sons’.
Judges mentions Levites from Bethlehem [Judg.17:7-9; 19:1-18], which links to the idea that Jesus was regarded as ‘prophet, priest and king. (A ‘Zadok’ is mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy was probably a Levite, though not the Zadok who anointed Solomon). A Levite from Bethlehem became priest to Micah and was abducted by Danites [Judg.17:7-18:6; 18ff.] This was not the ‘Micah’, centuries later, who prophesied that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.. The rape and murder of the concubine of another Ephramite Levite, by men of Gibeah started an inter-tribal war, which almost led to the destruction of the tribe of Benjamin [Judg.19-20
Bethlehem is the main setting for the Book of Ruth. Ruth’s second husband Boaz came from there and they, like David, are both mentioned prominently in the genealogies of Jesus. It was the home town of Jesse, father of David [16:1]. David was anointed by Samuel in or near the town [1Sam.16:4-13]. From a Bethlehem well, when David was hiding from the Philistines in the cave of Adullam, three of David’s heroic supporters risked their lives to fetched water for him, which in reverence he poured out as a libation to God [2Sam.23:13-17]. (Some commentators believe that a parallel may be intentional here with the ‘living water’ which Christ would bring to the Woman at the Well [Jn.4:10; 7:38]. Other inhabitants of Bethlehem and rulers from David’s line, are mentioned in 2Samuel, 1Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah and Jeremiah. The town was fortified by David’s grandson King Rehoboam after the division of the kingdom [2Chron.11:6]. It was repopulated after the Babylonian Exile from 516 BCE. Supplementing the references to David as the ancestor of the Messiah, the key verse that relates Bethlehem to the Gospels is Micah 5:2-5 - a popular Christmas reading:
"But you O Bethlehem of Ephrathah
who are one of the little clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel,
whose origin is from old, from ancient days.
Therefore he shall give them up until the time
when she who is in labour has brought forth;
then the rest of his kindred shall return to the people of Israel.
And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the Lord,
in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
And they shall live secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth:
and he shall be the one of peace.”
Micah was prophesying from Judah before the fall of Israel, Samaria and Judah during the reigns of Kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, probably between about 740 to 696 B.C.E. He was approximately contemporary with Isaiah, Amos and Hosea, and about 30 years before Jeremiah. Micah was one of the first prophets to predict the fall of Jerusalem and he witnessed Senacherib’s invasion of Judah in 701B.C.E. He also condemned corruption in contemporary Jewish and foreign politics , business and religion, which he claimed would lead to the punishment of the nation. The Messianic prophecy in Mic.5:2-3 is for a leader who would restore a true covenant with God and renew honesty and faith, as well as restore the Kingdom. Jesus was to do this is a very different way to the political or military way of power that Micah and his hearers and readers may have imagined.
Bethlehem’s significant role in the story of Salvation contrasts to the town’s relative insignificance in terms of size and political importance at the time of Jesus. If Herod the Great did not know the prophecies about where the Messiah would come from, many others might also not have done so. It appears not to have been one of the major references which were thought to point to the awaited Messiah. Bethlehem could be a reminder to us that God can use the insignificant as much as the important. David was apparently the least significant of Jesse’s sons, yet he was entrusted by God with kingship. Jeremiah regarded himself as ‘only a youth’, unworthy and too inexperienced to be a prophet [Jer.1:6]. Moses, Isaiah and St. Paul regarded themselves as not clean, worthy or eloquent enough to speak for God [Ex.3:11; 4:10; Isa.6:5; 1Cor.1:17]. As St. Paul wrote: “Consider your own call, brothers and sisters; not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us the wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” [1Cor.1:26-30].
Micah’s prophecy echoes this in talking of Bethlehem as ‘one of the least, or little clans of Judah,’ [Mic.5:2]. This is an important lesson for anyone with ambition. I have met some very arrogant or self-important Christians at times, in many different fields. We should all remember that there are far more significant and gifted figures in the world than ourselves. We are just called to fulfil what we can, to the best that we can, in the situation in which we find ourselves. We should never over-raise ourselves or do the opposite and underestimate ourselves. Humble recognition of who we are, and trust in God’s Spirit to use our inadequate activities and gifts, are all that are necessary requirements for being worthy to extend God’s Kingdom. Those who build empires for themselves and deliberately promote themselves over others are rarely those who achieve lasting, eternal results, even though they may feel temporarily self-satisfied.
Bethlehem, at the time of Christ’s birth, and even up to the beginning of the 20th Century was a very small, rural place. In Renaissance paintings of the Nativity, the birth of Christ is often depicted in the setting of a ruined classical building, far more magnificent than anything that was ever built in Bethlehem. There may not even have been a commercial inn for travellers there, since it was not on any major roads (hence the modern belief that the translation of ‘inn’ in Lk.2:7, was probably more likely ‘guest-room’ [see Meditation 23]). The magnificent ruins depicted in some paintings relate not to scripture, but to a legend, popular in the middle ages, that the birth of Jesus was accompanied by a huge earthquake in which the ‘palace of Jesse’ fell into ruins. This symbolically was supposed to have signified that Christ had come to destroy the old order and the former covenant or dispensation and raise up a new order and covenant relationship with God. The legend is of course fiction, but it was invented to convey a spiritual truth. As far as we know Jesse had no ‘palace’; his family probably lived in ordinary small houses or a complex of interlinked small buildings, like those that still comprised Bethlehem at the beginning of the last century, rather than the larger settlement buildings that have expanded the pilgrimage town today. Even after David and Solomon’s deaths the settlements of their era were hardly spectacular, apart from Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, though even that was still relatively small compared to later temple complexes. As Israel’s two most significant leaders, Christ and King David, came from Bethlehem, the place reminds us that we do not need to be the most outstanding figure in an important family, nor come from significant large places to fulfil important roles in God’s world.
Several scholars question Matthew and Luke’s statements that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem. Some suggest that he could have been born in Nazareth. They assume that Bethlehem was included into the narrative as another piece of evidence that Jesus was the fulfilment of Hebrew Scripture. There is no firm evidence of an empire-wide census at the time, and it has been questioned whether people would have been required to return to their hometowns to register [Luke 2:1-4]. However it was a practice in the empire that people could be required to return to ancestral lands to claim property, and in some cases people had to return to register for taxation, so the journey to Jerusalem is not illogical. As the prophecy about Bethlehem in Micah 5:2-5 is only minor, and may not have been widely recognised as a Messianic prophecy it would probably not have been necessary to invent Bethlehem as his birthplace to confirm Jesus’ identification as the Messiah. The link with the House of David was an important one, but there is little reason to imagine that the Gospel writers would have invented Bethlehem as the birthplace unless tradition had handed it down to them.
Wherever Jesus was actually born, the primary important fact is not that it was a place historically association with kings, nor the place where the Messiah was prophesied to come from, or an ancient pilgrimage place. The most important fact is that Jesus was born as a real person at a real time in history. The truth of his achievement as Saviour is far more significant than where he was born.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Bethlehem was a place of sustenance, important in the growth of the Jewish history, despite its seeming insignificant size and political importance. What is your significance in the growth and development of faith?
23. INN / STABLE / CAVE / MANGER “She gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.” [Lk.2:7]
In Nativity stories, plays and films Mary and Joseph are often portrayed as knocking in frustration on the doors of several inns in Bethlehem, but found them busy, full with other travellers coming for the census. Logically Mary and Joseph might have stayed with Joseph’s family if his relatives still lived in the area. Ordinary people rarely moved far at the time, unless they were merchants, soldiers, slaves or craftsmen following work. Some may have married out of the family area, others were disgraced and had to move away to rebuild their lives. Others moved through illness, need or famine, like Jacob’s family journeying to Egypt. Joseph, it is suggested, had probably moved away from his family town for work reasons.
We are so familiar with children’s nativity plays in which inn-keepers turn the Holy Family away with the call “NO room at the Inn!”, that we usually fail to notice that there is no in-keeper in the biblical narrative. This may be because the place in which they rested might not have been an inn after all. The term used for the place of Jesus’ birth in Luke 2:7 is ‘katalúmati’, which literally means ‘to put down’, ‘to rest’, to ‘unyoke’ or ‘to lodge’. In Jesus’ time it could equally mean an ‘inn’ or a ‘guestroom’ in an ordinary domestic house. It is the same term used in the stories of Jesus sending the disciples into Jerusalem to prepare the Last Supper. They were to ask the man who Jesus indicated: “Where is the guestroom where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?” [Mk.14:14; Lk.22:11]. It is very likely that Joseph and Mary may have gone to the home of relatives, but because the house was small, or full with other guests, they were forced to rest in the family stable or to go to a stable nearby.
The tradition in the Eastern Church was that the birth-place of Jesus was in a cave, which is why a cave is so prominent in icons of the Nativity. The lack of mention of a cave in the Gospels may not be over-significant, as the writers’ aims was to show the humble origins of the child and the lack of welcoming recognition of him by his nation, hence the description of no room being available for the family and the alternative acceptance of a humble manger. A cave setting is one of the best attested of ancient Christian traditions. The apocryphal Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew describes Jesus as being born in a cave, and laid in a crib, with Mary lying in a stall beside him. This is a source for the image in icons of the Nativity. The C2nd Protoevangelium of James [section 18], Justin Martyr [Dialogue with Trypho:79, c150 C.E..] and Origen [Against Celsus 1:2, 51 c250] all mention a cave as Jesus’ birthplace. The ancient Jewish historian Josephus wrote of many caves in use in Palestine at the time. The Empress Helena erected the original Church of the Nativity over a cave traditionally associated with Christ’s birth in c325. When Jerome came to Bethlehem in 368 he is said to have lived in a cave there for many years, during which he assessed the traditions of the place.
Some of the caves in Palestine were very large and were used for several purposes– fortresses, refuges, dens, prisons, sepulchres, cisterns, granaries, stalls for herds, as well as resting places and inns for travellers. So the ‘katalúmati’ could have been an inn as well as a cavern. However in many ancient traditions grottoes and caves were recorded as settings for several significant happenings, so the cave tradition could be an invention to stress a spiritual idea. Today some tend to relate caves to our ‘earthiness’ and ‘rootedness’, so there may also be something of that ‘grounding’ of Christ in the development of the tradition. But equally, why would a cave have been identified in Bethlehem as the place of Christ’s birth unless some true connection was believed? There is little real reason to disbelieve the tradition. The deep cavern in the Church of the Nativity seems an unlikely, relatively inaccessible stall for cattle, but in its original form it could possibly have been the rear part of a home or inn, perhaps used as part of a stable or spare room, with a building constructed in front of it.
A manger or feeding trough is a strange thing in which to lay a baby. Though it makes a cute picturesque image on Christmas cards, it might be considered both uncomfortable and unhygienic for the protection of a vulnerable new-born boy. One would hope that they put in new hay, not stuff that had been slobbered upon by animals, and lined it with clean cloth. Yet hay mattresses would have probably been considered fairly common to the poor of this time, even luxurious to some who slept on mats. The Greek term for a ‘manger’, ‘phátnē’, could also mean a ‘stall’ or a ‘hollow place’ so it may just indicate that Jesus was put in a place of safety and shelter, though a manger as a cot would seem fairly logical, to keep a vulnerable young child away from any rats or other undesirable things on the ground. In the C14th vision of Bridget of Sweden, she imagined that she saw Mary who described Jesus as placed on the ground. That is why he is in that position, rather than in a manger in several Renaissance paintings of the Nativity, like those by Hugo van der Goes and Piero della Francesca. Hebrew mangers were often hollowed out blocks of stone. If the stable was a cave, the manger could have been a hollowed-out area of the cave wall. We can’t be sure what the actual manger may have looked like. In the stalls on the lower levels of Palestinian homes the manger was just a feeding place or area annexed for the food.
The Gospels do not mention animals in the stable, yet these are found in images of the Nativity from the middle of the 4th Century onward. The imagery most probably derives from the Protoevangelium of James, as well as Isa.1:3’s words: “The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib”. A mistaken translation of Hab.3:2 in the LXX is also cited as a possible source for the animals present in Nativity pictures. They certainly make the scenes more domestic and homely, as well as suggesting that Jesus came to offer salvation to the whole of creation. In Piero della Francesca’s Nativity in the National Gallery, the ass, raucous as its call would have been, joins in with the angels’ song! The creatures convey the idea that Christ’s coming was good news for the entire created cosmos, not just for human beings. Often the creatures included also have symbolic meanings, which refer to the nature, character and gifts of Christ. This helps to emphasise the idea that the cosmos was waiting for the freedom that would come through human redemption, as promoted by Paul in Rom.8:20-22. In several paintings the shepherds bring a lamb as a gift to the child. This is often represented as bound, as in Murillo’s Adoration of the Shepherds [Wallace Collection, London]. This was intended to symbolise Jesus’ eventual self-sacrifice for the redemption of the world. Such a present is possible but unlikely, since shepherds were usually guardians of the flocks of others, so a lamb would not have been theirs to give away. (It is not cute to imagine that the young family eating the lamb, and they could not have offered it as a sacrifice in the Temple, since perfect offerings were required to be bought from the Temple traders; you could not bring your own. (Insider trading happened even then!)
The image of the stable and the manger offers a great contrast between the humility of the one who has come to redeem the world and the glory of palaces of emperors like Augustus, he fortresses of the insecure Herod the Great, or the homes of the Sadducees and rich merchants. It also seems to prefigure Luke’s later emphasis that ‘the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head’ [Lk.9:58].
For Contemplation and Prayer:
How much has the image of Jesus as a baby in a stable’s manger influenced your idea of the cuteness of the Nativity scene? Does the setting help you to feel that Christ is rooted in humanity and identifies with our most earthy needs?
24. SHEPHERDS "In that region there were shepherds living in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night..." {Lk.2:8].
It seems significant and intentional that shepherds were chosen to be the first to greet the Messiah. It’s hard to imagine a more romantic picture of Christmas than simple shepherds brought from the hills to a poor village by a vision of angels in the sky and gathering in awe round a baby wrapped in straw. This child is worshipped and reverenced as God come to earth to live for a while among us in our world. The scene is imagined in Christmas cribs, Christmas cards, carols, paintings, films and literature. It has become part of the Christian imagination.
.
We have romanticised the scene, but to those who first heard the Gospels this story would have probably been a shock. No one would have thought of God revealing himself to shepherds. That is one of several pieces of evidence that suggest that the story is not fantasy. Shepherds were regarded as among the lowest in society: they smelled of their profession, were dirty, regarded as culturally unclean and avoided, as vagrants or refuse workers used to be in British society. They were criticised in rabbinical writings as ‘thieves’; ‘cheats’, ‘breakers of the law’ and ‘dishonest’. It was commonly thought that they stole from the flocks and allowed their sheep to graze on other people’s lands. It was forbidden to buy milk, wool, lambs or kids from them, in case it was stolen. Their civil rights were often removed.
The main emphasis of this story of the shepherds seems to be that Jesus came into the world for everybody, even the despised. God inviting shepherds to share the good news of his arrival on earth reminds us that Christ came to welcome ordinary people to God, even the unclean. Luke may have included this part of the story because his writings have a tendency to show compassion towards the poor and outcasts. The shepherds may represent all people: figures like us, whether we are city business-people, refuse collectors, solicitors, the despised, teachers, health-workers, retired, parents, unemployed, in families or alone, of high social status or low, young or old… all of us are welcome to have God living among us and to allow Jesus to influence our lives for good. He comes to us and asks us to be people of good will.
But the shepherds in the story may also stand for far more than that: In Hebrew society shepherds had a greater significance beyond being smelly, ill-educated, unclean, dishonest yokels. Because they looked after sheep, despite the bad reputation of dishonesty of some, they could also represent integrity & care. That may be why Jesus used them in parables like the Good Shepherd. Jesus was perhaps in sympathy with the poor lot of shepherds, as he also was of the poor and vulnerable. King David had been the model of a good shepherd, working as a youth in the fields around Jerusalem, so the shepherds in the Nativity story may be intended to reflect his integrity. Jesus the Saviour was both the Son of David and Shepherd of God’s people. In the Hebrew Scriptures God was also regarded as the true shepherd of his people, leading them out of exile and protecting them, as Psalm 23 emphasises. This is reiterated by Jesus [Lk.15:4ff.; Matt.18:22ff.]. The Messiah was sometimes also compared to a shepherd shepherding his people. [Ps.Sol.17:14]. Moses and David were also called ‘shepherds’. When a king, priest or prophet was inaugurated he was commissioned to be a ‘true shepherd of the nation’. Rulers of Babylon, Assyria and Egypt were also called ‘shepherds’. When a leader of society failed, prophets condemned them as ‘faithless, false shepherds.” Both leaders and the whole nation were expected to shepherd the world… to look after it… to rescue the needy, nurture the weak, look after the stranger in their midst, and work for security, stability, peace and justice.
Jesus said that the shepherd ‘knows his sheep and thy know him’ [Jn.10:3, 14]; ‘searches for the lost sheep’ [Lk.15:4ff.], is willing to endanger his life for the good of the flock [Jn.10:11-12], ‘gathers the scattered flock’ [Matt.10:6; 15:24; Lk.19:10; Ezek.34] and ‘unites them as one flock’. Jesus was regarded as the ‘great shepherd’, even greater than Moses [Heb.13:20]; the ‘chief shepherd’ [1Pet.5:4]. He pitied the leaderless flock [Mk.6/l34]; brings people to ‘living water’ [Rev.7:17]. In the C2nd Shepherd of Hermas Christ is described as the perfect teacher and companion to Hermas as an example to the spiritual leader. He is the model for the spiritual community and pastoral leadership.
Some scholars suggest that the shepherds were included in the Christian Nativity story as parallels to the similar shepherds in the Egyptian birth narratives of Osiris. But if the early Christians had known this, it is surely as likely that they might have deliberately omitted the scene. Others suggest that they represent the sinners for whom Christ came, or that they represent the ideal world. More prosaically some suggested that they were called because they would possibly be the only ones awake in the middle of the night! But the proliferation of references to shepherds in biblical literature is surely sufficient to justify their inclusion.
The shepherds led and guided flocks [Ps.68:7; 23:3]; showed the way to food and water [Ps.23:2]; protected the sheep and kept them safe from danger [Ps.23:4]; carried the young and vulnerable [Isa.40:11]; united or reunited the people [Ezek.34:23-4; 37:22, 24]. God appoints rulers, expecting them to be the best, shepherds, with the most integrity [Jer.3:15; 23:4]. Shepherds suffer and even die to bring salvation to the flock [Zech.12:10; 13:1ff.]. This image of our leaders and all of us being charged like shepherds with the role of protecting our vulnerable world is so important. Who knows what the year ahead will bring: World leaders are increasingly self-orientated. Communities are still more interested in selling arms rather than financing peace; maintaining industries and institutions rather than protecting health; looking after ourselves rather than supporting the needy. Care resources are being increasingly cut back, many struggle to live on zero hours contracts while others with wealth look after number one! People are separated from & suspicious of neighbours especially strangers. How do we revive the sense of working together for good - being a community, a united flock, which supports one another in love and recognises that God universally loves all? That is a challenge from the Christmas story.
We all need to take on this role of being a trusted shepherd within our communities. We share responsibility for all who are less vulnerable than ourselves and for each other. The Christmas message is a corporate one. Christ came to bring peace to all of good will. We need to be peacemakers, reconcilers & carers, not to isolate ourselves. If political leaders and other carers aren’t doing their jobs, it is our responsibility not just to call them to account but to actively reach to the vulnerable in our world and help to shepherd them. Christ showed us how to do this ‘good shepherding’ by his life and teaching. Most of us have as little influence over our world as those shepherds, who were socially despised, impotent to make great change. But some of us DO have influence in small ways, in our jobs, among colleagues, families, neighbours and friends. If each of us could influence just a few people to have better lives, it could lead to change in thousands of people’s lives and circumstances. They in turn could influence thousands more. That was how Jesus’ mission worked. He lifted a few - often the despised and the weak - and they in turn lifted others. It doesn’t take huge resources to do that, it only demands love, good will and commitment from each of us.
Tending flocks was essential to Palestinian society, both for food and for providing the huge number of sacrifices in Jewish ritual. Sheep and cattle roamed, so those who looked after the flocks and herds had responsible and sometimes dangerous roles. Shepherding was a role given to younger sons and hired workers [Lk.15:6; Jn.10:12]. No matter who we are, or how restricted our experience or circumstances, we all have the potential and the responsibility to shepherd others. Shepherds may have been among the lowliest, poorest and most despised in Jewish society, yet the Nativity story shows God deciding to first reveal Christ’s presence to them. Are there any ways in which you feel unworthy of God being in your life and revealing truths to you? Perhaps you have an incorrect self-image, as I did for years. What might God say to you about any sense of unworthiness? How would you like God to transform you or your life? Jesus is the model for our own shepherding work as well as being a faithful shepherd to us.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
The scene that the shepherds found in the stable was probably very ordinary. What, in your encounter with God, in life or in nature, has opened your eyes to reveal deeper truth about God to you? How might you use that experience to faithfully shepherd others?
“What can I give him, poor as I am?
If I were a shepherd, I would bring a lamb…”
What gifts or talents, physical, spiritual, mental could you use better to glorify God and help others to find and trust God?
25. ANGELS “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying “Glory to God... “ [Lk.2:13-14]
Christmas is partly made magical by the inclusion of angels in several parts of the Nativity story. They highlight the presence and involvement of another dimension beyond our earthly horizons in the bringing of salvation to the world. In Jesus Christ the human dimension and the spiritual and divine dimension are believed to meet and be united. John of the Cross wrote a wonderful series of nine ballads considering the Trinity and the Incarnation, which bringing together the two worlds of heaven and earth. It seems so appropriate that, like the opening of the clouds to give a glimpse of heaven to Jacob early in the story of salvation [Gen.28:12-17 ] and John on Patmos relating the final fulfilment of the story [Rev.4:1], at Jesus’ entry into the world the story explodes with the presence of God being revealed through a blaze of light and a harmony of angels singing and praising.
I remember a not very erudite but self-assuredly arrogant lecturer telling my class of student ordinands: “nobody believes in angels anymore, so just get the idea that they could exist out of your minds!” Even then, as a relative newcomer to many liberal aspects of theology, I considered that this was a rather presumptive, sweeping statement. It was also insensitive, as he had students in his class at different stages of their faith experience, and from many different church backgrounds: Evangelical, Charismatic, High-Church, liberal, orthodox and traditionalist. Just because we haven’t seen the spiritual world is not proof that it does not exist; it just demonstrates the limitations of our experiences and perceptions. All that any sceptic can honestly say is that they have seen no evidence of angels. We should not too dogmatically dismiss reports of the experiences or spirituality of others.
There are several times in my life when I have met people who have influenced my life in such significant ways that I have wondered if they might not be angels in secular clothing. A few key people have come into my life at essential periods when they have proved crucial to keeping me alive, restoring me or building my faith. Some have remained by me loyally for long periods, others for shorter times, but have definitely been messengers of God’s truth to me at that time. Who is to say that some of them might not be designated as ‘angels’ or at least ‘angels in human form.’ They certainly brought the message of God, or intervened at crucial times, as angels are described as doing in scripture. I don’t believe they were actual angels, but they were definitely timely and have proved essential to my life, faith and perseverance. I would recommend watching Wim Wenders’ life-affirming film ‘Wings of Desire’ [‘Der Himmel über Berlin 1987’], which imagines in moving and very practical ways the potential of angelic involvement in our human dimension. (It’s one of my five favourite films!)
An uncomfortable fashion for angels has developed in recent decades within ‘esoteric’ spirituality, encouraging some to make connections with their personal angels. This is a commercialisation of the old tradition that people had ‘guardian angels’ protecting them. Powers and activities are sometimes ascribed to angels that have little justification from scripture. Part of this comes from Judaism, as shown in the angel companion in the apocryphal Book of Tobit and the protective action of a few angels in biblical stories [Gen.16:7; 19;15; 48:16; Ex.23:20; Num.20:16; 22:22ff;; 2Ki.1:15]. But the cult of angels today seems more like a commercial exercise to sell books and trinkets or entrap the willingly naïve and promote a decorative individualist spirituality, rather than encourage true spiritual endeavour. Unfortunately the Church could also be accused of promoting something similar: Over the centuries theologians developed ideas of hierarchies of angels and speculated about their power and protection, which expand way-beyond what is justified by Scripture. The Bible does mention different terms for heavenly beings: angles, archangels, cherubim, seraphim, powers, authorities and spirits. It names a few: Gabriel the angel of the Annunciation [Lk.1:27], the same angel who announced the birth of John the Baptist to Zacharias [Lk.1:19] whose name means ‘God is my strength’; Michael [Dan.10:13,20, Jude 9; Rev.12:7], whose name means ‘Who is like God?’, and Raphael [Tobit] whose name means ‘God has healed’. Scripture also mentions different kinds of fallen powers. But the Bible does not define any of these, as churchmen attempted to do over the centuries.
The contemporary Church too often still panders to superstition or commercialism and a taste for unchallenging spirituality. Considers the amount of religious tat, commercialisation of faith, and naff sentimental rubbish that is available from Christian organisations, cathedral shops, the few religious bookshops that remain, and ‘Christian resources’ exhibitions. I don’t want to offend you if you have bought it, decorated your home or church with glitzy tack this Christmas, or intend it for presents. Christmas is a time for celebration and decoration can make a place feel special and festive. However, there is far too much ‘religious pap’ around, and not enough teaching, literature or art that encourages deep, thoughtful, truly Christian spirituality. Paul called us to mature faith, not to keep drinking baby’s milk [1Cor.3:1-3]. We should be encouraging our churches towards spiritual maturity by educating their faith. The church needs an apologetic that will convince the modern world. The’ pretty’ imagery of angels, cherubs and putti in many religious artefacts has very little to do with art that encourages profound Christian contemplation and meaningful worship.
The word ‘ángelos’ literally means ‘messenger’. In Greek this could include human messengers who are involved with passing on spiritual truths. ‘Ángelos’ is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew term ‘mal’āḵ’ which was used in scripture of those who guided and helped Israel on behalf of God. In some places this seems to refer to a personification of the divine [Gen.16:7ff; 21:17ff; Ex.3:2ff; 14:19; Num.22:22; 1Kg.19:7; 2Sam.24:17]. Hebrew ideas of angels expanded after the Exile, probably because the exiles had contact with the cultures of Assyria, Babylon and other surrounding tribes, where belief in angelic or spiritual beings was widespread and varied. In Zechariah and Ezekiel angels act as interpreters of God’s ways [|Zech.2:3; 4:11; 5:10; 6:4; Ezek.40:3ff.]. In Daniel 10:13, 20 they battle on behalf of good and surround the throne of God [Dan.7:10]. In Lk.7:24; 9:52; Matt.11:10 and Jas.2:25 people who are messengers are themselves are described as ‘angeloi’, but in the New Testament the primary use of the term is of heavenly messengers [Matt.28:2; Mk.1:13; Lk.2/l9ff.; 22:43]. None are said to act independently; they work on behalf of God and communicate on God’s behalf. Jesus is described as far ‘superior to the angels’ [Mk.13:32; 1Cor.15:24; Heb.1:4ff; 2:5ff.].
We need to be careful not to place too much emphasis on angels for, as St. Paul suggests, our main spiritual focus should be on God through Christ [Gal.1:8; 1Cor.13:1; Rom.8:38]. The cult of angels, which has arisen in esoteric spirituality, was discouraged in scripture [Col.2:18], as were any enticing novel spiritual ideas that distracted away from God. The role of angels, as described in scripture, is to do the will of God and be an aid to God’s communication, not to be adored in themselves. That should be true of Christians too. In all walks of life and ministry we should be focusing attention on God not on ourselves. That is so relevant at Christmas, when we anticipate and look forward to receiving presents and giving them. The bright light and glory in the heavens that radiated the news of the coming of Christ to the shepherds was glorifying God and pointing to Christ, not just drawing attention to the heavenly host.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Consider the people who have brought messages of God to you, and the effect that they have had on your life and deepening your faith. Give thanks for them and consider how you might emulate them in bringing God's message to others.
26 TELL “When [the shepherds] saw this, they made known what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds told them... The shepherds returned glorifying God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.” [Lk.2:17-20].
It seems significant that the shepherds seem to have been allowed to tell everyone they knew about the heavenly vision and their meeting with the Christ-child, yet the Magi were warned to keep it secret to protect him from Herod. Throughout scripture we find similar anomalies, where some are told to keep quiet and others proclaim what Christ has done or revealed. Was the shepherd’s news perhaps not regarded as so important, since they mixed with the poorer classes and shepherds could easily be accused of exaggeration and not fully believed? Or were the shepherds, perhaps just telling the immediate circle around Christ. Their news of the angelic encounter caused Mary to ponder on what had been said by the angels [v.19]. Did others to wonder in amazement?
This small part of the story, where the shepherds told their news, has made me consider how faithful I and many of us are in passing on news of our faith experiences to others. I knew a man who would speak to anyone about his faith – those sitting beside him on the train or bus, in a long queue, sitting on the beach or a park bench. To behave like that would have embarrassed me - I couldn’t do it, so I try to evangelise in different ways, but he was truly sincere in his beliefs and in his evangelism. We all have different personalities, but we should not use any natural reticence as an excuse for keeping our faith to ourselves. Experiences that convince us of our faith might help another to believe. It often surprises me how few church-members even talk about their faith experiences with fellow Christians over coffee after church services or in fellowship groups. Sharing experiences can encourage others, strengthen our confidence in our faith and also help to strengthen our confidence to be able to witness to those who might not believe, or may be searching for belief.
I can imagine the reaction of those who heard the shepherds’ story. It might have been similar to those who saw the disciples’ ecstatic response at Pentecost and accused them of being drunk [Acts 2:13]. What were these unwashed, low-life peasants doing at the stable anyway, with their tall tales of lights in the sky, angels and messages? Where did they get their ideas from? Were they perhaps drunk, or ‘mentally deranged’? Were they dangerous; should someone try to remove them from the scene? What right did they have to have ecstatic spiritual experiences form God, rather than the spiritual elite? People sometimes feel that evangelists and charismatic or ecstatic preachers are deranged. Or deluded Occasionally they might be right, but there is a supreme truth in the Christian message that is worth passing on!
The translation ‘told’ in describing what the shepherds were saying in Lk.2:17 & 18 is rather tame. The Greek term used is ‘lalythéntos’. It comes from the general verb ‘légō’ to speak, but ‘laléō’ can carry an extra ecstatic sense. It can mean to ‘babble’ or ‘prattle’ as well as ‘talk excitedly’. Both the angels and the shepherds appear to have been speaking excitedly, as might be expected in giving and receiving such ecstatic news enthusiastically and in such a dramatic way! Christmas has become such a common yearly event, prepared for over so many months, that it can almost be an anti-climax when it comes. The Christmas story has become so familiar that we are sometimes tempted to treat it with contempt, almost as though it is a fairy tale rather than one of the most significant historic events in the history of the world. I have heard several ministers say, in an almost complaining way: “I just can’t think of anything new to say about Christmas in my sermon!” But do we have to say something new? Are we not more importantly trying to renew and open up enthusiasm, to the level of the excitement of those shepherds? They were so thrilled by what they had seen and heard that they were dynamic in passing it on.
What we tell as Christians should be true, or at least what we sincerely believe to be true. A key commandment is not the ‘bear false witness” [Ex.20:61]. The 9th Commandment may focus on not lying about one’s neighbour, but the truth goes further. Our lives, words and actions as Christians should be rooted in truth. I have read several evangelistic tracts, and more recently blogs, that have been completely fictitious. Two about Albrecht Dürer’s ‘Praying Hands’ and Mel Gibson being cured of disfigurement by praying as a youth are just examples of religious lies. Some are like the 19th Century tracts that often contained moral stories pretending to be true histories of lives affected by God and miracles of faith, to attempt to convince and convert people to faith. Later legends and myths exaggerating and supplementing stories of the Nativity, as in the Protoevangelium of James, etc. may have been invented for sincere spiritual reasons. Sometimes Christians exaggerate their testimonies to faith, in a similar hope of persuading others for sincere spiritual intentions, But I do not believe that fictions, fantasies and exaggerations can ever encourage or engender true Christian faith. People are becoming increasingly aware of, and frustrated by, the lies told in contemporary politics and commerce. Christ's Church should always be recognisable as standing for far greater integrity, as we need to witness to truths that can open people up to the God of Truth, not encouraging religion of fantasy or wish-fulfilment.
A true God must be about truth. In witnessing to our faith we should not try to pretend that the Christian life is easy. Nor should we deny that there are ambiguities, difficulties and sometimes contradictions in scripture. An authentic Christian faith needs to accept such things and recognise that our understandings of God, Christ, the spiritual world and what happens beyond death are limited. We should not pretend knowledge that we do not have, or miracles of which we are not certain, because this will not help others to overcome their own doubts and questions. It is more useful to tell of the Christian life of faith as it is. We learn to trust through faith that the things which we cannot see or comprehend nevertheless contain eternal and useful truths. I believe that the Nativity and coming of Christ contain such truths, even if there may be elements within the stories that could have been supplemented in the telling.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
How excited do you feel about what happened in the birth of Jesus of Nazareth? If you had the courage to tell others what is most important and exciting about faith for you, what would you say and how would you truthfully tell it?
27. THE STAR “we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.” {Matt.2:2]
Most thinking contemporary Christians consider astrology as unwarranted superstition. Some fundamentalist believers believe it dangerous, even satanically influenced. But let’s consider the Magi’s star in the context of Biblical times and the cultures into which Jesus was born: It was popularly believed that the heavens were involved in God’s plan for the world. Everything in the cosmos was believed to be in some way connected, related to and reflecting God’s plan. It was also widely believed that stars heralded the birth of significant human beings who were destined for greatness. In mediaeval times Christians often depicted astrological imagery in their churches, as well as representing many other aspects of creation, which were believed to reflect God and the design of the universe. Waltham Abbey has the signs of the Zodiac painted on to roof of its Nave. This was not occult-related superstition; it displayed a recognition that God had designed all, ordered all and was in charge of the workings of all.
The whole world, indeed the entire cosmos, was believed to be waiting for the coming of Christ, the anointed one, who would bring salvation and free Creation [Rom.8:20-23]. Although concepts of salvation developed and changed throughout scriptural history, it was widely believed that the cosmos reflected God’s design. Christ’s fulfilment of God’s plan was believed to have been woven into the design of the cosmos eons before. The motions of the planets and stars were believed to be working through time to foretell and usher in the plans of God. This idea was believed throughout the Christian era and only really began to be questioned with the Enlightenment. Even today many Christians think that the plan of salvation was set into creation from the moment of the emergence of the cosmos. It is an interesting though idle speculation to try to think God’s thoughts. Did the setting in motion of the stars perhaps include the phenomenon that at a particular point of time when the Christ, God’s Son, would be born, the conjunctions of the heavens would be recognised as indicating his birth? I personally find that hard to believe, but if God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, God certainly would have the power to originate all that is and to set the plan of the future into the interpretable heavens. Num.24:17 is cited to claim that the Jews expected a star to indicate the birth of the Messiah, though the language of Balaam’s prophecy is more likely to be an astral metaphor for a person rather than an actual star or comet:
‘The oracle of Balaam son of Beor,
the oracle of the man whose eye is clear,
the oracle of one who hears the words of God,
and knows the knowledge of the Most High
who sees the vision of the Almighty,
who falls down, but with his eyes uncovered:
I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near--
a star shall come out of Jacob,
and a sceptre (also translatable as ‘comet’) shall arise out of Israel;
Do you consider that God exerts power in creation and directs our individual lives according to specific plans in that way? Such thinking carries an implication that all is already planned and mapped out for the future, but it also implies that there is little that we could do to alter and move a machine-like creation, which God set in motion and is in the process of fulfilling despite us. That seems to be the ancient teaching in some of the Hebrew Scriptures and St. Paul’s belief in Romans 8:22-23 that the whole of creation has been in labour-pains since the Fall, waiting for the fulfilment of Christ’s salvation and our adoption as children of God. I personally do not think that the universe is that mechanistic, or that God’s plan works in that way, as though we are pieces in a board game. You hear many Christians speaking as if this is the case, but many other theologians and thinkers point to the biblical assertions that God made us free. Orthodox Christian theology would suggest that God’s aim is for us to live free, with the choice to choose a relationship with God and the spiritual world, rather than having a plan imposed upon us. Even the Genesis legend of the Fall of human beings implies that we have personal freedom and that the future is not planned out for us as one would think from the way that some sincere Christians talk.
It is quite understandable that peoples for millennia have watched the night sky, studied it, been in awe, and developed superstitions about it. I regularly stay in the country, away from street-lights and city lights. On a clear night the stars are the most dominant part of creation. I often stare up in wonder and recall the beautiful poetry about the stars in the opening of Psalm 8:
“When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars that you have established;
what are human beings that you are mindful of them,
mortals that you care for them?
Yet you have made them a little lower than God,
and crowned them with glory and honour.
You have given them dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under their feet… “[Ps.8:3-6].
The Israelites were originally nomadic. Sleeping or resting under the stars in the desert, imagine what an impact the night sky must have had on tribesmen. Nomadic travellers or herdsmen, tribes wandering for a generation in the desert between Egypt and their settlement of the Promised Land, returning from exile in Assyria or Babylon, or during their years of captivity, must all have looked up at the night sky many times and wondered if it contained portents of their future. The Jewish nation under the oppressive rule of the Romans must have felt similarly, especially as the Graeco-Roman culture which they imported was so obsessed with auguries.
If the Magi were real figures and not inventions to seem to fulfil the prophecy that kings of the earth would come to the Messiah [Ps.72:10; Isa.49:7; 60:37], they may have been Zoroastrians. If so they would have had a strong cultural and religious connection with the stars [see Meditation 28: ‘Magi’]. Their prophecies were largely based on watching for portents in the stars, as the Roman world did also.
It is hard to imagine how a star could actually lead people to a small town: stars do not work like satellite navigation or drones. An early mediaeval legend suggested that the star was a special one which floated below the clouds and led the magi directly to the stable, but such an idea is just fantasy. The Arabic Infancy Gospel (also known as the ‘Syriac Infancy Gospel’) even identifies the star with a guiding angel, but this legend is possibly only of late C5th or C6th origin. The star could possibly be just metaphorical language for divine guidance, or an invention to construct further evidence of Jesus being the Messiah. If the stories of the magi and the star are true, it is far more likely that the magi heard something of the prophecies about the Messiah being born in David’s town and travelled there, having seen an astral phenomenon. This would gives credence to the explanation in Matt.2:5-8. Some translations use the phrase “for we saw his star in the East” but a clearer translation of the Greek text ‘en tē anatolē’ [Matt.2:2] is “we saw his star at its rising”. If the magi came from Persia or Syria to Israel they would have seen the star in the West.
Whether or not there was a real star that guided figures to the Nativity and announced the coming of the Messiah, the story of the natal star being included in the narrative of the coming of Jesus, is understandable. Even today many people consult star-charts at the birth of children. Royal astrology proclamations were made about the British Royal Family at the time of new births, even though the Queen is the nominal head of the Church of England. Most people know their star sign, even if they don’t believe in their significance. Astrology was even more prominent in Roman times, when belief that stars predicted events in the world was so strong. This is no doubt why it is given such prominence in Matthew’s Nativity narrative, which aimed to prove that Jesus was the focus of prophecy and the Messianic hope. The Gospel-writers wanted to give to their readers as much evidence as possible that Jesus of Nazareth was the long-awaited Saviour sent by God.
The star certainly doesn’t sound like an ordinary astral phenomenon. The Greek word translated ‘star’ is ‘aster’ (the source of our word ‘astronomy’). In the biblical conception of a ‘star’ it could have been any luminous light in the night sky. It is probable that the account refers to some phenomenon or configuration in the heavens which was remembered to have happened around the time of Jesus was born and which people regarded as a portent. Many astronomers and others over the years have tried to account for the Christmas star. Visiting the London Planetarium a couple about a decade ago, at one point of the presentation they wound back the map of the heavens to show how the skies would have appeared above Israel at the beginning of the Christian era, and showed a few possibilities of what the phenomenon might have been. It has been explained to possibly be a conjunction of planets in the sky, forming an extra-bright star-effect, which occurred a few times in the decade either side of the year 1 CE. But we do not know the exact year of Jesus’ birth or the time of year, so proofs are impossible. December 25th was only designated as Christ’s birth date early in the C3rd C.E.. Matt.2:1-12 dates Jesus’ birth to the last years of Herod the Great, who died between 3-4 B.C.E. Luke dates it to about 6 months after the birth of John the Baptist [Lk.1:36], and places it in the time of the rule of Quirinius, governor of Syria [Lk,2:1-7]. Though he was a Consul from 12 B.C.E. Quirinius was not governor during Herod’s reign; he was governor of Judea from 6C.E. (not 6B.C.E.). Quirinius did hold a census between 6 & 7 C.E. Alternatively, Luke may have confused Quirinius with Publius Quintilius Varus, who was Legate of Syria between 6-3B.C.E., which was during Herod’s reign. It is possible that another census may have been held around 4.B.C.E.; there was one under Saturninus between 9-6B.C.E. However, most of these were fairly local censuses, not “throughout the Roman world” as Lk.2:1-2 implies.
Several possibilities for the star around this period have been calculated, which might be the phenomenon that drew the Magi: In 12B.C.E. Halley’s Comet passed over the East an Israel, but this would seem too early a date. In 7B.C.E there was a conjunction of Jupiter (the planet astrologically associated with a king and ruling god) and Saturn (the planet believed to govern the defence of Palestine) in the constellation of Pisces (associated with Palestine and Syria). However, they were perhaps not close together enough to form the effect of single bright star. Mars joined them in configuration in February 6B.C.E. Comet No. 52 appeared for 70 days through March and April 5B.C.E. and Comet No.53 in March and April the following year. Ancient Chinese records report a glowing light in the night sky, probably a Nova, in 4B.C.E. In 3B.C.E. from 12th August there was a conjunction of Venus and Jupiter, which could account for the extra-bright unusual star form seen in the sky. There was also a triple conjunction of Jupiter and the bright star Regulus beginning in the year 3 B.C.E. As Jupiter was considered the king of the gods, and Regulus was considered the “king star”, this may well be connected with the idea of the appearance of a new king. On around 23rd December 2B.C.E. Jupiter would have been in a median position over Bethlehem in the constellation of Virgo, which is another possibility, especially as it is related to the idea of virginity. In the year 2 B.C.E., Jupiter and Venus moved so close to each other that they would have briefly appeared to merge into the appearance of a single bright star but this merging would have only been visible on one night: June 17th.
Despite all these possibilities we should be very cautious in any attempts to identify the Epiphany star, as we cannot be certain of the complete authenticity of the narrative or whether the imagery was figurative. Unfortunately, though we can show that certain astral events occurred around the period of Jesus’ birth, it is not possible to prove that any one was the particular ‘star’ mentioned in Matthew’s Gospel, or that the story of the magi was real. With all the interest in astrological predictions of the time it seems strange that only the magi appear to have responded to the star and that watchers for signs at Herod’s court are not recorded as having noted it. If the star was real, some suggest that it might then have been a supernatural manifestation from God rather than a star visible to all.
None of the speculations can explain how the star “went ahead of ” the magi nor how it “stood over where the child was.” [Matt.2:9]. No known natural phenomenon would ‘stand over Bethlehem’, for stars continually appear to be in motion. God, of course is not restricted by natural law, but it would seem unnecessary to interfere with the cosmos, just to announce the birth of the Messiah. Yet scripture does contain similar inferences: God is said to have guided the Israelites to Egypt by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night (Ex.13:21. The sun was supposed to have stood still for Joshua [Josh.10:13], but that seems to have been poetic or legendary imagery. Was Jesus star similar? The star seems not to have been visible when the magi were in Jerusalem but reappeared as they travelled from Jerusalem to Bethlehem and “went before them till it came and stood over where the young child was” [Matt.2:9].. Could it be that “the heavens were declaring the glory of God”? [Ps.19:1]. Or is it imaginative imagery?
Matthew and Luke, as well as their sources, may have made mistakes over details and dating, since both were writing many years after the event, even if they were editing by bringing together older compilations of oral traditions and attempting accuracy. Though there were significant astronomical events in the years around the time that we believe Jesus of Nazareth was born, we cannot be certain that any one was the phenomenon that in the narrative attracted Magi to look for the birth of a significant child. No historical or astronomical theories are conclusive. We particularly do not know the exact year of Jesus’ birth, nor the date. It almost certainly was not on December 25th. If shepherds were living out in the hills with their sheep at that time [Lk.2:8], it is far more likely to have occurred in the spring or early summer The December date was almost certainly chosen later to help the Christian celebration of Christmas replace Roman and other pagan winter festivities.
What might this issue of the star really mean spiritually for us today? Partly it challenges us to consider whether we believe that the future is planned out for us, which I personally doubt, just as I doubt that the future is ‘written in the stars.. The importance of the star is greater than its leading of the magi to Christ. It suggests that Jesus was born at a designated right time. Jesus was certainly born in the best period for the dissemination of his message. At no previous time in history was so much of the world ruled by one power and culture, with a universally recognised language, through which the stories and teachings of Jesus could disperse so widely throughout the then-known-world. The Pax Romana meant that it was safer to travel; the universal languages of Greek and Latin aided cross-cultural communication; the roads, international travel routes and traders meant that evangelists could carry the message right across the Roman Empire, initiating communities of believers which developed into the modern Church.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
How much do you believe that God plans the future and works in time and history? God does not often ‘intervene’ in events, but can you think of fortuitous happenings in your life that occurred at exactly the right time? Give thanks for them, even though they may not have been the result of direct intervention by God.
28. MAGI [Matt.2:1-12].
‘Wise men (magi) from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.”’
The Greek term ‘Magos’ [plural ‘Magi’], can refer to a variety of different types of professions: astrologers, fortune tellers, magicians, sorcerers, priests who acted as augurs, wise interpreters of the stars and dreams. The historian Herodotus used the term of a tribe of Medes within the Persian Empire who had priestly duties. Daniel used the term of ‘wise men’, ‘astrologers’ and ‘interpreters of dreams and divine messages’ [Dan.1:20; 2:27; 5:15]. In Acts it is used more broadly of all who practise magic arts [Acts 8:8; 13:6,8].
In the context of Matthew’s gospel, the visiting magi are probably intended to be religious astrologers because of their association with interpreting the appearance and movement of a star. Other than their description as ‘magi’, the only other clue to their identity is that they ‘came from the East’ [Matt.2:1]. Their gifts of Frankincense and Myrrh certainly most commonly come from the area of Arabia. The magi could potentially have come from Babylon, Persia, Arabia or other middle-eastern centre of scholarship or learning, since the term ‘magus’ originated in those cultures. They were also almost certainly Gentiles, not dispersed Jews, as their questions to Herod imply that they did not know much about the Jewish prophecies about the Messiah. Matthew’s telling of the story does not make clear why they should have wanted to ‘pay homage’ to or ‘worship’ [Matt.2:1, 11] the child who they believed world be born. A major part of their significance is particularly that they were the first gentiles to recognise Jesus’ importance and place in divine plan. It is possible that they may have had some knowledge of Hebrew Scriptures if they came from an area where Jews like the prophet Daniel had been in exile.
There is nothing in the biblical text to suggest that these figures were ‘kings’ as popular carols interpret them. The idea of them being ‘royal’ probably developed from the idea that they fulfilled the prophecy that gentile leaders would come to recognise the glory of the coming Messiah. Psalm 72:10-11(the Antiphon sung on the Epiphany) says: “May the kings of Tharsis/Tarcshish and of the Isles render him tribute, May the kings of Sheba/Arabia and Saba bring gifts. May all kings fall down before him, all nations give him service.” Isa.60:1-11 also speaks about travellers from ‘the Nations’, i.e. Gentiles, coming to do honour and give homage to the light which would shine in Judah: ‘Nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn.’ These prophecies of Gentiles bringing gifts and recognising the superior power of a Jewish leader are not necessarily referring to the Messiah, but they were taken as a pointer to the coming of a great leader. Matthew does not mention the Psalm or Isaiah prophecy among his many collected references to the coming Messiah, but it is probable that the inclusion of the Magi in his narrative might have been intended to suggest this parallel. If the baby was born to be king, physically, spiritually or metaphorically, it would be considered appropriate that Gentile leaders especially kings or princes would come to do him honour, as the Queen of Sheba had visited Solomon to learn from his wisdom [1Ki.10:1-13].
Traditionally the magi have been ascribed the names Caspar/Gaspar, Melchior and Balthasar. Another tradition gives their ages 20, 40 and 60. From the Middle Ages, they have also been represented as having different racial features, with one at least being black. But there is no biblical reference to this. We cannot be sure of the origin of the names associated with them, but it certainly dates back to ancient times. They are so named on the C6th mosaics of Sant' Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna. Scholars are unsure of the cultural origins of the names. Eastern Christianity assigns different names to them. According to legend the Empress Helena (c255-330 C.E.) discovered the bodies of the magi and took them as relics to Constantinople among the many other relics that she supposedly collected. The bones were then transferred to Milan before settling in Cologne Cathedral in the Middle Ages, where they are still displayed in the cathedral in a magnificent mediaeval reliquary shrine. Again, however, this is a debatable tradition, though many follow it. The shrine is certainly worth seeing as a beautiful historic artefact.
We do not know how many magi are supposed to have visited the child. It is their gifts of Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh, which suggest there were three. The words of Psalm 72 suggest at least four, and though three are the common number in artistic representations of the scene, sometimes four are represented. Another ancient tradition claims that there were twelve magi. We do not know whether the gifts were intended to be symbolic, but tradition suggests that they were so intended. The Gold could signify the child’s kingship and glory. Frankincense has been interpreted as relating to Jesus’ priesthood or Godhead, since it was burned as a sacred fragrant offering and emphasised spiritual mystery in worship. Myrrh could represent the child’s humanity or his mortality, as Myrrh was used in the anointing and burial of the dead. All three presents would have been costly. Myrrh and Frankincense derived from trees in north-east Africa and southern Arabia so the import of them would itself have been expensive. The exotic, expensive nature of the magi’s presents indicates the value which they set upon the child who they were visiting. We sometimes take the nature and character of God too much for granted. Jesus talked about God’s ‘love’ and ‘care’ for us, but we should still be in awe of God’s power.
Because many of us have grown up with the Christmas story from childhood, we may tend to mix the Biblical story with all sorts of memories and ideas, which are not connected with the real story. The magi represent an exotic and rich ‘oriental’ side of the story by contrast with the humility and poverty of the stable and shepherds. However, there is no evidence that Mary, Joseph and Jesus were still in a stable or even a ‘guest-room’ by the time the Magi arrived.. Commonly imagery in Christmas cribs have the magi arriving at the manger on the night of Christ’s birth, or on an ‘Epiphany’ date a few days or weeks later. Although the western Church celebrates the Epiphany (the ‘showing’ of Christ to the nations just 12 days after Christmas Day, we have no idea about the length of time that elapsed before the magi’s visit if it is true. Some think that they might have visited the Holy Family up to two years after Christ’s birth, if Herod’s edict of killing all male children under the age of two is real [Matt.2:16]. It has even been suggested by some commentators that the Magi may have travelled to Nazareth rather than Bethlehem. But again, this is all speculation.
Though the magi represent wonderful mysterious, prophetic visitors, I can’t think of the Magi, without imagining them as kings, which is a 3rd Century addition to the story. I combine this with memories of myself proudly dressed as one, at the age about 8 in the church nativity play, with my mum’s purple shot-silk dress draped round me for a cape, wine gums stuck to my card crown for jewels and an aluminium-foil-covered cigar-box as a gift. There was little mystery there, more pride at being chosen to be a ‘king’. As for me, the Magi in the imagination of many are probably very different from the reality, if the visitation really happened.
The magi are important to Matthew’s narrative because they represent another sign of Jesus being the fulfilment of prophecy and especially that the Gentile world was being opened up to the revelation of Christ. Matthew may also have been implying that Jesus was the focus of other prophetic traditions beyond the Jewish prophecies to which Matthew’s Gospel pointed. With the star they represent the idea that in Christ, God was fulfilling a plan, which had been developing through time, through the cosmos, and through the world, to spread his message and God’s rule throughout the nations of the earth. Christ would bring in a universal kingdom through the offer of salvation. If the magi’s gifts are intended to be symbolic, they may reflect the process of the fulfilment of this plan, through God’s provision of a Messianic prophet, priest and king; a priestly offering and a sacrificial death.
The greatest significance of the Magi for us today would seem to be, not their prophetic role but the indication that Christ was intended to be revealed to Gentiles and foreigners outside the original covenant with Abraham and his ancestry. Christ was sought out by people with a reputation for wisdom. This could be regarded as a prefiguration of our own inclusion into the promises of Christ. If this and many of the stories of the Nativity could be attested as historical facts we could witness with far greater assurance and confidence. But such proof will never be available. We merely affirm the true relationship which we feel that we have with God through Christ, and which we experience and recognise in our daily lives. We, like the magi, have found aspects of truth that take us beyond our previous knowledge and spiritual experience into far greater and more universal mysteries.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
The magi are imagined to have been wise, learned and determined in their search for truth. In what ways does God stimulate your intellect and expand your thought and insights? The magi may have travelled hundreds of miles to find God’s truth, though they cannot have known at the outset what it would be. How much effort are you willing to put into expanding your understanding of your faith and beliefs?
29. THE ROLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE STORY
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.” [Matt.1:15]. “Mary... was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” [Matt.1:18].
An often almost hidden character in the Nativity story as it is usually imagined is God’s Holy Spirit. In paintings of the Annunciation he is often shown as a dove hovering over or radiating rays of light towards Mary. The Dove imagery of course comes from the narrative of Jesus’ Baptism. In other paintings, particularly in Northern European imagery a tiny Christ, often holding his Cross, rides on the rays of light towards Mary. Sometimes the figure of the Father is depicted as sending him or blessing the interaction from above. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are linked in the Gospels from even before the first moment of his earthly conception, and the Spirit is referred to throughout his ministry. The Spirit appears at Jesus’ baptism, leads him into the wilderness in preparation for his ministry, guides him with the Father’s words, works with him in his miracles, is promised to replace Jesus in his followers’ lives after his death, resurrection and ascension, then fills the disciples at Pentecost and guides their ongoing ministry. The Spirit is often called in the New Testament ‘the Spirit of Jesus’ in the same way that he was called ‘the Spirit of God’.
We should not divide the persons of the Trinity, considering Father, Son and Holy Spirit as separate. When we are talking about the role of the Holy Spirit in Christ’s incarnation we surely mean that the whole of God was involved in bringing the Saviour into the world. The Angel Gabriel’s announcement to Mary that “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” [Lk.1:35), indicates that the whole of God, brought about the Incarnation and was represented in Jesus Christ. Similarly in the announcement to Joseph: “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” [Matt. 1:20], it is the work of the whole Trinity, acting as one, not just the aspect we call ‘Spirit’, which causes Jesus’ conception.
The stress on the Holy Spirit’s involvement emphasises that Jesus’ birth was miraculous and God-given rather than natural. In whatever way that the mystery of Jesus’ conception came about, it was regarded as the work of the Holy Spirit. Presumably holiness, divine power and wisdom and all the characteristics of the Spirit were at work. Gal.4:4 emphasises that Jesus was ‘born of a woman’, but the word translated ‘born’/ ‘ginomai’ just means that Mary gave birth to him; it is not ‘gennaō’ [‘to beget’ or ‘to bear’], which one would have expected if his birth was believed to have come about through natural procreation and conception. Jesus’ conception, Christian theology claims, was brought about by God’s Spirit. Jesus birth itself however, seems to have been completely natural despite a few legends in the Pseudoevangelium of James and elsewhere that it was painless and accompanied by several miracles. I used to speculate idly about when Jesus realised that he was divine. Did he have the mind of an omniscient God, even before birth? If that were the case, he couldn’t have been truly human. As he developed as a human foetus, his brain would only have begun to develop at between 5-7 weeks, and continued to develop up to and beyond birth. IN fact the brain isn’t fully developed until about the age of 15-30. When one reads the Gospels they seem to show that Jesus’ understanding of his ministry and role developed over time. Even at his baptism, then in his early teaching, it is not clear that he recognised that he would give himself sacrificially. That emphasis may only have developed in the middle of the second year of his ministry. It is most likely that, like us, Jesus’ development of understanding was guided by the Spirit within him, building upon the earlier influence and training of his parents, neighbourhood, the synagogue and the surrounding culture.
The union of God with human cells in the incarnation is a mystery which we will never comprehend. But somehow orthodox doctrine assures us that through God’s grace the Holy Spirit was involved in a union of the divine with the human. The ‘Spirit coming upon Mary and the power of the Most High overshadowing’ her {Lk.1:35] was part of God’s active creativity, not just in creating Jesus as a human being, but also in progressing the plan of salvation through him. The word used for ‘overshadow’ -‘episkiázō’ - is rare in both Greek literature and scripture. It sometimes meant ‘the shadow of danger’, but was also used in the LXX of ‘security; ‘under the shadow of God’s wings’ [Ps.17:8] and ‘to be covered and sheltered protectively’[Ps.91:4]. It is also used to describe God ‘manifesting his power’ [Prov.18:11; Ex.40:34-35]. This idea of the manifestation of God’s power in Mary’s womb seems to be part of the interpretation that is intended in Lk.1:35, but the comfort and security aspect of Christ’s generation is also important.
Russian Orthodox theology sometimes describes the Christ-child as ‘The Burning Babe’. The Recusant poet Robert Southwell [c1561-1595] used the same title for one of his poems. The idea comes from some theologians who considered Jesus to be so holy that his divine form should not have been able to be touched, (rather like one would be afraid to touch a radioactive isotope). In Orthodox icons of the Nativity story, the midwives bathing Christ, and Simeon presenting him in the Temple are all represented as holding the child with a cloth to protect themselves from being burned. Often even Joseph is represented as not being able to touch his son unprotected. This of course is only a fictional metaphor to emphasise Christ’s divine nature. (It is reflected in the humeral veil used by High-Church priests to hold the sacraments and keep them holy.) Yet such theology is rather dubious, for if Christ’s nature was ‘fully human’, of course he could be touched, cherished, kissed, nuzzled, played with, bathed and nurtured at the breast. The whole emphasis of Scripture is that Jesus was regarded as like us and came to interact with us physically. 1Jn.1:1-2 emphasises: “We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life. - This life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us…” To imagine Jesus as an untouchable ideal would seem to deny that the Incarnation was thorough.
The ‘Burning Babe” tradition, fictional and metaphorical as it is, does help to highlight the difference between the nature of God in Jesus and the involvement of God’s Spirit in our own spiritual lives. It carries a similar gravity to the warning in 1Cor.6:13-20 that we are ourselves “Temples of the Holy Spirit’, so need to remain pure and be careful to remain holy and untainted: “The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body… Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!... Anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him... Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.” The concept of us ordinary Christians being filled with the Holy Spirit, like the concept of Mary carrying the Christ-child in her womb, should be treated with awe, respect and care. We have the potential of an intimate relationship with God through God’s grace and achievement of Jesus Christ, but that should not be taken for granted. Despite all the love, forgiveness and cleansing that Jesus brought, God is still the awe-deserving power that is described as destroying Uzzah when he touched the Ark of the Covenant [2Sam.6:7; 1Chron.13:9-10]. It is God’s grace that makes the power and nature of God open to us, revealable and touchable in the form and nature of Jesus Christ.
The virginal conception of Jesus is regarded as sign of God’s grace. Mary’s ‘Magnificat’ celebrates her sense that she has been made more fruitful in her spiritual life by conceiving the Saviour. Rarely in scripture was an event said to be the directly the work of the Holy Spirit. It is said to have happened at Creation, in the inspiration of prophets and at Pentecost; but the conception of Jesus is an unprecedented direct intervention in the process of bringing salvation to Creation. The mystery of the Incarnation is a way in which the Holy Spirit directly revealed God’s love, more than in any act, other than Creation itself. John 3:16 emphasises this “God loved the world so much that he gave his only son, so that all who believe in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
Regarding the mystery of the Incarnation in the light and context of the Spirit’s power may also indicate something about the mystery of the spiritual nature of human beings. Some Christians believe that God’s Spirit is involved in the conception of every human being. Some still see God as breathing the breath of life into us, though that is surely using the picture metaphor of Gen.2:7, not physically describing human generation. It is not clear at what stage our spirits or souls are brought alive in us. The development of our personalities definitely seems to start within the womb. The development of our spirit and our ability to relate to God, seems to be both a natural part of our physical development and the work of God’s Spirit within us. The Holy Spirit helps to develop our spiritual maturity as we grow. Rom.8:16 seems to describe this: “God’s Spirit witnesses (or testifies) to our spirit that we are children of God. ..” As we open ourselves to God and the working of God’s Spirit, we are formed as individuals and as a spiritual family in the Church “born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of a human being, but of God” [Jn.1:13].
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Compare the work of the Holy Spirit in making Mary fruitful with the life of God’s Holy Spirit within your own life. How has God’s Spirit impacted upon your life and helped you grow?
30 THE ROLE OF PROPHECY IN THE STORY “the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem of Judea, for so it has been written by the prophet.” [Matt.2:5]
About 35 years ago I sat down to list and consider all the verses in the Hebrew Scriptures which were assumed to be prophecies about the Messiah, and which seemed to be fulfilled in the life of Jesus. There are plenty of them, though it is questionable whether several of the lesser verses were actually originally intended to refer to the coming of Christ. It was a useful exercise, but cannot be definitive, as sometimes we find parallels and connections that may just be incidental. Many of the prophecies, like the passage from Micah 5:2-5 referring to a leader coming from Bethlehem, may probably have had two figures in mind: a person closer in time to the prophet and a later, perhaps greater figure, presumably the coming of the Christ. Micah’s prophecy of a leader coming from Bethlehem who would reform religion, probably referred initially to reformers like kings Hezekiah or Josiah, after the return from Exile.
Prophecy in the Bible can mean several varied ideas. It was far from being just the foretelling of future events. Israel’s prophets encouraged the people to obey the laws of God within their scriptures. They took political stances, commented on the social, religious and political activities in Israel, Judah and surrounding nations. They raised people’s consciences over their actions, inspired and motivated faith and confession, gave personal guidance to individuals and communities, acted as reminders of the true ways to follow faith and to behave. Sometimes prophets changed their focus during their careers. The group of prophets who are represented in the Book of Isaiah seem to have focused first on criticising the moral and social ills of their nation, then turned to promoting God’s requirements in religion and condemning false priests and prophets, then they criticised the nation’s political leaders and the ills of other surrounding nations. They predicted exile for God’s people and the destruction of pagan powers and empires, before they ever begin to predict the coming of a Messiah and spiritual restoration.
There are many references to prophesies in the stories of Jesus, particularly in Matthew’s Gospel. I list a number of these prophetic evidences below, at the end of this section. Matthew’s earliest readers are thought to have been a Jewish community away from Jerusalem. His writing of the Gospel seems to have aimed to give evidence that Jesus was the fulfilment of Jewish prophecies about the Messiah. The Gospel regularly refers to prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures and traditions. This was evidently convincing to many Jewish Christians in the Early Church and continued to convince many Christians up to this day. But to the modern reasoning mind, use of such an argument does not necessarily prove that the scriptures were specifically indicating Jesus. The Messianic prophecies that are said to relate to Jesus are sometimes vague or imprecise in detail. They could refer to people and situations other than Jesus, or can have different interpretations. They do not necessarily point exactly to issues or events in Jesus’ life, and can sometimes have very different interpretations. Isaiah’s prophecies about a Suffering Servant for example {Isa.53] are interpreted by many Jews today as speaking about the suffering of the Jewish people, not necessarily of an individual.
We may interpret Jesus as fulfilling all or some of these prophecies, but should recognise that they are not ‘empirical evidence’ that Jesus is the fulfilment of them. Prophecy might have been sufficient evidence if the prophet’s verses had said something like: ‘In about 28-30.C.E. a teacher and leader from a carpenter’s family will be crucified on trumped-up charges and rise from death, then after 40 days he will return to heaven.’ But scriptural prophecy is rarely so precise, nor are the events which appear to fulfil it exactly parallel. The verses of prophecy that are considered as evidence that the Hebrew Scriptures and traditions were looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, can only really be said to be ‘corroborative evidence’ of the spiritual truth about Jesus. Faith is based on trust, not empirical evidence.
Nevertheless the prophecies are fascinating parallels, and contribute to the evidence that we have about Jesus. The genealogies, revelations, visions and dreams, astronomical portents, and mysterious ‘miraculous’ events are all represented in scripture as indicating that Jesus of Nazareth was the long-awaited Saviour. They seemed to indicate that God’s process of bringing Salvation through Jesus Christ had been planned and worked out centuries and aeons beforehand. The genealogies of Jesus seem to indicate a similar plan, especially in Matthew’s Gospel, divided symbolically into three lists of generations moving towards the coming of Christ. Over the centuries in which the books of the Bible were created, compiled and edited, many writers seem to have been inspired to include signs indicating the future Messiah. But we must be very careful not to read things into scripture that were not intended, if we are to provide a truthful apologetic in our witness to the contemporary world.
How important are the prophecies to understanding who Jesus Christ was and is? If we consider all that Jesus stood for and the truths that he taught, the prophecies are not necessarily of primary importance in emphasising his authenticity. Jesus’ activity and words and the truths that he stood for, lived by and taught, are far more important than ancient prophetic words that appear to have been pointing towards him. Similarly, it is far more important that people follow Jesus’ ways than that they comprehend fully who he was.
Yet the study of the supposed prophecies about Jesus, nevertheless remain significant. They suggest that Jesus’ coming was part of a worked-out plan of salvation, rather that appearing spontaneously out of nowhere and teaching an entirely new tradition. Jesus fulfilled and reinterpreted the Jewish laws and traditions; he didn’t demolish them in building a new covenant [Matt.5:17-20]. The Jews had been awaiting a Messiah for centuries. The parallels between the details of their past scriptures and Christ’ life, imply that Jesus’ coming, ministry, death and resurrection were at least expected before him, and that God didn’t decide spontaneously to save the world, but designed salvation carefully.
In addition to the fulfilment of the prophecies about the Messiah in Meditation 14, early Christians came to believe that Jesus’ life and ministry fulfilled many other prophecies, some of which are listed below:
- The Messiah would be the seed of a woman and would destroy sin: [Gen.3:15: Rom.16:20; Gal.4:4; Heb.2:14; Rev.12:9, 17]
- He would be born of a young woman: [Isa.7:14: Matt.1:22-23; Lk.1:31-35].
- He would be the star coming out of Jacob: [Num.24:17: Matt.2:2; Rev.22:16].
- He would be born in Bethlehem: [Mic.5:2 (Hebrew Bible verse 1): Matt.2:1-6; Jn.7:40-43].
- His coming would be accompanied by the death of innocent children: [Jer.13:15; Matt.2:17].
- He would be visited & worshipped by kings of the earth (the magi): [Ps.72:10,15; Isa.60:3, 6].
- He would be called out of Egypt: [Hos.11:1: Matt.2:13-15].
- He would minister in Galilee: [Isa.9:1-2; Matt.4:4].
- He would be called a Nazarene: [probably based on a variant reading of Isaiah 11:1; 53:3: Matt.2:23. For further explanation of ‘Nazarene’ see Meditation on ‘Joseph’ but basically the meaning is probably not that he would come from Nazareth but that the Messiah would lead an ascetic, holy life, totally dedicated to God].
- He would perform signs of healing: [Isa.35:5-6: Matt.11:4-6; Lk.7:20-23].
- He would heal: [Isa.35:5; 61:1; Isa.42:7; Matt.11:5].
- He would teach in parables: [Ps.78:2; Matt.13:35].
- He would be the rejected as the cornerstone for faith in attempting to build up his people: [Ps.118:22-24; Matt. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk.20:17-18; Acts 4:9-12; Eph.2:20; 1Pet.2:6-8].
- He would come to Jerusalem as a man of peace, riding on a donkey: [ Zech. 9:9; Isa.62:11; Zech.9:9; Matt.21:1-7].
- He would care for Jerusalem: [Zech.12:1-14].
- He would cleanse Jerusalem and its worship: [Zech.13:1-9].
- He would cleanse and feel zeal for the Temple: [Isa.56:7; Jer.7:11; Ps.69:9; Jn.3:7; Matt.22:13].
- He would meet opposition: [Ps.69:4; Isa.53:1; 6:9-10; Jn.12:38-40; Matt.13:4].
- He would be called God’s Son: [Ps.2:1-12: Mk.1:11; Lk.3:22; Acts 4:25-28; 13:33; Heb.1:5; 5:5].
- He would be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver and his betrayer would die: [Zech.11:11-13; 13:6; Ps.41:9; 55:13, 15, 23; 109:2-17: Jer.18:2; 19:2, 11; 32:6-9; Matt.26:14-15; 27:3, 9-10; Jn.13:8].
- He would be a righteous sufferer: [Ps.69: Matt.27:33-34, 48; Jn.2:17; 15:25; 19:28-30].
- He would be subject to a murderous plot, but that would not be his end: [Jer.31:15: Matt.2:16-18].
- He would be mocked [Ps.109:25].
- He would be forsaken suffer and die, yet be vindicated: [Ps.22:1-31; Matt.27:35, 39, 43-44, 46; Mk.15:34; Jn.19:23-24, 30; Heb.2:11-12].
- He would identify with the Suffering Servant of Isa.53: [Isa. 52:13-53:12: Matt.8:16-17; 20:28; 26:28; 27:59-60; Mark 10:45; 14:24; Lk.22:20; Jn.12:37-38; Acts 8:32–35; Rom.10:16; Heb.9:28; 1 Pet.2:21-25].
- He would be pierced: [Zech.12:10: Matt.24:30; Jn.19:31-37; Rev.1:7].
- He would be a willing sacrifice: [Gen.22:1-18; Jn.3:16; Heb.11:17-19].
- He would identify with the sacrificial Passover lamb: [Ex.12:1-51: Jn.1:29, 36; 19:33, 36;1 Cor.5:7-8; 1 Pet.1:19].
- He would bear our sins and suffer in our place: [Isa.52:13-53:12; Matt. 8:16-17; 20:28; 26:28; 27:59-60; Mk.10:45; 14:24; Lk.22:20; Jn.12:37-38; Acts 8:32-35 ; Rom.10:16; Heb.9:28; 1Pet.2:21-25].
- He would be lifted up: [Num.21:6-9: Jn.3:14-18. Christians interpreted this as the Cross and his later exaltation.].
- He would be crucified: [Ps.22:1, 7,-8, 11-18; Zech.12:10; 13:6].
- He would die: [Isa.53:4-6].
- His bones would not be broken: [Ps.34:20; Jn.19:32-36].
- He would be buried in a rich man’s tomb: [Isa.53:9].
- He would not remain dead, and his seed would expand and be glorified: [Isa.53:10-12; Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet.2:21-25; Lk.9:22].
- He would be resurrected: [Ps.16:8–11; 22:21; 30:3; 41:10; 16:10; Isa.53:10-12; Hos.6:2; Acts 2:22-32; 13:35-37].
- He would ascend to heaven: [Ps.24:7-10; 16; 11; 68:18; 110:1; 18:19].
- His actions would be redemptive: [Isa.61:1-2; Lk.4:16-21].
- He would be the Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace: [Isa.9:6-7 (Hebrew Bible 9:5-6): Lk.1:32-33, 79; Jn.14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom.9:5; Phil. 4:7; Col.2:3; 2Thes.3:3].
- He would be the coming King to whom the sceptre belongs: [Gen.49:10: Matt.2:6, 11; Rom.1:5; 15:18; 16:26; Heb.7:14; Rev.5:5].
- He would be our ‘Kinsman-Redeemer’: [Ruth 4:4-9: Lk.1:50, 58, 68, 72, 78; Jn.10:17-18; Rom.5:7-8; Eph.1:7; Col.1:4; Heb.2:11-12, 17].
All of these of course are very close to our understandings of Jesus and reflect his life. Combined they provide an almost convincing argument that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the one chosen and anointed by God to redeem humanity and lead us towards the establishment of God’s Kingdom. But, despite the mass of evidence, they are not ‘proofs’. What convinces me to keep to the Christian way is faith and trust in the truth of Jesus’ teachings and trust that through him we have the most truthful access to God and abundant life.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
What most convinces you that Jesus is the Messiah sent by God, and what difference does that make to your life?
31 THE ROLE OF DREAMS IN THE NATIVITY STORY “An angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph...” [Matt:2:13]
The Nativity story contains several reports of God communicating through dreams: three dreams of Joseph [Matt.1:20;, 2:13 2:19] and the dream of the Magi [Matt.2:12]. Dreams are not a common biblical way of people learning God’s message, so we should not superstitiously keep searching our own dreams to find what God would say to us through them. The interpretation of dreams today is more useful for exploring our psychology, mental health, an understanding how we relive events of the day in our mind when asleep. Esoteric or occult ideas that our dreams are mostly about spiritual communication are not necessarily biblical. However the Bible does report several incidences where dreams have been ways in which people have discovered spiritual truths, so we should not discount them.
Joseph’s dream, assuring him that Jesus was not to be rejected as an illegitimate child but was God’s Son is valuable reminder that we should often follow our best instincts, not be legalistic. It would have been so easy for Joseph to have quietly dissolved his half-complete marriage relationship with Mary by divorce as he had been considering doing. It would have been more revengeful to have openly disclaimed her and condemned her as an adulteress. Yet Joseph’s dream pacified the situation and clarified his emotions.
Psychologists suggest that our dreams are partly ways in which our minds settle, reinterpret, shuffle and scramble our memories of events during the day and reinterpret events and issues in our past. If this is true, it is very possible that truths can be revealed to us through the interpretation of dreams. But interpretation is not a case of buying a book on symbols in dreams and reading them like a code, as some attempt. Nor should we treat dreams superstitiously as some occult language of communication. We should just be aware that there may occasionally be truths in our dreams which may be revealed to us. Mostly we forget our dreams very quickly after waking, if we remember them at all. In such cases it is probable that they were reworking and shuffling of our memories and thoughts during our physical rest. If God wanted to communicate something significant and memorable to us, God would surely do so in a way which we would not forget.
The books of Genesis and Daniel mention dreams most [Gen. chapters 20; 28; 31; 37; 40; 41; Dan. chapters 2, 4 & 7]. Matthew is the only Gospel to include dreams and they are not mentioned at all in the New Testament Epistles. The lack of New Testament references may well imply that St. Paul and other pastoral writers set more emphasis on other spiritual forms of discernment. The classical world was very superstitious and relied much on the interpretation of dreams, so the Christian church may well have been suspicious of similar superstitions. As well as the dreams in the Nativity story, Matthew’s Gospel also includes the dream of Pilate’s wife, which convinced her to attempt to dissuade her husband from involvement in Christ’s trial and condemnation [Matt.27:19]. I’m not sure whether Jacob’s vision of a ‘ladder’ or steps leading to heaven should be called a ‘dream’ or a ‘vision’ [Gen.28:12]. His son Joseph had several dreams and was gifted with the interpretation of dreams, as was Gideon [Judg.7:15]. Solomon also gave credence to dreams [1Ki.3:5; 15]. But Jeremiah condemned false prophets who falsely claimed insight into dreams yet misinterpreted them [Jer.23:28]. It is important to remember that false claims of spirituality or divine insight are condemned in scripture as lies, pretending to recognise God’s communication. We need to be very careful how we use our spiritual gifts, and not falsify them. Yet Joel did prophesy that Gods Spirit would communicate in living ways, including dreams, to his people: “Your old men will dream dreams...” [Joel 2:28]. This prophecy was reiterated by Peter in explaining the events of Pentecost [Acts, 2:17].
Being in my ‘mature years’, I find it encouraging that Joel and St. Peter claimed “Your old men will dream dreams.” It helps to reassure us that spiritual revival and God ‘doing a new thing’ in people’s lives is not confined to the young. The envisioning, expanding and renewing of our relationship with God is available to people of all ages. The mature should not cynically think that the young enthusiast will ‘get over it with time.’ We can learn, be energised and infected by the enthusiasm and vigour of youthful believers.
It seems instructive that two of the dreams in the Nativity story give warnings. The magi may well have felt very uncomfortable during and after their interview with Herod. They may have heard of the king’s reputation for cruelty, and murder and felt uncomfortable in his presence: It is relatively easy to judge when someone in power is being duplicitous, as contemporary politics reveals all too often. Despite Herod’s attempts to ingratiate himself with them and pretend to wish to worship the child, they could have known his reputation as a tyrant. The magi were wise men, used to reading signs, so they may have been adept at reading people’s characters too. The uneasiness from the interview with the king could have been transmitted into their dreams. After seeing the vulnerability of the young Christ and his poor family, their sense of unease about his safety may have increased, so their dreams might naturally have contained signals that warned them not to comply with the tyrant’s wishes but to return home on a route that bypassed Jerusalem.
Joseph too may have felt sensitive to the unease of the times, or even been warned by the magi of their misgivings. Taking his new family to a place of safety beyond Herod’s jurisdiction may have been the logical outcome of his lack of ease. Similarly, if he and Mary had become part of the large Jewish community living in northern Egypt, he would most likely have heard rumours of the machinations of politics back in Judea and instinctively felt when the time was right to return to his country, including in which part of the country it would be safest to settle.
This is not to imply that the stories of dreams in the Nativity narratives are untrue, but to show that the dreams could well affirm thoughts that were already being mulled over in the minds of Joseph and the magi. Discernment of truth is one of our most important spiritual gifts. In our modern age we should be careful of what we take on trust. There are plenty of spiritual scams worldwide. As a minster I am frequently approached by people who I do not know, offering or wanting things. One has to be discerning in many such situations. Not everything that claims to be truthful or spiritual is truly so. Asking God’s Spirit to build up our wisdom is not just a gift for a great leader like Solomon [2Chron.1:10ff.; 1Ki.3:5-15]; it is something to which we should all aspire. Wisdom is not just head-knowledge and ability to reason; it also includes intuition, as Solomon revealed in his judgement over the dispute between two mothers [1Ki.3:16ff.]. Interestingly, in the 1 Kings account of Solomon’s request for wisdom, God’s question as to what Solomon most wanted as a gift for leadership and Solomon’s response are described as happening in a dream [1Ki.3:5].
Dreams are not direct communication. It seems clear from the lack of reference in the New Testament to God communicating through dreams that the writers of the Epistles did not consider dreams to be important ways in which God communicates to us. The fashion for occult interpretation of dreams is not a spiritual practice of which the New Testament writers would approve. That is not to discount the possible value of exploring dreams in psychology and psychotherapy. Paul valued the use of our minds and reason over more esoteric spiritual gifts. He said that he preferred to apply his mind in prayer and praise [1Cor.14:13-15] and was suspicious of people who sought spiritual noveltiesor laid too much spiritual emphasis on ‘visions’ [Col.2:18].
For Contemplation and Prayer:
How much do you rely on instinct in your spiritual life? – Instincts about God; instincts that something is true and trustworthy; instincts about relationships and the character of people; instincts about how to worship and pray; instincts about how you should be living. Pray for increased wisdom and spiritual discernment to guide your instinctive reactions.
SOME SPECIAL WORDS IN THE NATIVITY STORY
32. WORD “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was with God...” [Jn.1:1] “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” [Jn.1:14].
Jesus is described as “The Word” many times in the preface to John’s Gospel [Jn.1:1-5, 10-18], which is read in services every Christmas. As theologians and philosophers over the centuries have shown, the Greek term ‘Word’/‘Lógos’ has multiple potential connotations in various ancient cultures especially different aspects of Greek philosophy and religion: Used in the context of Jn.1, it could imply that Christ was the creative original principle behind all that exits in the Cosmos including the spiritual dimension; the explanation behind all; the one who accounts for all and shows everything for what it is and the ‘wisdom’ behind creation. It implies that through him God ‘spoke’ creation and shaped everything into being. It could imply that Jesus was eternally part of God and shared God’s ‘wisdom’ from the eternity. It can mean that Jesus is the ‘law’, ‘reason’, ‘reality’ and ‘logic’ behind all that is, the source of Truth and understanding... and so much more.
We cannot be sure how much, or what aspects of these different philosophical and theological ideas the writer of John’s Gospel intended when he used the term so significantly and frequently in the opening of his Gospel. He was obviously well-educated, with knowledge of theology and some cultural diversity. He would not, of course, have had access to the plethora of classical philosophical and ancient religious texts that many modern theologians have discovered, but he would certainly have been aware of prevailing ideas and uses of the term ‘word’, which is probably why he laid so much emphasis on it.
The actual meaning and intention of Jesus’ life, teachings and truth, not their classical or pagan connotations was what the writer wanted his readers to concentrate upon. He revealed these in the rest of his Gospel. Jesus taught faith and trust in God, practical morality and social responsibility more than theoretical theology or philosophy. Christ came to revive, restore and invigorate people’s relationships with God, who he knew personally as ‘Father’. His moral and social teachings all grew from understanding that God’s was the right way to live and comprehend all Creation. He aimed for people to live good, abundant, righteous, active lives, taking responsibility for others, restoring and advancing the world towards the establishment of the Kingdom of God. He encouraged us to share his sense of responsibility towards his Father God.
So in concentrating upon the meaning and implications of certain words and phrases that are key to the Nativity story we are considering important aspects of what life is about. Jesus as ‘The Word’ relates us to God as the truth behind life and creation. He came to raise and give life to others and to demonstrate how to live for the best. Our own meditation on Jesus’ teachings and our relationship with God should similarly not be self-centred. We read, digest and pray to build a faith and lifestyle that are useful to the world.
By starting the Gospel with the idea that the Word was “in the beginning” [Jn.1:1], “from the beginning” [1Jn.1:1] and that God created all things “through the Word” [Jn.1:3], the implication is that Jesus is eternal. This is partly what encouraged the Church to develop belief that Jesus was divine, alongside Jesus’ own claims of oneness with the Father even before creation: [Jn.11:54; 13:33; 14:9, 17, 25; 15:27; 17:5, 12]. This is similar to the role of ‘Wisdom’ in the Wisdom Literature in the Hebrew Scriptures. More specifically John concludes that “the Word was God” as well as “with God” [Jn.1:1]. To come to this conclusion that Jesus was divine must have been a huge step for the Jewish writer of John, steeped as he must have been in the Hebrew theological belief that God is one. His beliefs about Jesus cannot have just been written speculatively; the writer must have felt certain that he was speaking truth, or he would not have affirmed what his culture would have considered heresy, and could have condemned him to death.
Calling Jesus ‘the Word’ is poetic imagery, as well as having deep theological and philosophical connotations. The popularity of Jn.1 as a Christmas reading is surely largely because many appreciate the beauty, poetry and mysteriousness of the language, rather than because they understand its meaning and references. Few of us, if any, can fully comprehend what the writer was intending. I sometimes wonder what percentage of church-goers are attracted as much, or more, by the aesthetics of liturgy, tradition, hymnody and scripture than the meaning of salvation or comprehending their relationship with God. The beauty of language as well as the environment and atmosphere in which we worship can encourage faith as well as comprehending its meaning. The complexity and multiple potential meanings within John’s term “the Word” highlight the mystery behind so much of the Christian faith. It is possible to trust that there is truth in mysteries, as much as in more straightforward aspects of belief. Just because something is complex doesn’t mean that it is untrue. In fact, the more complex something is, the less naïve or simplistic our reactions to it may be.
One trouble with faith since early in Church history has been the tendency of some to search for or develop ‘secret knowledge’. Many sects like the Gnostics, developed ideas that there were ‘secret ways’ to build understanding of God. Like the ‘mystery religions’ of the ancient world, devotees created codes, special languages, rituals or key words to lead them into esoteric knowledge. That tendency survives today. If one visits the ‘Esoteric’ section of a bookshop or library one may often find more literature on ‘secret spiritual knowledge’ than on orthodox Christian beliefs. The idea of being initiated into secret understanding seems to excite people: Think of the numbers who follow Freemasonry, are attracted to fortune readers, or buy books claiming to interpret codes in the Bible, by comparison with those who follow traditional Christianity or study to build up an understanding of orthodox Christian beliefs.
However the truths within Christianity can be far more exciting and engaging than unorthodox beliefs, if one truly reaches into their meanings. There is more truth in scripture to inspire a life-time of study than a library-full of esoteric books with often dubious, invented, speculative theories. We must be careful not to treat scripture from that ‘secret’ point of view. The intention of Christ’s coming was to open the world to God’s truths, not to create secret relationships with a hidden God, brought about through mysterious or secret initiations into hidden knowledge. John’s emphasis on ‘the Word’ includes the fact that God through Christ is the truth behind creation, the truth of who Christ really was and is, the truth behind truth. Much of this truth remains mysterious. But we were never meant to develop a sense that we have a ‘secret knowledge’ of faith; we are meant to trust and find a relationship with God despite and within all that remains as-yet unknown. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” [Heb.11:1].
The main point of John’s opening chapter is to show that this mysterious ‘Word’ that has existed from eternity has NOW been revealed for all people to enable us to develop a relationship with God through him: “He came to what was his own” [1:11]; “to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” [1:12]. “The Word became flesh and lived among us and we have seen his glory” [1:14]. “From his fullness we have all received grace upon grace” [1:16]. “No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known” [1:18]. This is not about secret knowledge, it is emphasising that Christ, ‘the Word’ has opened up knowledge of God and opened a way for us to relate to God through him.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
In what ways does Christ ‘the Word’ make God known to you and help you to realise that you are ‘a child of God’? What does being ‘a child of God’ mean to you?
33. THE MAGNIFICAT – The Song of Mary in Luke’s Gospel
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour,
for he has looked with favour on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for the Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
His mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever.” [Lk.1:46-55]
It would be enough to contemplate if you just want to stop here and meditate on the words of the above song! Don’t feel that you need to read on in this study!
The Nativity story in Luke’s Gospel contains four canticles that proclaim the responses of various characters to the coming of the Messiah:
- The Magnificat: [1:46-55] Mary’s song of the specialness that Christ’s coming gives to ordinary, humble individuals like us.
- The Benedictus [1:68-79] Zechariah’s song about how Christ gives meaning to our mission as a Church.
- The Song of the Angels to the Shepherds: [2:10-14] announces how special this child Christ is.
- The Nunc Dimittis: [2:29-32] Simeon’s declaration of our security in knowing who Christ is, expressing confidence that he can bring about transformation, despite the desperate state of our world.
Mary’s song after the Annunciation, is known as the ‘Magnificat’ after its first word in the Latin Vulgate version of the scripture text. In the Greek text the word is “Megalýnei’, which we have already seen comes from the Greek word for ‘great’ - ’mega’. In its Greek word-order the line reads: “Magnifies the soul of me the Lord, and exulted the spirit of me in God the saviour of me!” Somehow that feels even more excited than in proper English grammatical order.
A few scholars believe that the text implied that the song was first sung by Elizabeth, not Mary, but it seems to me to relate more to Mary, and tradition ascribes it to her. The words imply that the singer is doing far more than ‘proclaiming the greatness of the Lord’. The words, taken literally could mean that she is making God greater, which is impossible, for how can a human being magnify God? ‘Megalnei’ can means that she ‘makes great’ or ‘extols God’s greatness’. In the song Mary also celebrates the ‘great things’ [‘megála’] that the ‘mighty’ [‘dynatós’] God has done for her, just as in the Annunciation to the Shepherds, the angel announced good news of ‘great joy’ [‘charàn megalén’] to all people..
Luke is often regarded as the most realistic of the Gospel writers. He claimed to have aimed to get his facts right, researching and bringing together as much corroborated information as he could about Jesus’ life [Lk.1:1-4]. But he assembled them with a theologian’s purpose to explain who Christ is and to encourage people to follow him. The four canticles about the Nativity that he included in the Gospel [1:46-45; 1:68-79; 2:10-14; 2:29-32] aren’t just included in the story because they may have been sung by the figures concerned. They may have been traditionally related to the characters to whom Luke attributes them, or Luke may have invented them for a purpose. Most likely Luke included them because they were sung by the Early Christians and their poetry sang out the meaning of Christ’s story. So they are not just as songs, but sources of understanding about the truth of the Christmas good news in which the early Church believed. In the case of the Magnificat it was regarded as a prophecy being sung by Mary, suggesting that the Holy Spirit of God was active within her years before Pentecost.
The Magnificat praises God for what God has done for Mary and in effect for us. The poetry and argument feel too finely constructed to have been a spontaneous outpouring of emotion by a young peasant girl, no matter how steeped in scripture she may have been. The canticle may be an adaptation of a Jewish song of military victory, not Mary’s original composition. It certainly reads like that. If it is, that does not detract from the glory of the words or its strength of meaning in the context of Mary singing it. It weaves together triumphant themes that are familiar from the Psalms, and it is very similar to the Song of Hannah at the birth of Samuel [ISam.2:1-10]. Mary may have been singing a song she already knew from Jewish tradition, just as Christ often quoted scripture. Or perhaps the Gospel writer included it because this traditional song of praise fitted the introductory theme of Luke’s Gospel that Christ was bringing challenge, victory and change. We’ll never know the origins of the song for sure. But whatever the Magnificat was, its meaning to Christians remains the same: It celebrates the fact that Jesus brought victory to the earth by establishing God’s kingdom - something that it is often hard to recognise when we look at today’s world.
The words celebrate God’s strengthening and up-building of he poor and humble, putting down human arrogance and delivering humankind by bringing us salvation. These are all themes that the Hebrew Scriptures longed to see fulfilled. All the four songs in the early chapters of Luke’s Gospel declare that Jesus fulfils the awaited longings od God’s people. I wonder if many of us (if we are honest and not arrogant) feel that confident sense of Christ’s fulfilment and victory in our lives? It has been 2000 years since Christ set the Church and salvation in motion... 2000 years through which we as Christ’s body on earth should have been drawing on God’s Spirit’s power to change the world. W might have been living for centuries gloriously, peacefully, righteously and unitedly in response to Christ having established his kingdom. It often feels that the Church failed historically to do this sufficiently and continues to fail to be Christ-like and bring Christ authentically to the world.
When we sing the Magnificat together it emphasises that Christ has obtained victory for us and that Christ is working for us, on our side. We live and work as Christians to continue to outwork that victory in our generation, building up the Kingdom that Christ has established by his teaching and by his achievement through his Cross and Resurrection. The Magnificat is a song of utter conviction… All the verb tenses in the poem (they’re in the ‘aorists’ tense if you want to be technical), say: ‘These good things are real and true now, AND the promises are going to continue AND will be fully fulfilled in the future’. The tense is important as it emphasises that our experience of what we have in faith now makes the future promise certain, and vice versa. In our Christian mission, even though we know that we and our churches so often fail, each of us should be working towards that future Kingdom with a confidence that Christ can, will and is succeeding, since he has already established it.
The Magnificat also emphasises that though we are weak and undeserving, and should remain humble before God, we’re also supremely special in God’s love. The Magnificat is at heart sincere worship: It is the song of a humble individual recognising the immensity of what God has done for her and sincerely pouring out thanks. Perhaps in response to Christmas or the past year, you might try to do just that: Be sincere with God, lay your life open and work through the things God has done for you, even though this has been such a trying year for many. If you find it hard to thank God and worship positively, because, as we all recognise, life is hard, perhaps try to accentuate positive memories, as this can improve our attitude to life overall. Often when we’re down or under pressure we forget to praise, or don’t want to praise. Mary’s song is a reminder of how reviving praise can be.
I’ve a good friend, an elderly lady who suffers greatly from depression, as I did myself over many years. She puts herself down much of the time, and is put down by her family. She’s humble in the true sense of the word, not obsequious like Uriah Heep in Dickens’ David Copperfield or some ‘over-humble’ Christians, who you sometimes want to shake and say “get real!” She’s genuinely “poor in spirit”, as in the Beatitudes [Matt.5:3], or in Mary’s song. She knows God and she loves him for what he’s done for her, but she can’t recognise that she’s special to him. The Magnificat and the promise of the Beatitudes is that she shall be blessed eventually to see the Kingdom of Heaven. In her relationship with Christ she is already seeing it in part, but not recognising it in full. Mary’s song reaches into that condition: God has recognised the low estate of his servant... God’s love can give the weak a sense of being recognised and valued… And conversely, God can give those who consider themselves strong, a sense of being recognised for the right reasons, not for their social status, their jobs or their roles in life. God knows us thoroughly. God recognising you personally as a valued child, created as you are, and loved. If you have problems recognising that, perhaps meditate on both the Magnificat and Psalm 139. The Psalm talks about this more intimately and supremely than any other passage in scripture… It emphasises that God formed us, understands us completely, and loves what he has made. Jesus’ coming to earth may have enabled God to identify with us even more entirely, by having lived like us and undergone what we experience [Heb.4:15].
So few people today like the way they’re made; many put themselves down as a result. Many want to change the wrong things like their looks or situation. Some see the sin and failures in themselves and feel themselves unlovable. The glory of Mary’s song isn’t just that she emphasises that through Christ we are loved, valued and forgiven. The words indicate our value and ennoble us by recognising God’s grace in having formed a covenant relationship with us as we are. We are trusted to have God’s presence in our lives. We have been saved by Christ, and as a result, in a very real way, we’ve become trusted with a special role, like a prince, princess or noble is trusted to live for the king or a steward is trusted by their master.
Like Mary, we are special, not just because we are who we are, but also because in a sense we have become ‘God-bearers’. As Mary carried Christ as a baby in her womb, you and I carry God in the form of his Holy Spirit in our bodies and in our minds. We carry Christ in ourselves in a different way too, by having been made Christ’s Body here on earth. We participate in that body when we worship or work together as a church and when we share fellowship together and especially when we share the Eucharist together. We share Christ with each other, and we carry Christ to others when we live alongside them and witness to them by our lives, actions and words.
So Mary’s song can be ours. We are extra-special because each one of us has Christ in our lives, to give fruit to our lives, and for us to share. The Magnificat is a reminder of our priorities: Not to be too proud or too humble; not to let our imaginations and ambitions get ahead of us; recognising that God will provide for our needs and reminding ourselves that we are loved, cared for and can be active for God. The song resounds with a sense of victory, proclaiming what God through Christ has achieved for us. That victory, it says, is more powerful than all present pains, doubts and worries. Troubles are realities of life, but they need not be all that life is about. If we become as convinced by all this as Mary was, we can learn to truly praise God for all. The Magnificat is a reminder of many truths including personally how special each one of us is to God.
In many ways it is impossible for human beings to ‘magnify’ the Lord. How can we make God any greater than God is supposed to be? Yet there are many ways in which we can attempt to do that within our own minds. We are told that “God is enthroned on the praises of his people” [Ps.22:3]: We can ‘magnify’ God, by giving expression to our limited understanding of God’s greatness: Our worship, our lives, our words and our thoughts can work at raising God high by recognising who God is and what God has done. The God in our minds is often too small, too limited. And our understanding of ourselves is often too small too. We need to remind ourselves that God is bigger, stronger, more omnipresent, more mysterious as a power, than anything we conceive.
We can magnify God by allowing God to be the truth of what God is and recognising that truth. This means expanding our understanding, and responding to God’s enormity, grace, creativity, care, love, forgiveness, and recognising the expansiveness of the concept of salvation. Magnifying also includes recognising God’s intimacy in the way that God responds to us and works in the fine detail of creation. We also magnify God by recognising that this ENORMOUS power that is God, became intimate with us though being born like one of us. God remains intimate with us because he loves us, lives with us and in us, is working for us, releases us, is interested in us, is living in our community as well as our personal lives, and ennobles us as part of Christ’s body: We are sons, daughters, friends and trusted stewards of the King of kings and Lord of lords.
Mary’s song celebrates the belief that Christ’s coming to us revealed all this. Recognising all this and more, and worshipping God sincerely for it, not only magnifies God, but also magnifies us, uplifts and expands our understanding of ourselves.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Read the Magnificat again slowly to yourself and try to see how each part applies to your own life.
34. BENEDICTUS - The Song of Zechariah in Luke’s Gospel
“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
for he has looked favourably on his people and redeemed them.
He has raised up a mighty saviour for us
in the house of his servant David,
as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old,
that we would be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us.
Thus he has shown the mercy promised to our ancestors,
and has remembered his holy covenant,
the oath that he swore to our ancestor Abraham,
to grant us that we, being rescued from the hands of our enemies,
might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness
before him all our days.
And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,
to give knowledge of salvation to his people
by the forgiveness of their sins.
By the tender mercy of our God
the dawn from on high will break upon us,
to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the way of peace.” [Lk.1:68-79].
The first half of the Benedictus is rather similar to the Magnificat, celebrating God bringing salvation to the nation. It is the second half, Zechariah’s prophecies about his son John’s future mission, which I find most challenging. Is our church, locally, nation-wide and world-wide actually ‘giving the knowledge of salvation’, ‘bringing the forgiveness of sins’, ‘giving light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death’, and ‘guiding people’s feet into the way of peace’? In practice, is our Christianity as missional as John the Baptist and are we the mirror of Christ to others that we should be?
Zechariah, John the Baptist’s father was another man described as “filled with the Holy Spirit” [Lk.1:67], like his son [Lk.1:15]. His prophecy about John includes characteristics that should be in all our Christian lives in different ways. They are rather like the baptismal promises in our baptismal liturgies, which too many people tend to forget to put into practice:
And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,
to give knowledge of salvation to his people
by the forgiveness of their sins.
By the tender mercy of our God,
the dawn from on high will break upon us,
to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the way of peace.” [Lk.1:76-79].
Isn’t that what we should be and what we should be moulding our churches and all Christians to be?
Christians are people who should help to make others ready to understand and meet God...
- People to show the world the way into a relationship with God through Jesus Christ…
- People to lead others to have knowledge of salvation…
- People who demonstrate to others that their sins can be forgiven, through the saving acts of Christ…
- People who demonstrate to the world that the Christian God is a merciful God, not the vindictive God that most popular religions seem to portray him as…
- People who show the world that Christ can pour light and hope into dark and hopeless situations…
- People who should be enjoying and sharing abundant life.
- People who can raise others out of their fears or worries about the threat of death…
- People who can guide the world into God’s ways of peace…
- People who follow Christ, his prophets and disciples in the mission of bringing healing and salvation to others.
John the Baptist prepared his people for Christ’s coming. We have two advantages over John: - Christ has come, and his Spirit is permanently with us. So we have the potential to be even more successful than John was. But we must not shirk in communicating our message. Who else is going to bring hope and truth to many in the world if we do not? Congregational members can’t just leave it to church leaders who are often too involved in practical organisation and the politics of leadership. Administration is necessary, but sometimes it can kill or disable the more important spiritual mission of the church which should be directed towards the world. We can’t leave the spreading of peace, justice and salvation o political leaders who claim to be Christian either… Look at world’s politicians who claim religious affinity. Do they all give the right impression of Christ and his priorities to the world? No, it’s up to us and our churches… If we don’t give a true picture of Christ to the communities and individuals among whom we live, it is unlikely that they will receive God’s life-giving message. It’s not something we can do by proxy either, expecting the vicar, minister, pastoral workers or missionaries and evangelists to do the mission of the church. Mission is the role of all Christians.
We’ve been given the truth and need to train ourselves to share it winsomely, wisely, without naivety, with those around us. Perhaps you could use your thought-time to consider the outward impression of Christ that you give to others, and that your church gives to others. How do WE build up ourselves for bringing salvation to people? How do we grow in our understanding of Christ’s salvation enough to communicate it effectively to others? If I was an outsider and put you on the spot (though I won’t) and said to you “Show me why I need Jesus and explain what he’s done for me”, could you explain it in a way that would have me clamouring for more … If I was your neighbour or colleague, would I recognise in your life and in your explanation of your faith that you have the words of eternal life that are relevant for me, as the disciples saw in Jesus [Jn. 6:68]? John the Baptist communicated that in his mission. Rather than just being a good person, do you radiate Christ to others and lead them to Christ’s truth? If you recognise a weakness in that, as I’m sure we all do, turn it into a prayer.
Try to list what YOUR mission in the world is. John the Baptist had a mission to prophetically point others to Christ, and that’s part of what is required of all of us too. But we all do it in different ways, because we’re different people with a huge variety of personalities and gifts. Some are evangelists, some are teachers, some are preachers, but many of us are shy or tongue-tied and would never have the confidence of other ministers. Yet we are all meant to be conveyors of God’s truth to others. Some nurture and love others into the kingdom of heaven; some nurse the wounds of the world and heal in that way; some show hospitality and the love of Christ radiates from their homes or personalities. Our roles can also change through life. We may not be very good at explaining faith in words now, but as our understanding and confidence in faith grows, we can become better.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Read Zechariah’s prophecy about John again and consider in what ways it describes your mission is in the world. How do you need to prepare yourself better to share the truth of God in your world. It may only be you who can introduce some people to God.
35. NUNC DIMITIS -The Song of Simeon in Luke’s Gospel:
“Lord, now let your servant depart in peace,
according to your word,
for my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you have prepared before the face of all peoples,
a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and for glory to your people Israel.” [Lk.2:29-32]
Who was Simeon? I’ve created four pictures of him in my career, and always thought and portrayed him as the priest on duty, coming out of the Temple to offer for Mary and Joseph the sacrifice of the poor for a child - two doves. I’ve imagined him as a priest holding up and blessing the baby Jesus. But many images of the Presentation in the Temple are incorrect, Mary certainly and probably Joseph and Jesus too, couldn’t have been present at the altar of sacrifice, they’d have been confined to the Temple’s outer courts. They are all included symbolically in images, standing by the altar offering the sacrifice. Mary, particularly would not have been allowed beyond the Court of the Women. However the Bible says nothing about Simeon being a priest on duty in the Temple, and certainly Anna the other shadowy prophetic figure in the scene, couldn’t have been a priestess:
All we know about Simeon comes from Luke: “in Jerusalem there was a man by the name of Simeon’ (no mention of priesthood) “Led by the Spirit, Simeon came into the Temple court. When the parents brought in Jesus to perform for him what was customary according to the Law, Simeon embraced the child in his arms and blessed God”. So Simeon could have just been a spiritual man who hung around the Temple, hoping that God would reveal the anointed leader who would bring change to his nation. He might have been a retired priest, or an elderly priest still entrusted with occasional services in the Temple. But he and Anna may just have been two of those spiritually committed elderly lay-people that are in the background of congregations, which many churches have in their retinue. Some of the Temple hierarchy might have even held them in contempt, regarding them as annoyingly over-spiritual, or deriding their criticisms that the Temple activities and politics were not spiritual enough. Perhaps Simeon was a sort of ancient wizened prophet, hanging around the Temple precincts, though not a prophet in the same way as John the Baptist. He might have been an irritation to the Temple authorities OR he might have been a valued elder, an experienced priest and one of them… We may never know for sure.
What matters about Simeon isn’t who he was as much as his faith: “(He) was righteous and devout, looking forward to the consolation of Israel. The Holy Spirit was upon him; and it had been disclosed to him by this Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah.” [Lk.2:25-26]. Moreover, we are told that the Holy Spirit led him to the Temple at the precise time that the Holy Family came there. The encounter with them was not coincidental [Lk.2:27].
This is where Simeon most relates to us, though we may not see ourselves as equal in spirituality to him! If we are Christians, we are assured that the Holy Spirit is upon us. God’s Spirit has become part of us and the Messiah has come to us. So that picture of Simeon in the Temple holding the child could be us. We should be “righteous and devout, looking forward to the consolation of the Kingdom of God The Holy Spirit is within us; and it had been disclosed by this Holy Spirit”, as well as scripture and Jesus’ teaching that we will eventually “see the Lord’s Messiah.” We all probably need more righteousness, holiness and devoutness, haven’t yet sufficiently seen “the consolation of the Kingdom of God ” that Jesus will fulfil or the consolation and restoration of the earth that Christ’s salvation set in motion. If Jesus came to bring healing to the world, to restore the Kingdom of God, why is it that 2,000 years later we have let the earth get into an almost worse state than it was under the Romans?
We live in a world of disillusionment, where people are cynical about corruption in politics, society, ecological disaster, even corruption in churches and religions. Rather than being united in love and faith, many live more separate from their neighbours than ever before in society. Perhaps we’re basically even more selfish and money-orientated than ever before in history… particularly, it seems, among nations that call themselves nominally “Christian”. In this world Christ’s church seems to be having very little impact, and in many places its impact is declining. We need to develop churches with prophetic power and insight that can reach into society and make changes, but that will only come through following Christ’s teaching and relying on the Holy Spirit’s power. That was the case in Hebrew religion in Jesus’ time too, which Jesus sought to reform. He aimed to establish his Kingdom and consolation in the midst of a corrupt world, not to overthrow the corruption and bring immediate change. If he had done that, as reformations and revolutions in politics, society and faith have tried to do over the centuries, history shows that it is rarely long before the reforming groups become equally corrupt - sometimes even more so.
Sometimes Christians talk as though they are just waiting acquiescently amid the difficulties of society for God to make a change. Simeon might have done that; after all, he was elderly and perhaps not revolutionary by nature. But he was earnestly praying regularly for God to bring that change about through the Messiah. In many ways we are important to the action of changing the world, and looking forward to Christ restoring and perfecting things as we believe he promised. We can pray sincerely and practically influence the parts of the world around us. Most of us should not be just waiting around idly for Jesus to return and make changes. Jesus HAS COME, he taught us what is needed to make change. His Spirit of power has come to guide, teach, enlighten and empower. So often it is us, our churches and church-members who are already called to effect change in the world, as we already have God’s Spirit and Christ’s teaching inside us to draw upon for guidance and power. The Church should partly be ashamed that it has not made enough impact on the world in 2,000 years. And many Christians should be ashamed of themselves that they don’t make the social and spiritual impact on their society and their neighbours that after 2,000 years of practice we should be perfectly capable of doing. Yet I also know many people who are representing the Light off God to their communities.
Simeon spoke of Christ being “a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.” He was not saying that Christ, his followers or the church should ever be exclusive. Jesus’ revelations were expansive; he meant his teachings to apply to the whole world and to be expanded by us to the whole world. That was one mistake that Israel had made. When God made covenants with Noah, Abraham and Moses, the emphasis was that God’s chosen people should share the covenant promises to them with the whole world, for a universal blessing, not keep God’s promises to themselves [Gen.12:3]. Simeon recognised this in his declaration that Jesus would be “a light for revelation to all peoples” [Lk.2:31-32]. In fact he put the Gentiles first, then Israel second in his list, perhaps emphasising the universal scope of Christ’s mission, which we are to continue.
Because the Nunc Dimittis is often read at funerals and is sung towards the close of evensong, it can tend to be regarded as a canticle of resignation, like “Now I lay me down to sleep, I ask the Lord my soul to keep.” But it is far more than a declaration that Simeon could now rest secure that God was fulfilling his promises. It is a confident declamation that God is active and is continuing to fulfil the salvation of the world. Simeon may have been approaching death but he recognised, through meeting this child that new generations would follow him, who would spread to the world the salvation that Jesus was bringing. That is OUR role in the story...
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Read through Simeon’s prophetic prayer again. What is the ‘light’ that Christ has brought into your life? What do you understand by the ‘salvation’ that he has brought to you? How can you reveal that ‘light’ and ‘salvation’ to those around you?
36 THE SONG OF THE ANGELS in Luke’s Gospel
In that same region there were shepherds, pasturing their flock and taking turns watching over it by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, so that they were filled with fear. The angel told them:
“Do not be afraid,”
“For behold, I announce to you good news of great joy
which will be for the whole people:
To you this day there is born in the city of David
a Savour who is Messiah and Lord.
And this will be your sign:
you will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a manger!”
The suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, saying:
“Glory in the highest heavens to God,
and on earth peace to those favoured by Him.” [Luke 2:8-14]
This declaration by the angels expands our minds, hut imagine what the reaction of lowly shepherds must have been! The words reach into the immensity of what Christ was bringing into the world. We’re not talking about just a cute little baby in the manger here. The swaddling bands were wrapped around a figure who would contain the whole of truth encapsulated in one frail human form. The poet Robert Southwell described him as “The Burning Babe”, Richard Crashaw called him “eternity contracted to a span”. We’re talking about God coming to live among us and in us.
J.B. Phillips book “Your God is too Small” demonstrates how in translating the scriptures the author had his vision of God expanded. We need to expand our own vision of Christ and the reason and results of his coming, if we are to realise his and our full potential. In my design for the Musician’s Chapel Altarpiece for Gloucester Cathedral I wanted to give the idea of the angel holding out to the shepherds a vision of the enormity of who this Christ-child was. I did not manage it sufficiently and was disappointed with the result, unlike my altarpiece for the Lady Chapel, which meant so much to me as it encapsulated the heart of my faith and was personally dedicated to so many people who had built up that faith over the years, who I had temporarily lost. However painting the ‘Annunciation to the Shepherds and Visitation of the Shepherds’, expanded my imagination of who Christ was and is. The texts of Luke’s Canticles reveal a whole plethora of ideas to contemplate about Jesus Christ’s identity and achievement. The rest of the Bible builds up that image to something even greater:
Christ is ‘the image of the invisible God to us’, as Colossians 1:15 says. Jesus is the way that God chose to self-reveal and reach out to us. But also he’s the way we come to understand so much about the broader character of God, including God’s love for us, God’s involvement in creation and God’s trust of us as stewards to look after his earth and expand his mission. This little baby of the Annunciation and Visitation of the Shepherds became Christ our Great High Priest and King, enthroned in heaven, working and interceding for us. If a few of the phrases about who Jesus is resonate with you or puzzle you, meditate on why they are significant for you particularly.
The Song of the Angels in Luke 2:10-15 contains key imagery about Christ: Even their initial phrase “Do not be afraid,” suggests that Jesus was bringing a knowledge of God which meant that people would no longer need to be scared of God, in the same way as so many peoples and religions had been over millennia. God is on our side, loving us, working for our good. This was “good news of great joy”. It was good news intended not just for a specific tribe, nation or particular chosen people. Christ’s coming and his message was “for the whole people”. How sad that too many Christian groups over the centuries have isolated themselves, our of a desire for security, or a sense of self-satisfaction, rather than taking the news out into the world for which it is intended! “To you this day there is born in the city of David” reminds us that Jesus was sent at a specific time and place, when his message could be spread not just to those who were expecting the Messiah for their nation, but to through the whole Roman Empire and wider. Jesus would be the “Savour” “Messiah” and “Lord” for all. I have already explored in earlier Meditations some of the meanings behind those terms.
One thing that must have amazed the shepherds, and certainly amazes me, is that all these promises could be contained in one tiny “baby wrapped in strips of cloth. The fact that he was “lying in a manger” implies that he was from a poor, uninfluential family; perhaps even more ‘ordinary’ than most of us would consider ourselves to be. Who would expect someone from such a lowly background to make such a difference to the world for all time? We find self-made figures and influential families with lowly backgrounds throughout history, but none of them have had the ‘eternal’ and ‘universal’ influence of Jesus of Nazareth. No wonder that his appearance was announced by “a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, saying: “Glory in the highest heavens to God.”
God, the truth and wisdom behind everything, is the source of this message, and as John’s description of ‘The Word’ proclaimed, God IS that message. God revealed so much about the divine nature and our potential for righteous, spiritual life through this figure of the Messiah. God sent him out of ‘favour’ towards the people of earth and longed for them to be of ‘good will’ and ‘favour’ themselves in receiving and passing on Christ’s message and following his ways. That was how the world could find “peace on earth” and “peace” in their relationship with God and among each other in society. The founding of the Church on Christ’s principles was meant to form a microcosm where the Kingdom of God, which the Messiah was creating, would be revealed.
The humble peasant shepherds, among the lowliest and despised in society, must have been terrified by their encounter with the supernatural revelation of the angels. (Presumably it wasn’t a regular recurrence to them!). In Rembrandt’s wonderfully expressive print of the encounter, they and their flock are shown initially fleeing in terror! Yet we can read in the message to them the whole spectrum of the ‘good news’ that Jesus’ coming was bringing into the world. How much they understood of that message we can only speculate. It seems pretty likely that Luke may have formed the Angel’s song from the handed-down recollections of Mary, who some think was a source for his writing. It seems fairly unlikely that he could have found any of the original shepherds in his gleaning of information; but that should not be entirely discounted as a possibility if he did the amount of research that he claimed in the opening of his Gospel. Whatever was the source of his account of the Angel’s message, like the other canticles in Luke’s Gospel, it recognises the greatness of what came into the world through and in Christ.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Does anything frighten you about God? Are there ways in which you might overcome this or turn ‘fear’ to respectful, loving ‘awe’?
‘Angels’ can just mean ‘messengers’ - people, thoughts or events that reveal messages or truths to us. Has God’s truth ever been revealed to you in any way? Contemplate how you received it and how you responded.
37. “GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD... ” “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that all who believe in him should not perish but have eternal life.” [Jn.3:16].
This must be one of the best known verses of the Gospels, and among the best loved. Its familiarity, like the Christmas story itself, should not prevent us from considering its meaning afresh. At its heart is the reason for Christ’s coming, as well as emphasis that his teaching, ministry, death and resurrection are the foundation of belief in him. Here I want to consider its relevance in the context of Jesus’ conception, birth and first revelation to the world.
God’s love for creation was a major theme of Jesus’ teaching. We’re often reminded that the Bible uses various ancient words to distinguish some of the many different forms of love. In Greek some of these are: ‘philadelphia’ /‘brotherly or sisterly love and friendship’; ‘stergo’ / ‘affection as between parents and children’; ‘agape ‘/ ‘self-giving and self-sacrificial love’; ‘eros’ / ‘passionate, sensual love’. There were also individual terms for particular forms of love, like ‘storge’ /‘love of nation’. Yet despite this variety, a common feature of love is the warm feeling of goodwill and wellbeing towards all that we love. All the terms for love also involve care and self-giving for another. Love enlarges our ability to feel; it can energise us and warm us with good, even if we are temporarily separated or bereaved and remembering those we have loved. The sense of loving or having loved expands our spirits.
The terms used the love of God in scripture suggest the expansiveness and breadth of God’s nature towards all. They express God’s care and self-giving. 1Corinthians 13 reminds us of the qualities of human love: “Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, hopes all things, loves all things. Love never ends...” [1Cor.13:4-7]. There the word was ‘ágápé’, sometimes translated as ‘charity’, but in modern usage ‘charity’ has a weaker meaning than scripture intends. More precisely ‘ágápé’ should be translated as ‘generous, self-giving, non-selfish, self-sacrificial love’, as 1Cor.13 implies. It is noticeable that most of the qualities expressed here resemble the ‘fruit of the Spirit’: “Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, Self-Control” [Gal.5:22-3]. Human love reflects the spiritual love of God. In Galatians 5 list and John 3:16 the word used for God’s love for the world is ‘ágápé’. When we love in this way we are loving in the way that God intends for us to reflect divine love.
‘Agape’ is the self-giving love that God showed in giving Jesus to the world, the love which Jesus demonstrated, and the love he encouraged in his followers. It is an outgoing and outgiving love; not self-centred or primarily self-satisfying. Such love concentrates on others and longs for their good. In expressing and receiving love we may partly satisfy ourselves, but that is not the main objective of true love, which seeks and does the best for the other. “Greater love has no-one that this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” [Jn.15:13].
The nature of God’s love for us among all creation was a major theme of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus exemplified God’s perfect love, in giving himself. That form of love expects nothing in return that can balance or repay it. God may desire our love and our obedience but the love poured out in Christ’s Incarnation and on the Cross, did not demand our response. God’s love perhaps resembles that of a lover longing for the object of their love to recognise and respond with love in return. This is beautifully expressed by the metaphor of God as a lover in Hosea longing for the faithful return of his love [Hos.2:8; 11:1-11, 14:1-7], or in Isaiah 54:5-8 promising fruitful abundance to his wife.
1Cor.13:13 speaks of: “Faith, Hope and Love... and the greatest of these is Love”. Again the word is ‘ágápé’. The primacy of love over faith and hope is perhaps not just in the beauty with which it cements our relationship to others and to God. Perhaps the spirit of love in us awakens us to be able to appreciate better all about life and God, which are contained in ‘faith’ and ‘hope’. Love towards God encourages faith and hope. I used to find it hard to believe that God could care for me as much as for others, because I was so aware of my personal failings and weaknesses. It was only when I found myself loved by a person who actually valued me despite, or in some cases because of my weaknesses and failings, that I began to recognise that God could truly love me. My faith and life grew stronger as a result. If we have love inside us it can awaken us to values in ourselves and others, which we might previously have not recognised, devalued or taken for granted.
We are in a society where many see their ‘right’ as being to ‘take’ without feeling a commensurate responsibility to ‘give’. The saddest forms of love are those which just want self-satisfaction, or those which continue frustratingly to long for the impossible. This is lust or longing, not true love. Too frequently sexual love, love of money, power or position aim to get what one can without giving sufficiently in return. That is also true of some people’s feelings about the society in which they live: getting without giving. Sometimes this self-centredness is also reflected in spiritual relationships with God. Many want the emotional satisfaction which comes through spirituality or which is received in a worship service, without feeling reciprocal responsibility to give to God or to others. Far too many books on esoteric spirituality just focus on satisfying oneself and building up one’s spirituality or spiritual experiences. Yet true spirituality, like true love, is about both giving and receiving, where “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” [Acts 20:35].
Jesus’s challenge to love goes beyond ‘easy love’: He expects us to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” [Matt.5:54]; to “lay down one’s life for one’s friends” [Jn.15:13]; to “give one’s life for the unrighteous” [Rom.5:8ff]; to work hard at our relationship with God and others. Only by loving in that energetic, out-going way will we ever approach a true understanding of the extent of God’s own powerful, self-giving love for all that has been made, including sinners and failures.
Many in society love and indulge themselves excessively, but sadly many others indulge themselves through lack of self-love. Commercialism has encouraged us to compare ourselves with others even more than in the past when the commandment recognised that we should ‘not covet what our neighbour has’ [Ex.20:17; deut.5:21], and ‘should love our neighbour as ourselves’ [Matt.19:19; Mk.12:31; Lk.10:27]. Before Jesus’ teaching the Hebrew concept of ‘neighbour’ mostly implied responsibility towards those who were of the same nation and faith, even though God’s laws repeatedly told them to support the stranger. The Parable of the Good Samaritan [Lk.10:25-37] shows that Christ expanded the concept of love to embrace all, even those who are considered enemies [Matt.5:44; Lk.6:27]. At this time when many in society are experiencing trials and many are lonely, it is increasingly important for us to recognise that ALL our neighbours are to be loved and supported.
Jesus exemplified God’s perfect love in giving himself: “Greater love has no-one than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” [Jn.15:13]. Here the word is also ‘ágápé’. That sort of love expects nothing that can balance it in return. God may want our love and our obedience but the love poured out in the Incarnation and on the Cross did not demand our response, though God must surely long for it, as a lover longs for the object of their love to recognise and respond with love in return. Jesus’s challenge to love goes beyond ‘easy love’, he expects us to reflect God’s love for all that has been made, as he did. God gave his life in Jesus in a way that brought together all the various aspects of love. Whatever ‘being made in the image of God’ means in its entirety (which remains a mystery), we have the capacity to love in ways that reflect God’s love.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Consider your own ability to love. What are its parameters and limits? How could you better reflect God’s love?
THE STORY CONTINUES
38. THE PRESENTATION OF JESUS IN THE TEMPLE
When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord… and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, ‘a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.’
Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon this man was righteous and devout, looking forward to the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit rested on him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. Guided by the Spirit, Simeon came into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him what was customary under the law, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:
“Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace,
according to your word;
for my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and for glory to your people Israel.”
And the child’s father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him. Then Simeon blessed them and said to his mother Mary, “This child is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed—and a sword will pierce your own soul too.”
There was also a prophet, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the Temple but worshiped there with fasting and prayer night and day. At that moment she came, and began to praise God and to speak about the child to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. [Lk.2:22-38]
We cannot be sure when Jesus was supposed to have been presented in the Temple and the sacrificial rite observed for the Purification of Mary. Matthew implies that because of the edict of Herod, Joseph took the Holy Family to Egypt almost immediately. But if the magi were delayed in visiting Bethlehem, and Joseph and Mary had stayed there with the family for a while after the birth, a visit to Jerusalem just 6 miles away could easily have happened before they left to take refuge in the south.
According to tradition Jesus would have been named and circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, [Gen.17:10ff.]. This would have been performed by the nearest rabbi, either in the home where they were staying or in the synagogue. Then 40 days after the birth of her child, Mary would have been expected to purify herself through giving an offering at the Temple. The purification rite is described in Lev.12. The Holy Family’s offering of a pair of doves or pigeons rather than the customary lamb showed their poverty, as this was the minimum requirement of the law [Lev.12:8]. As Jesus was their firstborn son, the Temple ceremony would also have included consecrating the infant and presenting or offering the child back to God [Ex.13:2]. The family would then redeem him by buying him back for an offering of five silver shekels. (This was between one quarter and one half of a labourer’s yearly wage, so must have been a great extra expense for Joseph, on top of buying the sacrificial doves and possibly paying for over 40 days of accommodation in Bethlehem.) If Jesus had been blemished in any way this redemption price would not have been required.
The expense, the sacrifice of creatures’ lives and the requirements of a legalistic faith make one thankful that Christ overcame and removed the sacrificial system. Some fundamentalist Christians, especially in America, for some reason support the idea of rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple and the restoration of Jewish Temple worship. Some of these believe that this would be a way of hastening the return of Christ and the establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth. As well as the uncomfortable idea that they may be self-righteously wishing judgement upon themselves and others, this restoration of the Temple is surely a completely erroneous idea both for Christians and Jews. Have the Christians not read St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans or the Epistle to the Hebrews, with their condemnation of legalism and its emphasis on the new form of covenant which Christ established? And for Jews, the synagogue system established by the Pharisees is far more humane and less condemnatory. In our environmentally and ethically conscious age, how could any reasonable believers justify a return to the sacrificial system, which destroyed tens of thousands of creatures’ lives each year, simply as sacrifice for sins or thanksgiving? Jesus, by his self-giving, replaced all that suffering and superstition about ‘a life for a life’. He also showed that blood and childbirth do not make a woman ritually ‘unclean’ by both his birth and his involvement with the woman with a haemorrhage [Matt.9:20–22; Mk.5:25–34; Lk.8:43–48]. In the times of the Temple the hierarchical order of the Temple courts emphasised that women were less worthy to enter the presence of God. The Holy Family would have met Simeon either at the entrance to the Temple precincts or in the Court of the Women, as Mary, being female, would not have been allowed to penetrate any further into the Temple complex. How many feminist Christians or Jews would want to return to the concept that they were second-class worshippers, excluded from the central place of worship? Christ changed all that false hierarchy, valued all equally and opened a more egalitarian way for all to approach God.
Luke’s Gospel often shows Christ identifying with the poor and needy as the Messiah was prophesied to do. Joseph and Mary’s minimum sacrifice of two doves is indicative of their poverty. In our more comfortable culture parents usually receive gifts for a new child: Look at the obscene culture of commercially profitable ‘baby showers’ which we have unnecessarily imported! The ancient Hebrew religious pattern was different: God has blessed you with a child, you, in turn bless God by offering him or her back to God and buying the child back. You were offering something of eternal worth in thanks for a new life. The purification of the mother was rather different; the purification sacrifice was mostly about cleansing and only in a small part a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Presumably mothers were considered unclean because of their contact with blood in childbirth, which today we would consider perfectly natural. Do those Christians who want a restoration of the Jerusalem Temple wish to reinstate this now-unnecessary sacrifice too? It may have been relevant to wandering tribes, where the presence of blood could cause disease, and where childbirth was such a dangerous event. Childbirth can still be dangerous for many, but most of us have moved beyond old superstitions about it.
Luke probably used the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple partly to emphasise how Jesus’ nature should have been recognised by the religious establishment of his time. The elderly, devout Simeon recognised him, but the religious authorities did not. Only in Jesus discussions with the elders in the temple at the age of 12 did some of the authorities begin to affirm his learning [Lk.2:46-50]. Though Christian doctrine emphasises that Jesus was sinless, he conformed to all the Jewish religious rites and legal requirements in his naming, his mother’s purification, his presentation to the world. Luke’s next chapter describes Jesus going through the rite of baptism for the purification of sins, even though, doctrine asserts again that he was apparently sinless. Perhaps Jesus’ baptism was more of a dedication of himself to his Father God in preparation for his mission. Luke emphasised how Jesus identified with all human beings who he had come to save. The Evangelist shows this identification with the needy, even outcasts, at every stage of Jesus’ life, right through to his forgiveness of the thief crucified alongside Christ [Lk.23:43]. Jesus came to reveal God to humankind, but he is also like us, identifying with us, and showing by example the ways in which human beings can be reconciled to God.
Anna is an even more mysterious figure in this narrative than Simeon [Lk.2:36-38]. We are told very little about her; even Luke’s language about her age is not clear: it could mean that she was either 84 or 106 years old, so translators usually wisely opt for 84. Her tribal origin is also mysterious. She was from the tribe of Asher, which was considered to be one of the ‘lost tribes’ of Israel. These were the 10 tribes which were deported to Assyria c.722B.C.E. and were legendarily said to nave never fully resettled the land. Anna’s belonging to Asher may be used by Luke to suggest her longing for the consolation and stability by which the Messiah could restore her people. She praises God for the wonder that she foresaw in the child.
Anna seems to have been connected to the Temple for a long time, if she had been married young and the marriage only lasted 7 years before she became a widow [Lk.2:36-7]. Luke tells us that she had been committed to the Temple ever since she lost her husband: worshipping, fasting and praying there. Some suggest that she may have fulfilled a role of something like a Temple cleaner, as scripture tells us little if anything of the duties of Temple servants. But Luke emphasises her devout and prophetic qualities, which make her a similarly aged female counterpart to Simeon. Sadly Luke does not give us anything of Anna’s words about Jesus. He just tells us that “she was a prophet” [Lk.2:36] and that “at that moment she came and began to praise God and to speak about the child to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem” [Lk.2:38]. “Praising God and to speaking about the child “ may imply that the Holy Spirit filled her with an ecstatic prophecy. Scripture does not tell us much about women’s role in biblical prophecy, so we cannot be sure how Anna would have been regarded by the religious authorities of the time. As we are not told what Anna declared about Jesus, perhaps we could assume that her words may have been similar to those of Simeon and the declarations about Christ in the other canticles.
How grateful are we for the things that God has given us, and how do we thank God for them? In Anna’s praise and Simeon’s Nunc Dimittis, God is seen as the source of all the gifts lavished upon us. God is blessed for all the blessings he gives. Though we no longer offer animal sacrifices, since that ‘life-for-a-life’ bargain was done away with by Jesus’ death, we still owe God inestimable thanks for what we are given. Probably God deserves thanks and praise far more than we usually give. Many of us are very good at asking God for things, especially when we are desperate, but we do not so commonly thank God effusively for generosity towards us. So many of the songs in the Bible emphasise an effusion of thanksgiving and praise!
The Presentation in the Temple also leads me to consider how sacrificial we actually are in our lives of faith? The Eucharistic liturgy includes the idea that we offer “a sacrifice of praise”. The later Hebrew Scriptures often emphasise that God prefers integrity in worship to physical sacrifices [Mal.1:6-8, 14; 2:1-9]: “For you do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; You take no pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. [Ps.51:16-17] God does not need gifts from us, but we know ourselves how much being praised for what you have done for someone and how much their loving gratitude warms you in your relationship with them and cements you together. That’s surely how our sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving enrich our relationship with God. We see that in Simeon’s song, the ‘Nunc Dimittis’. It’s not so much an old man saying resignedly to God: “At last! You can take away my life now, because I’ve seen the coming of the one who God promised would bring Salvation”. It is more like an exclamation: “Thank you God!.. At last!... the salvation that I’ve been praying about for so long has come to my people! Thanks for this answer to all our prayers! Thanks, for we need no longer be worried about death!”
There was also a prophetic note to Simeon’s great song of thanks. His words recognise that this revelation by God is far more universal than the Messiah for whom Israel had been waiting. He proclaimed that Jesus was bringing light to the Gentiles and all nations. In looking at this little child, Simeon somehow recognised that in him God was embracing us, bringing us into the fold of his care. This vulnerable baby, in the care of an impoverished family held the promise for the raising of the whole world.
Simeon also recognised that such a blessing would come through intense pain for both the mother and the child. Just as in the blessing of a child and purification of the mother the doves were sacrificed, in the blessing of the world this child would give his life. His mother would experience the pain of this and much more. How much of that future Simeon and Anna actually recognised we can’t be sure. Luke was writing the account of them after the whole process of salvation that Jesus’ life brought had been completed. Anna and Simeon must have been long-dead by then. There may be a sense of retrospective gratitude in Luke’s Nunc Dimittis, yet its content gives us enormous cause for thanksgiving and praise. We aren’t just thankful for the gift of Christ to us; we pour out thanks that God’s promise of eternal life has been won for so many through Jesus Christ. The Ascension narrative suggests that Christ has returned to heaven to wait for us. We too can sing with Simeon: “Our eyes have seen your salvation, which you prepared in the presence of all peoples… a light to reveal God to us and to bring us, your chosen people, to your glory” [Lk.2:30-31].
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Simeon and Anna were old, near the ends of their lives but they had their minds open and were praying for new experiences and new revelations of God’s truth. Have life’s experiences left you spiritually sceptical, or are you open to expand your mind by looking out for new spiritual understanding? What would you like to thank God for today? How can you best express your thanks?
39 THE MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS
‘When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:
“A voice was heard in Ramah,
wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.”’ [Matt.2:16-18]
This incident is the most uncomfortable of all the aspects of the Christmas and Epiphany story. One would think that God’s justice would not allow the murder of so many innocent children for the sake of the survival of his son, the Redeemer sent into the world. If it really happened, it seems even more cruel than the death of Jesus on the Cross. Some critics and scholars believe that it is intended by Matthew as a parallel between Christ’s life and that of Moses. Many Jews were waiting for a leader who would be like a second Moses, who their scriptures prophesied would come to renew their nation [Deut.18:15–19]. Some scholars believe that the story of Herod and the Massacre of the Innocents was deliberately focused by Matthew so that Jesus could be seen as this new Moses. Moses too was born under a tyrannical leader and protected in Egypt. He was born into a period when Jewish children were being killed by the authorities to keep down the number of Israelites in slavery in Egypt [Ex.1:8-22]. Similarly at Jesus’ birth young boys were massacred by another dictator, afraid of challenges to his power, and Jesus’ family had to flee to Egypt to protect the child who would give the nation another spiritual lead, and bring redemption to another promised land: eternity. Both Jesus and Moses returned as saviours of their people. According to some sources there was a Hebrew tradition that Moses’ birth was also supposed to have been announced my magicians or magi to Pharaoh, but I have not found the source of this information.
Matthew’s Gospel is the only historical evidence for the mass-murder of male children of two years old or younger. Perhaps, if it was truly an historical event, it may have only been on a small local scale in a particular district. Bethlehem was a small town, with possibly about 2,000 inhabitants at the time, of which perhaps only about 20 male children of that age may have been alive at any one time. So despite Bethlehem’s political significance in its ancient connection with King David, events there might possibly not be officially recorded in detail in Jerusalem. The Roman governor however would have been certain to have had such an event reported to him. One would have thought that if it was on a large scale, and a liege king of an allied nation had perpetrated such a horror it would have been set down in the annals of occupied Israel or Rome. We know of Pilate’s mass-crucifixion of Jews and similar horrific events.
From what we know of Herod’s behaviour, especially in the late years of his rule, such an order would be in character. He married ten wives, but was so jealous of his favourite wife Mariamme that he had her murdered, as well as her mother, and grandfather. To maintain his dominance and sustain his power, Herod also murdered two of his brothers-in-law, one of whom was High Priest, three sons and a large number of his subjects. He would easily have been in a position to cover up records of his misuse of power, as are many despotic leaders in the world today. What someone will do to retain their position or authority is frightening. Look at similar horrors in the history of the world and even by Church inquisitions, perpetrated in the name of saving people’s souls! If even people who are supposed to live according to righteousness, justice, peace, love and conscience behave in inhuman ways towards others, it is understandable that a despot like Herod the Great could well have ordered the destruction of innocent infants.
Herod began as an able ruler and a loyal client-king governing Palestine under Roman imperial rule. He had been a friend and advisor of Mark Anthony and the Emperor Augustus. His father had been a supporter of Julius Caesar during his campaign in Egypt. As Herod was only half-Jewish, his ‘Romanising’ of Israel and his heavy taxation of his own people made him particularly unpopular among his subjects. He was surrounded by palace intrigues and became paranoid about possible assassination, so turned into a tyrant and built fortresses for self-protection. Even from his deathbed, while he is thought to have been dying of a combination of arteriosclerosis and ulcerated bowels, he ordered that thousands of leaders from all parts of Judea should be locked inside the hippodrome at Jericho and massacred. He apparently did so to make sure that there would be mourning at his death, even though people would be grieving for others, not for him. Thankfully his sister Salome, though she appears to have been similarly villainous, rescinded the order. As he was dying Herod also heard that his son and heir Antipater wanted him dead, so Herod had him immediately executed. In a temper, a man of that character could easily have demanded the massacre of children, as he had killed so many of his own. The contemporary Josephus called him “a man of great barbarity towards all men equally, and a slave to his passions.”
I have often tried to avoid ‘the Massacre of the Innocents’ as a subject: it is so unsavoury and uncomfortable. A few years ago when I had to include it in a series of Nativity paintings, I represented it as a pile of broken dolls to suggest the destruction of children without representing the horror. The subject raises many questions: Did it actually happen? Historians and archaeologists have not found in Hebrew or Roman records references to any large scale genocide. How could people act in such horrific inhuman ways? If God is all powerful why doesn’t he act to prevent horrors like this? If God is all-knowing, all-loving and good why wasn’t Jesus sent in a different way, so innocent lives wouldn’t have been sacrificed? We may struggle to answer such questions, but realistic, trusting faith needs to deal with them sometimes. Real life and aspects of our world are far from idealistic, and our theology needs to take this into account.
Though the massacre isn’t recorded elsewhere most historians agree that such inhuman behaviour was in Herod’s character: His family were insecure in power, notorious for their suspicion of each other and for destroying rivals to power: husbands had their wives killed, sons plotted to overthrow fathers, kings and emperors had their children and heirs murdered to protect their own position. Similar things happened in Ancient Rome. So ordering the destruction of peasant children would have hardly worried Herod’s conscience and covering it up in official records would have been easy. In our generation we’ve seen similar massacres of children in Belsen, Cambodia and Vietnam, Bosnia, Idi Amin’s Uganda, Iraq, Burundi, Libya, Rwanda, Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, the Yemen etc. Despotic powers easily harden their consciences to justify acts that Christians should consider inhuman. Even Christians do it: Look at the horrors perpetrated in the Crusades, destruction of heretics, the Salem witch-trials, the Catholic Inquisition, Protestant wars, Cromwell, the Ku-Klux Klan, Northern Ireland and Bosnia, - all maintaining what they believed to be ‘Christian Values.’
Why doesn’t God intervene and depose destructive despots as the Psalms and the Magnificat suggest [Ps.75:7; 85:44; Lk.1:52]? Wouldn’t it be wonderful and aid peace and unity if God did! We trust that eventually God will bring justice but it would save a lot of heart-ache if God stepped in to rescue us each time disaster or injustice happened? But isn’t that our role as Christian citizens of the world? We are each meant to be “our brother’s keeper” and ‘our world’s protector’. Human life and faith aren’t just for making our own lives and families secure. We are all meant to have a wider role: God’s covenant with Abraham promised that God would make his family flourish and grow, but God’s promises weren’t just for the people of Israel. Through them all the world was meant to find blessing. Israel and by extension all Christians are meant to be teachers of God’s ways and protectors of society throughout the world. That makes Herod’s despotic horrors all the worse: He was MEANT to lead a nation to bless others not destroy them. That’s also why modern Israel’s manipulation of international politics and some Christians’’ persecution of others are ironic. According to Israel’s divine covenant they are supposed to share the covenant in blessing all the peoples of the earth: “… through your offspring all nations of the earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.” [Gen.22:18]. Hebrew and Christian laws tell God’s followers to support the stranger and the needy in our midst, to work for godly peace and reconciliation, not just protect ourselves or escalating injustice.
We Christians have inherited this responsibility for others by being in-grafted into God’s covenant with Abraham, through Jesus. We say in the Anglican Eucharistic prayer: this is the “blood of the new covenant.” The Eucharist is partly our promise, our commitment to get involved with helping to solve the needs of the world in whatever small ways we can. We don’t just pray for God to intervene: the Christian Church needs to be part of God’s intervention. As Mary sang in the Magnificat: “God has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. He has brought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the lowly.” The Church hasn’t much power in our world today but the way we use any power or influence we have needs to be godly and work to bettering our world.
The French Catholic poet and author Charles Péguy, writing at the beginning of the 20th Century, before his untimely death at the beginning of the Great War, wrote of the Innocents massacred by Herod as the first Christian martyrs and imagined them waiting around the throne of God for the return of Christ after his Resurrection. Péguy called them: “the first-fruits of the earth, offered to God and to the Lamb. The other saints are the ordinary fruits, the fruits in season. But they are the fruits of the very promise of the season....they follow the Lamb himself without stain...they with him are without stain... the other martyrs are the fruits but these, among the martyrs, are the flowers themselves... those simple innocents are even before the fruit; they are the promise of fruit.... They are the flower itself, and the bud of the flower and the down on the bud.” [Charles Péguy ‘The Portal of the Mystery of The Holy Innocents’ p.162-3]. This of course is poetic language. (I imagined something similar, when I painted ‘Christ’s Rest in the Tomb’ [2000], with the souls of the Innocents gathered around him, reverencing his justification of their deaths.) We have no idea of the condition of life beyond this. We are just promised by God through Christ that beyond death all will be well. But the story of the Massacre of the Innocents gives the lie to mediaeval theologians’ invention of the idea that children who die before baptism and under the influence of Original Sin might not be redeemed. God’s justice and love would never condemn innocence. Péguy, at the time, was going against official Catholic Church teaching in his suppositions, but he was surely right in his concept of the far-reaching nature of God’s love towards the young early martyrs.
Matthew includes Jeremiah’s prophecy of Jacob’s most beloved wife, Rachel, weeping for her children and “refusing to be comforted because they were no more.” [Jer.31:15].. As Rachel was buried so close to Bethlehem, and her tomb was such a site of Jewish pilgrimage, the prophecy of Rachel weeping would have caught the imagination of Matthew’s Jewish readers. The town of Bethlehem had many associations with death as well as birth. Jeremiah’s prophecy was initially referring to the sorrows of the Jews in the Exile in Babylon and Assyria [Jer.31]. It is thought that Matthew’s Gospel was possibly written originally for Jewish Christians of the dispersion in Syria. Away from their religious centre Jerusalem, which had been despoiled by the Romans, they continued to be persecuted as Christians by their Jewish compatriots. They would have recognised parallels between Rachel, the death of innocents and their persecuted situation. Herod’s atrocities, the experiences of Rachel and later Jewish exiles were similar to the atrocities beginning to be meted out on early Christians. Persecutions became even worse in the following century.
The early Christians must have questioned what God was doing in all this suffering. The coming of Christ as Saviour, as recounted in the Gospels, only offered partial answers. The life of faith and righteousness, going God’s way, doesn’t pretend to be easy. Rachel had died following the way, as had some of her children and successors. Joseph and the rest of Jacob’s family had ended up in exile in Egypt, as Jesus would do through Herod’s persecution. Later Rachel’s people had suffered and been exiled to Mesopotamia, as Jeremiah recounted. Now Judea was suffering under Roman rule and the Jewish authorities had caused Christians to flee into exile into more distant lands. Yet the promise of healing of their sorrows, with the coming of a Saviour remained. Jesus, Matthew’s Gospel assures, would fulfil that promise by building a different form of Kingdom: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.” [Matt.5:10]. This does not make up for the pain of suffering, but it promises that those who suffer will eventually experience God’s peace.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Recall times of suffering in your life or the lives of those to whom you have been close. Consider how you have learned or grown through them. How has God been in there with you?
40 THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT “... Get up, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and remain there until I tell you... Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night and went to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod.” [Matt.2:13-15].
It has often been suggested that the move of the Holy Family into Egypt is a deliberate parallel with the People of Israel travelling to Egypt for survival during the famine at the time of Jacob and Joseph. It could equally parallel some of the Jewish people travelling to Egypt at the time of the later Exiles to Babylon and Assyria. Those who draw these parallels assume that the story is deliberately manufactured or designed to give credence to the prophecy quoted by Matthew: “Out of Egypt I will call (or ‘I called’) my Son.” [Hos.11:1]. Like many of the parts of the Gospels which critics believe to have been invented, it is interesting to consider why an early Christian would have bothered to make it up when there were so many other oral stories of Jesus and compilations of his teachings in circulation, which could have been included by the compilers of the Gospels. Just because the Messiah was considered to be a new Moses [Deut.18:15–19], does not mean that he would have had to journey to Egypt.
There are a few routes that a family could have taken from Bethlehem to Egypt, though the journey is not described in scripture. The obvious caravan trail would have taken them south on the Hebron road, then west to Gaza to follow the coastal road to the border area of Pelusium and into Egypt. The alternative route through the Sinai desert would probably have been regarded as too dangerous. The cC6th Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, (another apocryphal Gospel, partly compiled from the Protoevangelium of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) includes many mythic stories of converted robbers on the way to egypt (one of whom became the Penitent Thief crucified with Jesus,) and palm trees that bent down to feed Mary, but these are fictional. Another mediaeval, fictional legend told that, as Jesus crossed into Egypt, the idols and false gods of the land fell and broke because they could not stand in the presence of God. This is represented in many medieval and early Renaissance pictures of the Flight into Egypt, particularly in Northern European art, where breaking statues are shown toppling from their pillars. It’s a false tale yet has true spiritual implications about Jesus coming to reform and remove false beliefs: Are there any false gods, inadequate beliefs or false aspects of your lifestyle that you would like Christ to dispel as you pray and make resolutions to lead a more holy life?
Although Mary and Joseph would have been out of their cultural context in Egypt, they would probably not have felt isolated, depending on the area in which they temporarily settled. There were plenty of Israelites living in Egyptian cities – merchants, traders, exiles form Herod’s regime, Hebrew scholars in Alexandrian and other libraries, political ambassadors at the Egyptian courts, etc. Since the Ptolemaic dynasty had taken control of the leadership of Israel from 323-198 B.C.E., many links had been formed between Israel and its former old enemy Egypt When the Romans took over control of Judea [63B.C.E.] links with Egypt continued. At the time of Jesus it has been calculated that 40% of the population of Alexandria was Jewish, though it is unlikely that Mary and Joseph would have travelled that far west.
We do not know where they are supposed to have settled though a few traditions persist. In the Coptic quarter of Old Cairo, St. Sergius Church has a crypt, which was originally a cave, venerated from the C6th as the place where the Holy Family stayed for a 3 month sojourn. Near the ruins of Heliopolis, just outside Cairo, pilgrims used to visit the ‘Tree of Mary’, under which Mary legendarily sat in the shade. Several other Egyptian sites and churches are connected legendarily with the Flight into Egypt. The Egyptian Coptic Church is very proud of its associations with the Holy Family, so many Coptic traditions recall supposed connections with them.
We are not told how long Joseph and his family may have remained in Egypt, just that after the death of Herod an angel told Joseph in a dream to return to Israel. Legends suggest that they were there for between 3 months and 3 years. Even after the death of Herod one cannot say that Judea was particularly safe under his son Archelaus, whose reign as ethnarch of Judea, Samaria and Idomea began with a massacre of 3,000 Jews in the Jerusalem Temple, including pilgrims to the Passover Feast, in order to repress rebellion against him. His cruelty continued and after reigning as ethnarch for 9 years he was deposed by the Romans in 6C.E. after complaints to the emperor from leaders in Judea and Samaria. This resulted in Rome changing the form of leadership in the nation and introducing the role of ‘governors’ (of which Pontius Pilate became one.)
Matthew’s Gospel gives the impression that Joseph intended to return to settle in Bethlehem, where he probably had relatives and friends, and possibly work opportunities. However, the return to make a home in Galilee was considered to be safer, as the area was ruled by the tetrarch Antipas, another son of Herod the Great, but milder in character than his brother, and more subservient to the Emperor Augustus. The inclusion of Nazareth and Bethlehem in Jesus’ background links the two lines of Messianic prophecy to which Matthew and Luke point (that he would be a ‘Nazarene’, and that he would come from David’s town).
It has become fairly common in recent years to associate the Flight to Egypt with the plight of refugees and to identify Jesus with refugees. His family were not economic migrants; rather they were among those whose lives are seriously at risk in their homeland. Some of Matthew’s readers might have considered themselves as refugees in a similar situation too, possibly living in Syria, trying to keep away from the persecution of the Christian groups in Jerusalem and Judea. The story resonates with the idea that ‘the son of man had nowhere to rest his head’ [Matt.8:20] and also reflects the Church’s teaching that in our bodies now, and where we live, are not our permanent home, for we look for a more secure home in heaven [2Cor.5:1-9].
It is dangerous to over-stress our condition as ‘exiles’ or not value our present position. Waiting, either with patience or longing, for our place in heaven has been the mistake of many in church history. Some have neglected their bodies, families and other responsibilities for the sake of following Christ intensely. Nuns have starved themselves, hermits deprived themselves, penitents whipped themselves, scholars over-taxed themselves, the relatively wealthy given away all to secure a better place in heaven. Many have neglected their health. While abstinence can often be very healthy as it makes us consider our priorities, excessive abstinence can be as addictive as over-indulgence. We must protect ourselves from over-excess in both extremes. Jesus claimed that he had come to bring people “abundant life” [Jn.10:10]. He freed us from lives of slavery and legalism. A life of intentional excessive self-deprivation is not Christ’s intention for a good life. Jesus was criticised not for asceticism, but for attending feasts, eating and drinking with sinners [Matt.11:19; Lk.7:34]. But he came to bring people spiritually alive.
In whatever circumstances we find ourselves, we should learn to be content, as St Pail and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews recommended [Phil.4:11-14; Heb.13:5]. It is not self- indulgent to love and serve others, to keep true to God, to enjoy friendships, endure the problems of the world while working to alleviate some, to help to build God’s kingdom in small ways by our lives and ministry, and keep close to God in our worship and devotional life. That can all be part of the abundant life that Christ has achieved for us. At a time of year when we make resolutions for our future, may we resolve to balance our lives to live abundantly, - spiritually, physically, mentally, socially, culturally while following our mission. We need to apply God’s truth to every area of our lives. That way we make the most of what God has given us here, while we work and live towards whatever there is for us in the future, either here or in the spiritual dimension beyond.
For Contemplation and Prayer:
Jesus had to be protected while he grew, when he was at his most vulnerable. What do you do to protect and build up your faith and the abundance of your life, and those of others, to make you strong to withstand life’s pressures, dangers or concerns?