-
THE FIRST CHRISTMAS
or Close
The Puritan parliament, in the 1600s, viewed it from a different viewpoint - and banned it as
“a time of wasteful and debauched behaviour” and “a popish festival with no biblical justification”,
No doubt there are people with similar views today, but condemning it as unjustified does seem harsh.
Surely it is worth celebrating the birth of Jesus.
The First Christmas package which comes from the book of the same name, by a couple of American theologians.
** Marcus Borg: (1942-2015) Author: 21 books on theology. “Christianity is not all about me and my concerns.”
** Dominic Crossan: (1934--) Ex-Irish RC priest. Theologian and author.
In the Bible, there are two versions of the story of the birth of Jesus, both were written in the last half of the first century.
Earlier writers (Paul and Mark) make no real mention of it.
Mark's Gospel starts with the baptism of Jesus as an adult - as does John's.
St Paul writes only that "Jesus was descended from David according to the flesh" and that he was "born of a woman under the law".
It would seem that the birth stories appeared later in the Christian tradition.
Somehow the two stories do seem to interlock,
which is how we get the familiar tale that we all remember from Sunday School.
It doesn't always work, but it is near enough - if you don't look too closely.
Matthew and Luke have created/rwcorded these birth stories as lead-ins, or overtures, to the Gospels that are to follow.
All four Gospels then come together to tell the story of the baptism of Jesus.
As with a musical event, the overtures point out the key points in what is to follow,
so that we are ready for them when they come up in the main story.
Matthew' story of Herod's slaughter of the children in Bethlehem is a case in point.
Matthew is pointing out a theme that is to come in the body of his Gospel,
by equating a story about Jesus with the story of how Moses escaped from the slaughter of Jewish children in Egypt.
When reading this Gospel we might see Jesus as imitating Moses by challenging authority
and attempting to lead his people out of the Empire of Rome, or as the lawgiver in the Sermon on the Mount.
We'll find similar pointers in Luke's birth story, when we get there.
Matthew starts with the Genealogy of Jesus, plotting his descent from Abraham, via David.through 40 generations.
Luke also includes a genealogy, but it is in Chapter 3, along with his baptism.
Both lists carefully avoid saying that Joseph was the father of Jesus..
Matthew only goes back to Abraham, rather than to Adam, because Son of Abraham, implies that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s covenant.
As the Son of Abraham, Jesus is a new Abraham, the Founder of a new chosen people.
There five anomalies in the genealogical list, which don't seem to fit with the general pattern of Matthew's account.
The inheritance through the male line would, of course, have been natural in those days and maybe is still so today,
so the inclusion of the females is noteworthy. And must be meaningful.
Four of the five ladies had shady pasts.
** Verse 3 Tamar comes up up in Genesis 8. (behaved as a prostitute)
** V5 Rahab is in Joshua 2 – she starts off as a prostitute in the city of Jericho.
** V5 Ruth seduces Boaz - on the threshing floor
** V6 The “wife of Uriah” was the infamous Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11)
Maybe Matthew is implying that Mary too had something in her background.
She doesn't get much of a press in the rest of his story:
-- She only appears twice after the birth narrative and both times things are a bit strained.
So maybe Matthew does have something against her - or against the churches that focus on her.
Only John has Mary at the Crucifixion. The others say Mary there is mother of James and Jose.
However pregnancy before actual marriage was hardly an unusual situation even in those days.
In fact I read that the Bible doesn't condemn sex before marriage. ( Nor did the Anglican Church until the 1700s.)
What the Bible does condemn is “immorality”, which is defined as "behaviour that is outside society's standards of what is acceptable".
Matthew, of course, assures us that they didn't “come together” before the wedding, which might well have been the attitude of his urban society.
The view in rural Galilee, a generation or so earlier, might well have been much more like that in Britain 300 years ago, or even today.
In fact the bar on pre-marital sex in UK largely derives from the idea that a marriage isn't legal until it is formalised in church, which came in 1753,
before that living together was seen as the key step, and pregnant brides were common-place.
Perhaps the key is really making a commitment to each other rather than any church-sponsored ceremony.
Joseph initially planned to dismiss her quietly - so letting her take the burden and any blame, but has a change of heart and married her after all.
But, really, he didn't have any choice.
As they were engaged, everyone would have assumed it was his baby, so if Joseph had “dismissed her quietly” he had a lot to lose.
If he dumped Mary, other girls, and their parents, in their small community might well become very wary of any involvement with him.
The change of heart is said to be brought about by Matthew's equivalent of Luke's Annunciation, which was, of course, to Mary and in Nazareth.
An angel appears to Matthew in a dream and gives him some sound advice...
If we dismiss the wings and halo, this sounds like a very realistic account of Joseph thinking it through overnight and coming to a sensible conclusion.
Matthew slots other points into this angelic visit: spiritual conception- save people form their sin - call his name Jesus.
And then we come to that contentious verse 23!
The virginity of Mary is something on which both Matthew and Luke seem to agree.
Some believe that Mary remains a virgin even as she holds her baby in her arms - but that probably derives from later ideas.
(The idea of perpetual virginity came from the Gospel of James in the 2nd century)
Even though, this verse does remain as a stumbling block to many, the virginity of Mary is important to orthodox doctrine ;
If Jesu had a human father, he was just like us, so could not be God.
If he had a human father, he would have inherited the original sin passed through the generations, so could not be without sin
This would undermine the theory of his atonement for our sins - a perfect sacrifice and so on.
In the ancient world, most important men, particularly Caesar, were said to have divine parentage. Jesus could not be excluded!
There is, surprisingly no account of the wedding, nor of the actual birth.
In fact there is nothing much about Mary or Jesus either
It is a very male account. First she was pregnant, then, somehow there was a baby.
The rest of our Christmas pageant comes from Luke's account
Luke's story is longer than Matthew's.
Instead of starting with a genealogy for Jesus, it starts with the story of the birth of John the Baptist,
It is then centred on Mary (whose role in Matthew is almost passive).
They are very different stories, even though they can, largely, be combined into one, - as they usually are.
There are several ideas of why Luke started off with the story of John's birth:-
**One idea is that John's story represents the conclusion, or closure, of the Old Testament.
His birth to aged parents mirrors that of Isaac to Sara and Abraham in Gen 17.
**Another is the story makes a comparison of the old and the new ways of doing things
Instead of aged parents and weight of tradition, we have a birth to a virgin and a lack of formality.
**Another is that Luke is emphasising (in his Overture) John's role as the promised forerunner for the Messiah.
Isaiah 40:3-5 (700 B.C.) (as quoted bt Matthew at Mt3.1-3) The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the LORD; "
Malachi 3:1 (430 B.C.) As quoted by Matthew at Mt11:7-10:“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before Me."
** It could also be that Jesus became a disciple of John and that John was seen as the teacher who inspired the ministry of Jesus
It is not until verse 27, that Mary enters the story, in what we call the Annunciation.
As we know, Mary replies “You must be joking” or biblical words to that effect.
The angel assures her it is going to happen because God wills it to be so.
This sounds rather like the doctrine of Predestination
In fact Mary replies “Be it to me according to your word”
Obedience is key.
So Mary then sets off to see her cousin Elisabeth.
The Bible says that Elisabeth lived in a village near Jerusalem, in the hill country.
That would have been a long and dangerous journey of about 80 miles from Nazareth
so 2 or 3 days journey over rough country and with the threat of bandits.
Is it possible that her own parents/village might have thrown her out
(it's a wild idea but common enough a hundred years or so ago)
The story would make much more sense if The Holy Family had lived in Bethlehem as Matthew told us.
The journey to Elisabeth would teh have only been a few miles and the accounts would have begun to hang together more.
Yet this would have meant sacrificing the image of Jesus's peasant roots.
Mary's visit to Elisabeth gives the opportunity for Luke to include two wonderful songs. (Magnificat and Benedictus.)
The Magnificat comes in the liturgy of the BCP's Evening Prayer. In Luke's story it was sung by Mary
It is said to be modelled on a hymn attributed to Hannah, the mother of the prophet Samuel in about 1000 BC..
Anyway of very ancient origin, emphasising, again, the Old Testament links of the whole story.
Listening to the words we might hear:
He has scattered the proud, brought down rulers, filled the hungry - all very much part of Luke's overall message.
Whilst Matthew's Jesus is the Mosaic leader of his people,
Luke's call is for the downfall of the proud rulers through communal action
After this,Mary hangs around for about 3 months before she returns home.
I do find this extended stay rather surprising, even though it adds reality.
Mary's visit allows the focus to slide easily back to the story of the birth of John the Baptist,,
Since an earlier part of the story, John's father has been dumb, because he doubted the word of the angel Gabriel.
Now John has been born and is about to be baptised. (Luke 1 57-63)
Luke's story teaches a lesson about doubt.
Both Mary and Zacharias doubt at first, but then accept what they are told.
Doubt, it seems, is not condemned, so long as it is paired with obedience,
Another thing that we might find surprising in the baptismal story is that a female speaks up,
This is also the first report of writing in the New Testament, which may be meaningful.
John was seemingly educated at one of the desert communities.
From there he eventually appears as the leader of a revivalist movement
We don't meet him again in the Christmas part of the story.
However, Luke now has the problem that the Messiah is due to be born in Bethlehem,
Bethlehem is so important to the story
It was the city of David- the King of Israel when it was seemingly a major power in the area.
Since then the Psalms spoke of a descendant of David who would be the Anointed One
and that is followed by a rash of prophetic announcements.
The concept has become part of folk-law.
But being the Messiah also meant taking on David's role as a warrior King.
That doesn't fit the notion that we have of Jesus, nor of the message that Luke has been promoting.
Jesus just does not seem to fulfil popular expectations!
Jesus himself largely avoided the Messianic designation because it had developed misleading connotations.
It needed a rethink - or new teaching surplanting the old view with a more realistic option.
The Jews were never going to conquer Rome by force of arms, but they have done so by moral persuasion, perhaps.
Jesus himself largely avoided the designation because it had developed misleading connotations.
During his lifetime Jesus re-educated, or tied to re-educate, his followers
so that they would have another appreciation of the role of Anointed/Christ/Messiah.
While his contemporaries looked for a king who would exercise political and military control from Jerusalem,
Jesus taught that his kingdom would not be defined by political boundaries but would embrace people from every nation.
This was a major shift in theology and was, perhaps, a major division between Christianity and Judaism
- which, I am told, still looks forward to a Davidic Messiah.
As you know Luke presents a reason for the family to travel to Bethlehem - but it doesn't hold up historically.
Caesar Augustus was never known to have ordered a census for the whole world all at once;
the registration for taxation purposes occurred indeed under Quirinius
but that was in 6 AD after Herod’s death and well after Jesus was born.
Neither it would be necessary for the head of the household to take his family to register.
Luke's solution doesn't really seem to work Maybe he didn't intend it to.
Maybe he is indicating that the journey has a spiritual rather than a material meaning.
Maybe Bethlehem itself is a red-herring, used metaphorically to emphasise the status of Jesus.
Matthew doesn't mention any of this, nor the ox and ass, that we sing about in our carols
In fact they don't appear anywhere in the Gospels.
The inn of Luke's Gospel would have had rooms around a central courtyard, where the animals were kept overnight.
Mary, apparently, gave birth in a very public place and the baby was put into an animal feeding trough.
That situation is important to the story - (humility, - contrast)
However both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem
which brings us to the end of the pre-Christmas stories.
Luke's story continues through the visit of the Shepherds, who receive an angelic visit.
The theme of Joy opens Luke's account of the angelic visitation, but include other themes:
"Jesus as Lord", "Jesus as Saviour", "Jesus as the bringer of Peace".
The book equates these titles to calling Jesus "Der Fuhrer" in Munich in 1939.
In the time of Jesus, Caesar was designated Saviour of the world and the one who has brought peace.
He was also, of course, "Lord of All".
So, these titles express direct conflict with authority, an idea that resurfaces
** In Chapter 4 the people are so infuriated that they try to throw Jesus over a cliff
** In chapter 14-16 when Jesus faces up to the arguments and challenge of the Pharisees.
Many of the parables are framed as challenges to someone important.
In another scholarly book, I read that Jesus did not stand against the historic faith of his people,
but against its misinterpretation to fit the needs of those in authority.
Fear not said the angel
"Fear not, Zacharias" (Luke 1:13). When he was struck dumb.
"Fear not, Mary" (Luke 1:30). When she was told that she was pregnant
"Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy (Luke 2:10).
Overcoming fear seems to focus largely in Luke's account.
In the wonders that accompany the ministry of Jesus, Luke's gospel tells us that people respond with fear.
In the same way that they do in these angelic visits.
In some cases they even told Jesus to leave their town as a result.
However
The chorus of the angels promotes one of Luke's main themes - Peace !
Luke emphasises Peace again and again as a Gospel imperative.
It comes up in the song of Zacharias which we made into the Benedictus
and in the song of Simeon, which became the Nunc Dimittis
and the very first words that Jesus says to the disciples in Luke's resurection account are "Peace be with you".
Peace seems to a keynote of Christianity.
We can see the cost of war today in Gaza and Ukraine, and our parents experienced the same in Western Europe and Burma.
When we consider all the evil that total war generates, maybe Peace at all costs is a worthwhile principle.
"Tuen the other cheek", said Jesus.
After the shepherds left, we skip on to the circumcision of Jesus when Mary was ritually clean enough to have visitors.
Mary would have been 7 days in seclusion and then another 33 before she was allowed to go out in public
and so ready for a journey to the Temple for the presentation of Jesus.
So perhaps the shepherd's visit should have come after this as Mary was meant to spend 7 days in seclusion after the birth.
However that is not the point at issue.
Circumcision was a hygenic practice, identified as beneficial before 4000 BC, and often turned into a religious ritual.
Scientifically the 8th day is the safest day for circumsion due to the progress of blood clotting and healing in the baby.
By the time of Jesus, circumcision was performed at the Temple or synagogue by a priest.
Earlier it was a family activity performed in the home., generally by the Father-in-law .
In the time of Jesus the naming of a child was a part of the circumcision ceremony.
Theolgians get in a right twiddle over this verse.
Circumcision was apparently needed theologically to remove the problem of original sin.
Yet our doctrine tells us that Jesus was born without sin, so didn't need this operation.
Somehow the medical necssity has become confused with a spiritual one.
Anyway, Mary followed the traditional way - as we all tend to do.
Then she couldn't venture out for 33 days after her time of seclusion.
“It appears, from Leviticus 12:1-6, that for the first seven days,
every woman who had borne a child, was considered as unclean
in so great a degree, that whoever touched or conversed with her was polluted.
For thirty-three days more, she could not partake in the solemnities of public worship.
At the conclusion of this term, she was commanded to bring certain sacrifices to the temple,
by the offering of which the stain laid on her by the law was wiped off,
and she restored to all the purity and cleanness she had before.
This was the law of the purification after bearing a son.
But for a daughter, the time of separation was doubled.
Forty days after he was born, we are told that Jesus was carted off for the six miles to the Temple at Jerusalem.
To perform all the rituals need for a first born son. There we meet Simeon (a priest) and Anna (a prophetess).
The response of Simeon to Jesus has become another of the standard Canticles of the church – The Nunc Dimmittis,
a song which embraces the heart of Luke's message
The song is rife with allusions to the OT, for example from Isaiah 52:10
"for mine eyes have seen your salvation" or Isaiah 49:6 "I will make you a light to the gentiles"
This is the perfect opportunity for Luke to proclaim the heart of his message about Jesus.
Salvation including the gentiles, Peace, glory for Israel
Moving on to the priestess, Anna..who was 104 years old, it seems.
She doesn't actually seem to have said much in her prophetic role.
What did she do, or say, was to tell others, which points to another of Luke's themes
Anyway now his parents are free to take Jesus back to Nazareth
Where he grew up and eventually must have gone to college and so on.
Which is where we leave him for the moment,
After the birth of Jesus, the Maji appear at Herod's court with their question about the Messiah,
and the Bible tells us that Herod consulted his own wise men,
who found an obscure prophecy from the book of Micah which seemed to provide an answer.
The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem!
The Romans had appointed King Herod as King of Judea in 37 BC.
Historians agree that Herod had a hugely successful reign.
He increased the land that he governed to include Palestine with parts of modern Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
He constructed fortresses, aqueducts and amphitheatres,
It all earned him the title of Herod the Great.
He was a great man, but “lost it” in his riper years, becoming suspicious, cruel, and domineering.
He had his wife killed because of a rumour that she was plotting against him
– and he was ready to respond appropriately to any threat to his reign.
Which is where the Bible story comes in
So Bethlehem was identified and Herod sent the wise men on their way.
Report back he said!
Having paused on its journey, the Star now leads the Magi onward to Bethlehem.
Maybe it had been going there in the first place, but the Maji ignored it
or maybe travelling via Jerusalem was on the best route to Bethlehem.
Matthew did need to get the news across to Herod, somehow, because Herod is to become crucial to his story.
A Leading Star was not uncommon in antiquity, and was even foundational to Roman mythology
( one led the Trojans Westward to Italy to found the city of Rome)
So we get back to Mary and Jesus, who are now in a house, though in Matthew's eyes they had always been.
The wise men, worship the baby, hand over gifts and then set off home
There hasn't been any mention of Kings yet, or of there being only three of them.
The number of gifts presented to the baby Jesus gives us the clue to the number of maji.
They became Kings inceasingly from the second century onward.
Maybe to disassociate them from magic and the study of stars, considered heretical in early Christianity.
Once they are gone, Joseph has a dream.....
Joseph is warned to take flight out of Herod's reach - so we are told that he leads the family off to Egypt
The quotation comes from Hosea 11:1 :
“When Israel was a youth I loved Him, and out of Egypt I called My son”
- which refers to the escape of the Israelites in the time of Moses.
Mattthew's story makes a lot of allusions to the Old Testament.
In his Gospel he directly quotes the Old Testament 40 times and 5 times in his birth narrative.
This was the common language of a Godly man of his time, steeped in the scriptures.
The first two came at Mary's conception and at Herod's search for Jesus.
The Hosea quotation comes when the Family leavesa for Egypt.
Jeremiah is part of the slaughter of the children
and the last quotation “he will be called a Nazarene” is from an unknown source.
Matthew is saying, through all these references, that this is part of God's plan, or even that God has a plan for mankind.
Some see these references as proof that Jesus is the promised Messiah, but maybe that was not Matthew's point.
Matthew is pointing out that Jesus was a continuation of the Old Testament story,
which was something importatnt to the faith of Jewish Chistians.
Once Herod heard of the threat of the potential threat of yet another Messiah -
( not the first that he had had to deal with) his course was clear!
The only evidence for this story comes from the Bible, but then it was hardly a noteworthy event.
The population of Bethlehem was under one thousand at the time, so the number of babies affected was probably only 2 or 3.
Hardly worth a footnote to any historian.
However it is a story loved by the church and valuable to Matthew's purpose
Matthew is establishing his view of Jesus as the new Moses
through a parrallel with the slaughter of the Israelite children by Pharoah (Exodus 1:15-22 ).
He is also pointing to the evil ways of the authorities
and even to the murderous resistance of Kings and Rulers to the coming of the Kingdom of God..
Here Matthew's parrallel with ancient prophecy is with the prophet Jeremiah
( Ramah and the tomb of Rachel are places in the Bethlehem area.
Rachel could be said to be mother of the tribe of Ephraim which was settled around Bethlehem.)
Herod the Great eventually dies so Joseph feels free to go home, but needs Jesus to end up in Nazareth.
That Herod's son has taken over makes a viable reason for the change of venue.
There are two strange things that Matthew seems to have got wrong here.
The first is that the quotation “He will be called a Nazarene” doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the Old Testament.
In fact the word Nazarene doesn't seem to figure anywhere else in the Bible.
The second is that Nazareth was a small village, not a city
Matthew doesn't seem to care about such details.,
And perhaps nor should we....
So we are left with two conflicting accounts of the first few years of the life of Jesus,
maybe crafted to provide a prologue to the meat of the story that is yet to come.
They could be called parables – just as Jesus told parables.
Whether they are factually true is immaterial.
What is important is that they expose the thrust of the Gospel accounts to come, which can often get lost in the detail.
But this is where we end the story,