CHRISTMAS, 2008, lesson #1
December 14, 2008
First I want to thank you for the Christmas gift. As I use it I’ll remember your love and forbearance over this past year—and for the many years. Not all gifts are so thoughtful, though. Back when I was a basketball coach, on one December morning in the late ‘60’s after losing a close basketball game, I went to my mail box and my principal had gift-wrapped a road map for me. He was the principal who—I think it was the next spring—called me in one day and said, “Phil, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the school board has voted to renew your contract. The bad news is that the vote was 4 to 3.” So again, thank you; it has been a blessing for me to be the teacher of this class, and I try to never take that privilege for granted.
Before getting really Christmassy next Sunday, let’s look at how most latter day Christians have come to understand the Christmas story? We would like to think that for centuries and centuries the story was accepted just as first written. There have been disputes about parts of the Bible, though, since the first attempts to gather it into a canon. The ancient Christian fathers wrote much about this and had divided opinions themselves dating back to the first century. Then, in the eighteenth century came the Enlightenment era and progressively better tools for research into antiquity began to reveal inconsistencies in Bible translation. In fact, some of what we thought to be real stories of our faith turned out to be more myth than history. A true understanding, though, is more complicated than that, and usually recognizes that some of the Bible is literal/historical, portions of it are allegory, and a lot of it is somewhere in between. None of this, though, need reflect on the truth contained within. So our question for today is: should we think of Christmas as historical or allegorical?
To help us answer that let’s look at a well known passage of prophesy. In Isaiah 7:14 Isaiah tells King Ahaz, “Therefore (or behold) the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” Taken literally, it was King Ahaz to whom God would give this sign; not to Mary and Joseph, nor to the shepherds or wise men. Yet most early Christian writers interpreted the verse as a historical prophesy about the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, who would be the Messiah. Such stories describing an important birth were common in those times. But did New Testament writers borrow from these stories? After all, none of them were there at Jesus’ birth. But Isaiah was a prophet and the gospel writers, looking back at his words, probably thought them a fitting way to describe the birth of Jesus; a “virgin” will conceive and bear a son. So did it really happen that way? Most Christians today believe it did.
But there are others who read this differently. First of all, let me say that there has arisen, especially since the enlightenment, a cadre of Christian scholars who adamantly oppose the traditional understanding of the Christmas story—and, indeed, other parts of the New Testament. I will ignore this concern for the time being, though, not because their scholarship is right or wrong, but because today I want to concentrate on some Jewish beliefs as put forth by an immanent Jewish scholar named James L. Kugel.
In Kugel's opinion, (now remember, he is a Jew) the passage we just read is not prophesy of a coming Messiah, but refers to a son to be born to King Ahaz of Judah. It seems, in Kugel's opinion that the reign of King Ahaz was less than stellar and, thus, his subjects looked forward to him having a son who would replace him and bring peace and prosperity to the kingdom. So the prophet Isaiah, Kugel’s theory goes, was brainstorming for ways for the king’s reign to be salvaged and put this forth as a possibility. But was it just that, only a muse to King Ahaz (Kugel's belief), as opposed to a prophetic vision shared with him which is the belief of most Christian exegetes.
For many, the answer hinges on the meaning of two words. The first word of the passage, reads “Therefore”, or “Behold”, as in, “Behold, the Lord himself will give you a sign…” If this is the correct rendering of the ancient Hebrew text, then it has to be a prophesy given by God and relayed by Isaiah to King Ahaz. “Behold” in biblical jargon means something is about to happen or already has, so for the gospel writers Isaiah’s fore-telling had to be from God—for did it not happen? God announced the messiah right then and there, some 500 years before the fact.
But there is controversy about whether the original Hebrew word means, “behold”, (the traditional Christian understanding), or as Kugel and others believe, the Hebrew word means “suppose”, as in, “Suppose the Lord himself [would] give you a sign…” If their understanding is correct Isaiah and King Ahaz would be contemplating a positive ending for Ahaz’s reign and Isaiah’s words would have a whole different meaning. An imperative from God, “Behold”, becomes humans casting about for answers; “Suppose…”
Now, here is the kicker: no one knows who’s right. Even James Kugel admits the ancient word could reasonably be rendered either way. So let’s look at another example. Respected exegetes from strong faith backgrounds also have genuine differences about this. The ancient word that we have always assumed meant “virgin” is challenged by others who say it means “young woman”. Was the Messiah to be born of a virgin or was Mary an ordinary young woman? Our text says: “The virgin will be with child and give birth to a son…” and I would hazard a guess that few of us think twice when we read that sentence. For the meaning of “virgin” is obvious, and it fits with one of the major components of the Christmas story; Jesus (a son) was born of Mary (a virgin).
But again, Kugel and others read this differently. Their contention, based on what they consider to be good evidence, is that the word “virgin” only crept into the scriptural text during the third century, B. C. when the Bible was first translated into Greek. Now the pagan Greeks had many superstitions and religious beliefs involving virgins, so it was natural for them to render “young woman” as “virgin”, believing it fit the meaning. Quite by accident this gave early Christian writers the key they needed; Isaiah’s prophesy became the Christmas story. There was no malice aforethought intended by the Greeks, mind you; remember that they did their part three hundred years before the birth of Jesus. Quoting Kugel, “…Isaiah’s “young woman” was translated as “parthenos”, which probably did mean “virgin” to the translators. (It seems unlikely, however, that in so translating they meant to imply an actual…virgin birth; more likely, they simply meant that a virgin would get married, become pregnant in the usual way, and then give birth.)”
So understandings of Isaiah 7:14 vary greatly. Mostly, they are shaped by scholars 1) who come from vastly different backgrounds, 2) many of whom were separated by hundreds, even thousands of years, 3) and undoubtedly had faith predispositions that were difficult to overcome, if, indeed, they had any desire to do so. And then there are what I call quasi-exegetes who try to attract attention by publishing headline grabbing opinions and advertise them widely as fact in order to sell books. And believe me, there are plenty of those. “But wait”, as television pitchman Billy Mays says so gratingly, “there’s more.” There is, in fact, another way to understand the Christmas story as we will hear it once again this year. We have the option to cast our adult reservations aside, allow ourselves to become vulnerable, and simply believe!
But maybe we’re just too wise for that. This past Wednesday night I spoke at the Refresh Service and made this statement: “I challenge each of you to find a time, hopefully soon … that you can slip away and be alone. Maybe it will be outside, alone in a star lit back yard … Look up toward heaven and pick out a star (Any star will do; God made them all.), and, for that one night each year, become as one with the wise men. Ponder that star as they must have; gaze at it with a believing heart, knowing it is a special sign God created just for you … the birth of Jesus the savior, can happen in the manger of your heart. That is the really good news … So be still and know that this is Christmas—a time like no other for of all who dare to claim their star.”
Later it dawned on me, there are many who, if they heard that, would think I was losing my grip on reality, wouldn’t they; speaking to adults as if they were children. They see this as another Santa Claus, or Easter bunny, or tooth fairy tale and probably cringe, a little embarrassed for me, an old teacher who is beginning to drift a little as he ages. A friend of mine once laughingly told me that his father, on his death bed, asked him, “Do you think there could be anything to that Jesus and Christianity stuff?” He hadn’t put any stock in such things in his life and he had taught his son well. But now, all the doors of his life were closing and, sadly, he knew it. Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote from the prison in which he would be executed, “… [The world may have] surrendered on all secular problems, [but] there still remains the so-called ‘ultimate questions’—death [and] guilt—to which only ‘God’ can give an answer...” But to truly believe God can give an answer, or even that he has an answer to give, is difficult if you don’t believe in Christmas. And you can’t believe in Christmas without that star! Yes, it may sound unbelievable; it may even embarrass you to say you believe, maybe more to say what you believe, but that star seen by the wise men remains ever present. Maybe it was because they did see and follow that star that they were called “wise men” in the first place.
Actor and comedian, Woody Allen, once said, “The lion and the lamb shall lie down together, but the lamb won’t get much sleep.” Amusing as that is, I must disagree completely. And that brings me to the point of this lesson: the Bible is both history and allegory; so may be the Christmas story. But these words, we are taught, come from God’s Spirit to ours. So if I believe in a creator God, why would I have any problem believing in his holy star; and that special star would have no meaning at all without the Christmas story.
My proof of the veracity of Christmas is that it brings me peace—a “peace that passes understanding”. I have no need to verify that Jesus stuff; I choose to believe. Consequently, I have no problem with the lamb lying down with the lion. Neither, I believe, will the lamb.
December 14, 2008
First I want to thank you for the Christmas gift. As I use it I’ll remember your love and forbearance over this past year—and for the many years. Not all gifts are so thoughtful, though. Back when I was a basketball coach, on one December morning in the late ‘60’s after losing a close basketball game, I went to my mail box and my principal had gift-wrapped a road map for me. He was the principal who—I think it was the next spring—called me in one day and said, “Phil, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the school board has voted to renew your contract. The bad news is that the vote was 4 to 3.” So again, thank you; it has been a blessing for me to be the teacher of this class, and I try to never take that privilege for granted.
Before getting really Christmassy next Sunday, let’s look at how most latter day Christians have come to understand the Christmas story? We would like to think that for centuries and centuries the story was accepted just as first written. There have been disputes about parts of the Bible, though, since the first attempts to gather it into a canon. The ancient Christian fathers wrote much about this and had divided opinions themselves dating back to the first century. Then, in the eighteenth century came the Enlightenment era and progressively better tools for research into antiquity began to reveal inconsistencies in Bible translation. In fact, some of what we thought to be real stories of our faith turned out to be more myth than history. A true understanding, though, is more complicated than that, and usually recognizes that some of the Bible is literal/historical, portions of it are allegory, and a lot of it is somewhere in between. None of this, though, need reflect on the truth contained within. So our question for today is: should we think of Christmas as historical or allegorical?
To help us answer that let’s look at a well known passage of prophesy. In Isaiah 7:14 Isaiah tells King Ahaz, “Therefore (or behold) the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” Taken literally, it was King Ahaz to whom God would give this sign; not to Mary and Joseph, nor to the shepherds or wise men. Yet most early Christian writers interpreted the verse as a historical prophesy about the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, who would be the Messiah. Such stories describing an important birth were common in those times. But did New Testament writers borrow from these stories? After all, none of them were there at Jesus’ birth. But Isaiah was a prophet and the gospel writers, looking back at his words, probably thought them a fitting way to describe the birth of Jesus; a “virgin” will conceive and bear a son. So did it really happen that way? Most Christians today believe it did.
But there are others who read this differently. First of all, let me say that there has arisen, especially since the enlightenment, a cadre of Christian scholars who adamantly oppose the traditional understanding of the Christmas story—and, indeed, other parts of the New Testament. I will ignore this concern for the time being, though, not because their scholarship is right or wrong, but because today I want to concentrate on some Jewish beliefs as put forth by an immanent Jewish scholar named James L. Kugel.
In Kugel's opinion, (now remember, he is a Jew) the passage we just read is not prophesy of a coming Messiah, but refers to a son to be born to King Ahaz of Judah. It seems, in Kugel's opinion that the reign of King Ahaz was less than stellar and, thus, his subjects looked forward to him having a son who would replace him and bring peace and prosperity to the kingdom. So the prophet Isaiah, Kugel’s theory goes, was brainstorming for ways for the king’s reign to be salvaged and put this forth as a possibility. But was it just that, only a muse to King Ahaz (Kugel's belief), as opposed to a prophetic vision shared with him which is the belief of most Christian exegetes.
For many, the answer hinges on the meaning of two words. The first word of the passage, reads “Therefore”, or “Behold”, as in, “Behold, the Lord himself will give you a sign…” If this is the correct rendering of the ancient Hebrew text, then it has to be a prophesy given by God and relayed by Isaiah to King Ahaz. “Behold” in biblical jargon means something is about to happen or already has, so for the gospel writers Isaiah’s fore-telling had to be from God—for did it not happen? God announced the messiah right then and there, some 500 years before the fact.
But there is controversy about whether the original Hebrew word means, “behold”, (the traditional Christian understanding), or as Kugel and others believe, the Hebrew word means “suppose”, as in, “Suppose the Lord himself [would] give you a sign…” If their understanding is correct Isaiah and King Ahaz would be contemplating a positive ending for Ahaz’s reign and Isaiah’s words would have a whole different meaning. An imperative from God, “Behold”, becomes humans casting about for answers; “Suppose…”
Now, here is the kicker: no one knows who’s right. Even James Kugel admits the ancient word could reasonably be rendered either way. So let’s look at another example. Respected exegetes from strong faith backgrounds also have genuine differences about this. The ancient word that we have always assumed meant “virgin” is challenged by others who say it means “young woman”. Was the Messiah to be born of a virgin or was Mary an ordinary young woman? Our text says: “The virgin will be with child and give birth to a son…” and I would hazard a guess that few of us think twice when we read that sentence. For the meaning of “virgin” is obvious, and it fits with one of the major components of the Christmas story; Jesus (a son) was born of Mary (a virgin).
But again, Kugel and others read this differently. Their contention, based on what they consider to be good evidence, is that the word “virgin” only crept into the scriptural text during the third century, B. C. when the Bible was first translated into Greek. Now the pagan Greeks had many superstitions and religious beliefs involving virgins, so it was natural for them to render “young woman” as “virgin”, believing it fit the meaning. Quite by accident this gave early Christian writers the key they needed; Isaiah’s prophesy became the Christmas story. There was no malice aforethought intended by the Greeks, mind you; remember that they did their part three hundred years before the birth of Jesus. Quoting Kugel, “…Isaiah’s “young woman” was translated as “parthenos”, which probably did mean “virgin” to the translators. (It seems unlikely, however, that in so translating they meant to imply an actual…virgin birth; more likely, they simply meant that a virgin would get married, become pregnant in the usual way, and then give birth.)”
So understandings of Isaiah 7:14 vary greatly. Mostly, they are shaped by scholars 1) who come from vastly different backgrounds, 2) many of whom were separated by hundreds, even thousands of years, 3) and undoubtedly had faith predispositions that were difficult to overcome, if, indeed, they had any desire to do so. And then there are what I call quasi-exegetes who try to attract attention by publishing headline grabbing opinions and advertise them widely as fact in order to sell books. And believe me, there are plenty of those. “But wait”, as television pitchman Billy Mays says so gratingly, “there’s more.” There is, in fact, another way to understand the Christmas story as we will hear it once again this year. We have the option to cast our adult reservations aside, allow ourselves to become vulnerable, and simply believe!
But maybe we’re just too wise for that. This past Wednesday night I spoke at the Refresh Service and made this statement: “I challenge each of you to find a time, hopefully soon … that you can slip away and be alone. Maybe it will be outside, alone in a star lit back yard … Look up toward heaven and pick out a star (Any star will do; God made them all.), and, for that one night each year, become as one with the wise men. Ponder that star as they must have; gaze at it with a believing heart, knowing it is a special sign God created just for you … the birth of Jesus the savior, can happen in the manger of your heart. That is the really good news … So be still and know that this is Christmas—a time like no other for of all who dare to claim their star.”
Later it dawned on me, there are many who, if they heard that, would think I was losing my grip on reality, wouldn’t they; speaking to adults as if they were children. They see this as another Santa Claus, or Easter bunny, or tooth fairy tale and probably cringe, a little embarrassed for me, an old teacher who is beginning to drift a little as he ages. A friend of mine once laughingly told me that his father, on his death bed, asked him, “Do you think there could be anything to that Jesus and Christianity stuff?” He hadn’t put any stock in such things in his life and he had taught his son well. But now, all the doors of his life were closing and, sadly, he knew it. Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote from the prison in which he would be executed, “… [The world may have] surrendered on all secular problems, [but] there still remains the so-called ‘ultimate questions’—death [and] guilt—to which only ‘God’ can give an answer...” But to truly believe God can give an answer, or even that he has an answer to give, is difficult if you don’t believe in Christmas. And you can’t believe in Christmas without that star! Yes, it may sound unbelievable; it may even embarrass you to say you believe, maybe more to say what you believe, but that star seen by the wise men remains ever present. Maybe it was because they did see and follow that star that they were called “wise men” in the first place.
Actor and comedian, Woody Allen, once said, “The lion and the lamb shall lie down together, but the lamb won’t get much sleep.” Amusing as that is, I must disagree completely. And that brings me to the point of this lesson: the Bible is both history and allegory; so may be the Christmas story. But these words, we are taught, come from God’s Spirit to ours. So if I believe in a creator God, why would I have any problem believing in his holy star; and that special star would have no meaning at all without the Christmas story.
My proof of the veracity of Christmas is that it brings me peace—a “peace that passes understanding”. I have no need to verify that Jesus stuff; I choose to believe. Consequently, I have no problem with the lamb lying down with the lion. Neither, I believe, will the lamb.
No comments:
Post a Comment