I have been reading the commentary on the conception in Matthew's gospel in the Birth of the Messiah book I'm tackling over break. It has some big surprises, parts of which make slightly uncomfortable. For instance, the angel says to Joseph that Mary is "with child through the Holy Spirit." Raymond Brown, the author of this book, explains that this "through" emphasizes Jesus was conceived in a non-sexual way. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit was feminine in Hebrew and neuter in Greek, so there's no hint that the Holy Spirit is a male agent impregnating Mary. Jesus is conceived through the creative action of the Holy Spirit.
Why does this make me uncomfortable? Because Christians are continually, and often rightly, accused of being uncomfortable with sex. (Of course, the Bible does celebrate sex as one of God's good gifts, the Song of Songs being a primary example.) A virginal conception that deliberately avoids sex does not help our bad image in this regard. I guess the answer is that Jesus is fundamentally different from all of humanity. Jesus, although fully human, is not like the rest of us, so he had to be conceived differently. It's not that sex is dirty, but that Jesus is ontologically (philosophy coursework is coming in handy!) other from the rest of humanity. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the virginal conception. I admit it. I'm hoping reading and reflecting further will help me understand.
The angel goes on to command Joseph to name his son "Jesus," because "he will save his people from their sins." The original meaning of the Hebrew name "Yeshua," the Greek equivalent of which is "Jesus," was "YHWH helps." But popular etymology led people to think it meant "YHWH saves." That's one of many examples of the fact the Bible is not a history or science book. The angel graciously speaks in the idiom of the people to communicate the saving power of Jesus. Just like Matthew uses a genealogy, which would have been important to Jews of his day, his angel uses popular, not linguistically proper, etymology, to convey the good news. So churches and Christians have to find new ways that speak to people today the timeless unchanging gospel.
Here's something else interesting here. Matthew is writing against adoptionist Christology that says Jesus was only Christ, or only God's Son, at the time of the resurrection or baptism by John the Baptist. By including the infancy narrative and the virginal conception, Matthew emphasizes that Jesus was the Son of God during his whole time on earth. Interestingly, there's a grain of truth the adoptionist heresies. Orthodox Christians should affirm that Jesus was uniquely exalted upon his resurrection and ascension into heaven. And the biblical accounts of Jesus' baptism portray, in my view, Jesus accepting his unique vocation of sonship and God the Father affirming that vocation. (Good to know it took Jesus until thirty to discern his vocation! That should comfort those of us who go back and forth on what we think we are called to do. Which reminds me; I don't know if I've ever heard a sermon preached on Jesus' baptism, and I think you could easily wring a good month of sermons out of that story and change hearts in the process. Anyway...) But Matthew says Jesus always was the Son of God. Now, according to Raymond Brown, Matthew and Luke do not espouse preexistence Christology like that of John-- "In the beginning was the Word." They don't deny preexistence; they just don't advance it. I'm not sure I agree completely with Brown given the Jewish conception of deity and certain aspects of Matthew and Luke's gospels. Both implicitly and occasionally explicitly highlight Jesus' divinity. Can a divine being have a beginning? I don't think a Jewish monotheist could say yes.
But I'm getting off into the weeds. The point is that the biblical authors should be read in dialogue, with each other and with false teaching. The church has to listen to the biblical witnesses together and separately, and apply the timeless gospel to the false teachings of the day. I don't think there are many adoptionists, per se, in our midst today. But there are people who insist on the humanity of Jesus in ways that tread on his divinity. Christmas holds together the paradox of Jesus, son of David, son of God. I'll continue to think about other contemporary issues the Christmas story can address.
Here's another controversy in Matthew, one that conservative Christians and skeptics have woefully misunderstood. He quotes Isaiah 7:14 in reference to Mary and writes in Greek: "The virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel, which means, God with us." Now, the Isaiah passage in Hebrew reads "young woman," not virgin, and does not refer to an extraordinary child at all, let alone a Messiah. The child, conceived and borne quite normally, is supposed to be a sign to Israel to continue hoping in God. That's all. So was Matthew just stupid? Was his copy of the OT messed up? This gets into some complicated textual issues I don't understand about the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) and Syriac translations.
But the lessons for the church are manifold here. Most importantly, Jesus is the ultimate sign of God's presence and the fulfillment of all prophecies and signs. I could never say it in my public liberal arts college philosophy and religion courses, but I do believe Jesus Christ is the true fulfillment of all these prophecies and religious hopes. Muslims find hope in the sunna of Muhammad, a perfect man to show the way. Sound like Jesus, anyone? Plato thought to agathon, the good, is the highest Form that holds all things together, holy and inscrutable, knowledge of which is salvation. Sound like the Trinity, Which is Love? Of course Jesus is the best fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy, and any prophecy. Jesus is God with us.
Also, the Greek Matthew uses in his citation of Isaiah 7:14 says en gastri hexei (found to be with child), which is not present in the LXX verse but is a phrase throughout the LXX referring to births of important patriarchs and judges. Jesus is like them, incorporates their greatness, and yet surpasses them. Isaac was not God-with-us in the same way Jesus is, and to the extent that Isaac was great or important or utilized by God, this is only because of Jesus. En gastri hexei-- the hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.
I have hundreds of pages left to read, so there's plenty left to say about the infancy narratives! I haven't even gotten to questions of historicity yet; I'm definitely talking and thinking about them soon, though.
More to come! Let's see if I can finish the book by Christmas!
But I'm getting off into the weeds. The point is that the biblical authors should be read in dialogue, with each other and with false teaching. The church has to listen to the biblical witnesses together and separately, and apply the timeless gospel to the false teachings of the day. I don't think there are many adoptionists, per se, in our midst today. But there are people who insist on the humanity of Jesus in ways that tread on his divinity. Christmas holds together the paradox of Jesus, son of David, son of God. I'll continue to think about other contemporary issues the Christmas story can address.
Here's another controversy in Matthew, one that conservative Christians and skeptics have woefully misunderstood. He quotes Isaiah 7:14 in reference to Mary and writes in Greek: "The virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel, which means, God with us." Now, the Isaiah passage in Hebrew reads "young woman," not virgin, and does not refer to an extraordinary child at all, let alone a Messiah. The child, conceived and borne quite normally, is supposed to be a sign to Israel to continue hoping in God. That's all. So was Matthew just stupid? Was his copy of the OT messed up? This gets into some complicated textual issues I don't understand about the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) and Syriac translations.
But the lessons for the church are manifold here. Most importantly, Jesus is the ultimate sign of God's presence and the fulfillment of all prophecies and signs. I could never say it in my public liberal arts college philosophy and religion courses, but I do believe Jesus Christ is the true fulfillment of all these prophecies and religious hopes. Muslims find hope in the sunna of Muhammad, a perfect man to show the way. Sound like Jesus, anyone? Plato thought to agathon, the good, is the highest Form that holds all things together, holy and inscrutable, knowledge of which is salvation. Sound like the Trinity, Which is Love? Of course Jesus is the best fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy, and any prophecy. Jesus is God with us.
Also, the Greek Matthew uses in his citation of Isaiah 7:14 says en gastri hexei (found to be with child), which is not present in the LXX verse but is a phrase throughout the LXX referring to births of important patriarchs and judges. Jesus is like them, incorporates their greatness, and yet surpasses them. Isaac was not God-with-us in the same way Jesus is, and to the extent that Isaac was great or important or utilized by God, this is only because of Jesus. En gastri hexei-- the hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.
I have hundreds of pages left to read, so there's plenty left to say about the infancy narratives! I haven't even gotten to questions of historicity yet; I'm definitely talking and thinking about them soon, though.
More to come! Let's see if I can finish the book by Christmas!
No comments:
Post a Comment