The Christmas story.

When you think of Jesus at Christmas, what image come to mind?  The truth is that we are surrounded by images at this time of year. Card shops, retail outlets of all sorts, social media posts bombard us with images of a stable, a star, 3 Kings etc that the image of the baby in the manger (somehow spotlessly clean!) alongside a surprisingly alert Mary and a deferential Joseph hovering in the background, that some of this has somehow become embedded in what we think of as a traditional Christmas.  We have seen this morning a lovely presentation of that story by members of the Junior Church, thank you to all involved.

 

Of course, there is still discussion about whether the stable really was a stable, and whether there was an innkeeper at all. It seems that Luke may have actually meant the upper room in a house, so no room in the inn, becomes no room upstairs so the baby was put on the ledge between upstairs and downstairs (where the animals were kept).  The animals exuded heat which helped keep the house warmer in winter.

 

Joseph is always portrayed as a old man, but this is not biblical.  It stems from a piece of work from 300 years after Jesus that was created to perpetuate a belief that Jesus did not have brothers or sisters, something that the Gospel writers insist he did.  Joseph was probably a similar age to Mary. They were teenage parents.

 

We have heard today from the writers of Isiah and the Gospel of Matthew.

 

To give a full and theologically correct exposition of Isaiah is beyond both to the time limits of this message, and I strongly suspect the skills of the message giver, however, let us start by just considering what images come to mind when this section of Isaiah is read out.  I suspect somehow that several of you, taking into consideration that we have been singing Christmas Carols today – and will continue to do so.  I suspect that you will have taken the words of a young woman giving birth to a child to refer to the events of the first Christmas, so several of us would have translated young woman to virgin and the images in our minds would have been the traditional images of the holy family in a stable somewhere in Bethlehem.

 

Be careful of assumptions, an author I read recently claims that 99% of what we assume is likely to be wrong.

 

So, let’s take another look at Isaiah and what he might have been saying and why we interpret it the way that we do. Most biblical interpreters first of all would suggest that the Book of Isaiah is probably written by at least 3 different authors in 3 different time periods, with the first 40 chapters written possibly by the original author or authors – no one knows at this point, back in the time period of about 700-800BC.  Think of that for a moment, we are trying to envisage meaning from a piece of text almost 3000 years ago and almost a millennium before Jesus was born. At the heart of this piece is the story of a young woman giving birth – does this refer to Jesus?  Some scholars would say it might, however there is an equal interpretation that suggests that this is in fact likely to be a very temporally contextual verse that is referring perhaps to the wife of the author giving birth to their child or to the child of the King, so the child referred to could be Hezekiah the 13^th king of Judah and son of Ahaz to whom Isaiah is speaking in this piece of text.  Why then do we see Mary when we hear this piece of literature. In part, this is because of a mistranslation that has occurred and has gone down in history as a so called truth.  The Hebrew translation uses the word “almah” which can refer to any young woman, whilst the Greek translators used the word “Parthenos” which specifically refers to a virgin. We need to bear in mind that Jews lived in various placed in the world and there was a considerable Jewish presence in Alexandria for instance, where the Torah was translated into Greek for a predominantly Greek speaking audience.  I would suggest that the Greek translators may well have been influenced not by a theology linked to a virgin birth of Jesus, why would they? Some of the work is done before Jesus was born anyway. Rather they were probably influenced more by their pre-existing cultural influences of Athena the ancient Greek goddess of reason who has some interesting legends associated with her. The creation of spiders being one of the most esoteric, (so all of us arachnophobes now know who to blame!) and that she was a virgin – who also gave birth).  Chances are she never existed at all of course and this is a mythical entity set to demonstrate concepts of birth and creation alongside reason.  It is because of the Greek translation that the reading of Isaiah is so strongly associated with the events of the first Christmas, and is a reminder to us not just to accept at first glance our assumptions when we hear words that sound real or remind us of a story.  Chances are the writer of Isaiah was not thinking forwards to some coming event in the future but was writing contemporaneously about events that would have impacts for the people of their time in order to improve the life of those around him, including his own considering the well-known dangers of being a prophet.  Even now, advisors to governments are easily disposable, and the ancient prophets were the unelected advisors to Kings. The Dominic Cummings of their day.

 

Of course, the writer of Matthew’s Gospel is using the interpretation that the birth of Jesus is via a supernatural intervention, that the child of Mary is or will be in some way different to normal people.  Did this happen? That, in the end, is a matter of faith. There is not a current method to prove scientifically that Mary really did experience a virgin birth.  Before you pick up metaphorical stones, let me share with you another possible interpretation.  If we accept the doctrine of the virgin birth, then we automatically set Jesus aside from us, we create a division.  And yet, in his life, Jesus acted so as to enable others to see the world as he saw it, one without divisions, one of radical inclusion if you will. To coin a modern word that I find horrid. Jesus was the original “woke” individual.  Something that a lot of right-wing Christians would find a wee bit uncomfortable I dare say.  What if we perhaps for a moment consider that Jesus was the offspring of a young woman how would that change your view of Jesus.  Does Jesus have to be the offspring of a supernatural act that we just can’t get our heads around? Consider for a moment what it would mean for God to fully embrace the human form, where nothing for God is too much. There is biblical precedence for this of course.  Later in Jesus’ life he would wash his disciples feet – something that only children (no one merited them of value), women (ditto) and slaves would be asked to do. Jesus did not run away from a Roman death of crucifixion – a sentence put aside for slaves – the lowest of the low.  Why then would it not be acceptable to God to enter humanity via the normal route. As a Jesus who is fully human, and fully divine (without the need of special magic tricks), how much more relatable to us might that make him. How much might that actually make Jesus even more radically inclusive to creation? The true embodiment of a Servant King if you like. 

 

I remember a song by Bono (the lead singer from U2) in which we is berating Apartheid and he lays into the crowd a bit. “Am I bugging you” he says, “I mean to bug you”.  He is pleading with people to see beyond the headlines.

 

If you have been “bugged” a bit today, that is because I am asking you to look beyond the accepted so called truths that society tells us is what we are supposed to accept.

 

For a moment let us just consider that biblical interpretation is not an exact science by any means. There are historical issues, (the old testament rarely fits), literary techniques that were applied by the authors and the translators – and there are intentional interpretations to highlight a theological message.  For example, Matthew utilised the Greek translation of young woman using the word Parthenos (Virgin) as it highlighted the image he wanted to paint from the outset to his readers that this young child was special from the point of birth. What better way than to emulate the ancient Greek models of virgin births – (Athena allegedly was born fully formed from her father Zeus’ forehead).  We need to think hard on biblical verses, pray hard, allow yourself to struggle with the interpretations, and avoid easy answers.

 

When you enjoy your Carol Services this year, and remember the “Christmas Story” before you get back to work at the end of the holiday period, dig a little deeper, and try and get to know who this child was.  Born to a teenage mother, where perhaps the conception was questionable, brought up in a small village where tongues would wag, but bright and intelligent, and able to see the injustices around him. A young man who bravely spoke out at all levels of society, and avoided being boxed in by any one identity.  He wasn’t a politician, he wasn’t an aristocrat, he didn’t play the violent revolutionary card, he wasn’t part of the temple elite. He instead argued for a new way of living, where radical inclusion was the underlying theme. For that the leaders of the society of the time put him to death.

 

What happens next is the whole point of Christianity really, and needs to be held in mind when we see the images of wholesomeness that the likes of those who put him to death have turned the image of Christmas into. The baby in the manger is the same person who was so viciously killed and tortured, and who even then didn’t obey the rules, didn’t stay dead.  This is the baby in the manger, the messiah, the one who once out of the manger asked a lot of awkward questions and turned the world on it’s head. 

 

Is this the Jesus you see at Christmas?