Another Christmas Tradition

CHRISTMAS SPECIAL
2016

Most of us are fairly familiar with the birth accounts found in Matthew and Luke, even if we jumble the two stories together in our heads, or mix up which one has the wise men and which one has the shepherds. Many details that are displayed in the Nativity, whether in a set of statues, in songs, or in movies, are not found in the Bible. We almost always see exactly 3 wise men (which is based on Matthew's account), but never does the author of Matthew indicate the exact number of wise men present.  We also always see the birth of Jesus set in a stable filled with animals (which is based on Luke's account), but never does the author of Luke specify that Jesus was born in a stable, nor that animals were present at all, only that he was placed in a manger after he was born because there was no room in the inn. And of course, there is no mention in either Matthew or Luke of the Little Drummer Boy.

Many of these extra details outside of Matthew and Luke that have become so familiar to us are not unreasonable. After all, the wise men present 3 gifts to baby Jesus, so maybe each was from one corresponding wise man. If baby Jesus was placed in a manger, maybe he was born in the shelter of a stable, and there were animals in it at the time. Who knows?

Part of the reason it is so easy to fill in additional details around the birth of Christ is because we are not given a lengthy account in either Matthew or Luke. Indeed, of the 28 chapters of Matthew, only 2 are dedicated to the birth of Jesus, and only 1 in the 24 chapters of Luke. In fact, because both stories found in Matthew and Luke are so lacking in detail, it is easy for Christians to combine them as if they really told one coherent story, despite the fact that the key details described in each are dramatically different.^[1]

Despite the authors' brevity on the subject, we are still obsessed with the story, and can't help but want and supply more details to it. This is not new, either. In fact, a once-very-popular third account of the birth of Jesus still survives today, which not only weaves both Matthew and Luke's stories into one narrative, but also adds its own substantial details that didn't make it into our modern versions of the Nativity. This account is know as the Gospel of James.

Killing Goliath

MAKING GOD'S WORD
Part 3

The story of David and Goliath is a favorite among many Christians, and it's easy to see why. In it we see David, a young shepherd boy, fearlessly take on a warrior renowned for his giant stature, and emerge victorious, bringing glory to his people and his god. As a kid, this story was important to me; it reminded me that if God was with me, I didn't have to be afraid of even the biggest of bullies.

As I began to study the Bible academically, I realized that some of the details I found most inspiring in the story of David and Goliath weren't necessarily well grounded in history. Was David really a mere shepherd boy? Was Goliath really 9.5 feet tall? Was David really the one who killed him? It is this story that I now turn to as my second example of biblical editing, addressing these questions and their corresponding layers of editing along the way.

The Creations of the Cosmos

MAKING GOD'S WORD
Part 2

We don't need to look far for our first instance of biblical editing, which can be found in the very first chapters of the first book of the Bible: Genesis. In Genesis 1 and 2, we see two different accounts of the creation of the world and of humankind. As has been shown previously on this blog (see "Adam and Steve"), these two accounts contradict one another, and are generally thought to have been originally two separate stories that were eventually compiled into a single book (Genesis). This means that Genesis was not written by a single author, but rather is the product of multiple unknown authors, which was put together by an unidentified editor or series of editors.

This article will look at the two contradictory stories of creation found in Genesis 1 and 2. Since Genesis is part of the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible, sometimes referred to as the Pentateuch), I will start by briefly presenting some of the prominent views in academia on how the Torah came to be composed as we have it today, and will then analyze the two creation myths within Genesis, noting instances of contradictions between the texts as well as significant differences in content.^[1]

MAKING GOD'S WORD

Part 1

Growing up in a Christian home, I believed that the Bible was made up of God's very words, and as such was perfect and sacred in every way. Yet at the same time, I knew the Bible was actually written by humans, not God. Being the inquisitive kid that I was, I often tried to imagine how this transfer of information between God and humanity worked. Did God speak from Heaven with a booming voice, telling the authors what to write down? Or did God speak in the authors' hearts to instruct them on exactly what to say, and the authors, being especially righteous, just had a good ear for hearing God's voice within them (which unfortunately I never had)? Or did the authors merely write these works themselves through their own will, and the Holy Spirit was just working in them to produce inspired scripture without them even knowing it?

In my adult life my religious views changed, but my inquisitive nature never did, and I am still interested in understanding how the Bible came to be written as we have it today. But even setting aside unanswerable questions regarding the inspiration of the Bible, I have realized the simple question "how was the Bible written?" is even more complicated than I could have thought. Not only do we not know who originally wrote most of the Bible, there is also substantial evidence that much of it has been anonymously edited for centuries after its original texts had been written.

God With Us

CHRISTMAS SPECIAL
2015

"Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, “God is with us.” 

(Matthew 1.23)^[1]

Upon hearing this familiar verse, most Christians immediately recognize who Emmanuel really is. If not for hearing it dozens of times around Christmastime, the conceiving virgin bit is a pretty good clue that we are talking about Jesus Christ. While this seems obvious enough to most Christians, if we stop a moment to reflect upon what we just read, we may realize that there is something kind of odd about it. Sure, according to Matthew and Luke, a virgin named Mary becomes pregnant by the Holy Spirit and births a child, but she names her child Jesus, NOT Emmanuel.

Is it really that odd? After all, Jesus is known by many things in the New Testament: Son of God, Son of Man, Lord, etc. Could it be that Emmanuel is just another title Jesus was commonly known as? Probably not. In fact, there is only one mention of Emmanuel in the New Testament, and it is quoted above from Matthew 1.23. No other passage in the New Testament ever calls Jesus "Emmanuel."

To understand why Jesus became equated with Emmanuel, we must explore what the author of Matthew is quoting: Isaiah 7.14. However, when we look at this verse, we see that it reads a little bit differently from Matthew's quote. The part of Isaiah 7.14 that Matthew quotes is italicized below:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 

This raises even more questions. What kind of sign is Isaiah referring to? Why does Isaiah call Emmanuel's mother a "young woman," while Matthew calls her a "virgin"? Why was this verse included in Matthew to begin with?

This article will explore why Emmanuel became commonly associated with Jesus of Nazareth. First we will look at why Matthew 1.23 reads slightly differently than Isaiah 7.14, and then look at the historical context of both verses to get a better understanding of the relationship between Jesus and Emmanuel.

Lovers, Not Lawyers

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE?
Part 7

[[Okay, so let me get this straight. You have concluded the following things:

(Part 2) the creation account in Genesis is really 2 creation stories that contradict one another

(Part 3) the Bible never identifies homosexuality as the sin which caused Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction

(Part 4) Christians are often incredibly inconsistent with the laws in the Torah that they choose to apply to their lives

(Part 5) Jesus said nothing on homosexuality, nor offered a definition of marriage

(Part 6) Paul's views on homosexuality were informed by an outdated understanding of the natural world, and were responding to homosexual practices that were often associated with pedophilia and prostitution

That's all well and good, but where in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is okay?]]

It doesn't. There are no verses in the Bible that explicitly support homosexuality, even in marriage. For those solely interested in the historical contexts of the Bible verses frequently used in the Christian debate over gay marriage, this is where I leave you. I have shown to the best of my ability that the Bible was not written with gay marriage in mind, and as such did not speak for or against it. Do with this information what you will.

However, I find that when I read blogs about controversial topics such as this, I want more than just the cold facts. I want help making sense of them. So for this article, I will do exactly that. This is a controversial topic within Christianity, so I will forgo my usual academic perspective, and instead write from the perspective of my own tradition. I will switch my point of view from the third-person to the first, no longer merely describing what "Christians" do, but will rather comment on what I would like to see "us" do as Christians.

Unnatural Intercourse

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE?
Part 6

There may not be a Jesus card available to play in the debate over gay marriage, but there are a few different Paul cards to choose from. Indeed, there are three common passages attributed to Paul in the New Testament that speak against homosexual intercourse, and all three are frequently quoted as evidence by Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin.

Each of these passages are found in what are known as the Pauline Epistles. An "epistle" is simply a Greek word for "letter," and is generally used nowadays to refer to books in the New Testament that are formatted as letters sent from early Christian leaders to various churches or individuals. "Pauline" is an adjective used to describe epistles that are thought to have been written by Paul. These epistles were written for various reasons, usually addressing problems that a particular church was facing, correcting doctrinal errors, and offering encouragement. There are 13 Pauline Epistles in the New Testament, but only 7 of them are widely accepted by scholars as being authentically written by Paul.^[1]

We find our passages on homosexuality in three different Pauline Epistles: Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy. This article will look at each passage, address why these verses were included in Paul's epistles, and analyze their relevancy in the modern Christian debate over gay marriage.

As a warning to my readers, the following article is more explicit in its descriptions of sexual intercourse than my previous articles. Paul uses specific terms to refer to specific homosexual acts, and such terms need to be addressed if we are to understand Paul's views on homosexuality. For those who are uncomfortable with reading about sex in a frank manner, viewer discretion is advised.

The Jesus Card

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE?
Part 5

As is the case with most theological debates among Christians, it isn't long before people start quoting Jesus to back up their views. I call this tactic "playing the Jesus card," and it is certainly not an invalid method of arguing. For Christians, Jesus is seen as the top authoritative figure on Christian teaching, and so if you can show that Jesus agreed with you, your views earn stock in Christian communities.

It's not shocking, then, that Christians on both sides of the homosexuality debate try to play the Jesus card when arguing their position. However, this can be awkward since the gospels never mention Jesus saying anything about gay marriage or homosexuality.

Often times Christians who don't think homosexuality is a sin use Jesus' silence on the matter to their advantage. Many have argued that because Jesus didn't say anything on homosexuality in the gospels, he must not have considered it a sin. However, this argument of silence doesn't go very far by itself. After all, the gospels don't record Jesus teaching on many modern issues, such as alcoholism or pollution, but that doesn't mean he would approve of them if he was walking around with us today.

Other Christians who think homosexuality is a sin claim that while Jesus was silent on the matter, he wasn't silent about God's definition of marriage, which contradicts homosexuality. For evidence, these Christians quote Jesus' teachings on marriage found in Mark 10 and Matthew 19.

For this article, we will look at Jesus' teachings found in Mark and Matthew to see if they really define marriage in a way that excludes homosexuality, and determine if the Jesus card can be legitimately played in the debate over gay marriage. We will start by looking at what Jesus is saying in Mark 10 and Matthew 19, and then discuss what Jesus is not saying in those passages.

Unlawful Abominations

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE?
Part 4

Homosexuality is often called an "abomination" by those Christians who believe it is a sin. This term is applied to male homosexual intercourse two times in the Bible, both in the book of Leviticus. The first is Leviticus 18.22:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

The second is Leviticus 20.13:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

To some Christians, though, it seems odd to quote Leviticus as adequate evidence against homosexuality (or anything for that matter). But why is that?

Leviticus is part of the Torah, which translates as "law" or "instruction." The Torah is made up of the first 5 books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In the Torah, we find extensive lists of laws that are believed to have been given to the Israelites directly from God. However, not all of the Torah is law. As we have seen, it also contains many narratives, such as the stories of creation as well as Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction. The lengthy legal sections of the Torah can be found in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy (although other laws can be found scattered throughout the Torah, such as the law of circumcision in Genesis). These laws are often not followed by Christians today, such as the prohibition of tattoos or trimming your beard. Many Christians view the laws in the Torah as outdated, and therefore see no reason to take its verses against homosexual intercourse seriously.

However, many Christians who consider homosexuality a sin believe that while many parts of the law are outdated, the Leviticus verses against homosexual intercourse are still relevant because they describe such acts as "abominations." To them, an abomination against God is just as relevant to Christians today as it was to the ancient Israelites.

But why would God consider homosexual intercourse an abomination for all peoples at all times? Generally speaking, Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin argue that marriage is a sacred institution established by God between one man and one woman. In other words, they think that the Torah labels homosexual intercourse as an abomination because it violates God's sacred rules for marriage.

Since we are trying to understand the historical context behind Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13, we will explore three things. First, we will look at the Hebrew word for "abomination" and see how it is used in the Torah. Second, we will look at the Torah's laws regarding marriage to see if most Christians today do actually consider them sacred. And finally, we will explore why these verses against homosexuality would have been included in the Torah.

Sodomy and Gomorrah

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE?

Part 3

Sodom and Gomorrah are known for two things: homosexuality and destruction. Many Christians today directly relate the two in their minds; they believe that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because their society accepted homosexuality. Indeed, references to Sodom and Gomorrah are frequent in the Christian debate over gay marriage. The argument goes that if God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for practicing homosexuality, certainly he is not pleased with the Supreme Court's legalization of gay marriage, and is horrified that some Christians are openly embracing homosexuality in their churches.

So the question we must ask ourselves is this: does the Bible really say that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for accepting homosexuality? While Sodom and Gomorrah are frequently used in the Bible as a symbol of God's wrath against wickedness in general, only two books provide us with an explanation for why God destroyed them: Ezekiel and Jude. For this article, we will analyze the story of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction found in Genesis, and then see how both Ezekiel and Jude understood God's reasoning for destroying them.

Adam and Steve

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE?
Part 2

One of the most common slogans thrown out by Christians who believe homosexuality is still a sin is this: "God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve."

This is a reference to the first chapters in the first book of the Bible, Genesis. Few Christians would disagree with it: Genesis does indeed say that God made Adam and Eve, and there quite literally is no mention of a man named "Steve." So why do those Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin say it? To answer this, we need to understand the nature of religious myths.

Unlike how most of us use the term "myth" in our everyday conversations, myth as a category for understanding religion DOES NOT imply that a story is false. Nor does it imply that a story is true. A myth is simply a story that is held as sacred or important by a religious community.^[1] Since the Bible contains many stories Christians continue to read today, the Bible can be understood to be a compilation of many myths. Frequently myths are used as a way of understanding why people of a certain religion/culture do the things that they do. For instance, if you asked a random Protestant why Christians take Communion, they would probably answer that this practice was performed by Jesus and his disciples at the Last Supper. Here, the Last Supper is acting as a myth, which provides meaning and explanation to the modern Christian practice of Communion. Myths, while describing the past, are very often tied to the present. They help us understand why we do the things we do, or why things are the way they are.

So what Christians are really implying when they point out that God did not make Adam and Steve is that the creation story in Genesis is the myth that they use to understand their own marriage norms, as well as to explain why they think those norms should be practiced by everyone else. In other words, they believe that God originally made one man to be with one woman, and therefore that is how marriage ought to be today, no exceptions.

For this article, we will be analyzing the first two chapters in Genesis to see if they indeed were meant to set God's standard for marriage through the creation myth of Adam and Eve. So we will be looking for these two things within the text:

1. References to marriage or sex to show a connection between Adam and Eve's creation and marriage/sexual practices

2. Evidence that the author(s) of Genesis meant us to take Adam and Eve's creation literally 

Without both of these elements, pointing out that God did not make Adam and Steve makes little sense. Before we begin our investigation of the text, it first must be pointed out that there is not one creation myth in the first two chapters of Genesis; there are actually TWO! Like many Old Testament books, Genesis was not written by one author, but rather is a combination of many sources all compiled by various editors over centuries. The first written edition of Genesis probably originated around the 11th century BCE, and it's final round of editing probably occurred around the end of the 6th century BCE. That's about 500 years of editing!^[2]

While this makes things complicated, we are not studying the entirety of Genesis, just the first two chapters that contain the two creation myths. We really just need to understand the intentions of the Genesis editor(s) who chose to include these two myths. To keep things easy to read, let's say that there was one editor of Genesis responsible for pairing the two creation myths who lived some time between 1000 BCE and 500 BCE, and let's call that editor "Ed" (his full name is Editor, obviously).

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE?

Part 1

With the recent Supreme Court ruling which legalized gay marriage in all fifty states, Facebook blew up with people citing the Bible to support their views on the issue. What's weird is that both Christians who support AND Christians who oppose gay marriage quoted the same Bible. Why? How can two groups use the same text to argue two opposing positions? To better understand the nature of religious arguments such as this, we first need to explore the concepts of canon and exegesis.

The Birth(s) of a Savior

CHRISTMAS SPECIAL
2014

When you look at a Nativity Scene, you will see Joseph, Mary, and a baby Jesus in a stable accompanied by shepherds and kings, all of whom are typically white. You will also probably also see an angel or two over them, and over the entire scene a star. These Nativity Scenes are more for cuteness than historical accuracy. Christians have long noticed that the Nativity Scene awkwardly mixes two stories found in the Christian Bible: the birth account found in the Gospel of Matthew and the birth account found in the Gospel of Luke. Many Christians today "correct" the Nativity Scene by pointing out that the kings were not kings, but magi, and they came after Jesus's birth. Thus the typical "corrected" Christian view of the Nativity is as follows:

Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. She and Joseph were living in Nazareth, but due to an unusual census which required Joseph to return to his ancestral home, they traveled to Bethlehem. But because the inn was full, Mary and Joseph stayed in a stable. When Mary gave birth she placed her baby in a manger to rest. They were soon visited by shepherds, who were told by an angel that a savior was born in Bethlehem.
After eight days they had Jesus circumcised, and then, probably 32 days after that (or 40 days after birth), they sacrificed two birds on behalf of Jesus (their firstborn) at the Temple in Jerusalem as the law required. Then they returned to Bethlehem. Jesus's family stayed in Bethlehem for a while (many say two years), and then were visited by magi, who had seen in the stars that a "King of the Jews" was to be born. Prior to finding Jesus, however, the magi met with Herod the Great, who saw himself as King of the Jews. Craftily, he asked the magi to report the whereabouts of this new King of the Jews so that he could pay homage to him, but in reality wished to kill him. After the magi had visited Jesus, they were warned in a dream to not report back to Herod, so they took an alternative route home. Herod, furious at their actions, ordered that all the children two years and younger in Bethlehem were to be killed. Joseph, however, had also been warned in a dream of Herod's coming infanticide, and so he took Mary and Jesus to Egypt, escaping Herod's wrath. They stayed there until Herod died, at which point an angel told Joseph to return to Israel. So Joseph, Mary and Jesus packed up and attempted to return to Bethlehem. But, being warned in another dream that Herod's son was ruling over the region in which Bethlehem was located, they returned to Nazareth.

This is a pretty intense tale, filled with violence, miraculous messages from God, and a lot of traveling. For those who take the Bible completely literally, they must believe a story similar to this actually happened. This story, however, is doing the same thing the Nativity Scene does: it is smooshing together two very distinct stories of Jesus to make one narrative. Let's look at what the birth accounts of Matthew and Luke actually say, and more importantly, why they are saying it.