Whether you believe in the Christmas story as a matter of faith or not, the idea that God could appear as the lowliest form of life, that his (unwed) mother denied housing and migrating from home to register her citizenship at the orders of a distant imperial government would give birth to him in a stable surrounded by animals and shepherds (the janitors and garbage men of their day) is profoundly humbling.
The lesson for all of us is to be kind to all, not to judge people based on their occupation or station or situation in life, their relationship status or whether they are properly registered citizens or not. To to the believer: the image of God is inherent in all men and women. To the believer and non-believer alike: all men and women are our brothers and sisters. It’s a chaotic and violent world because people forget these truths, we should all remember them for the New Year to come. Happy Holidays to all!
*these thoughts are largely my own but the bit about shepherds and registering citizens was directly inspired by my father in law to be’s sermon last night, and the remarks about violence are inspired by Pope Francis’ Christmas message
SomervilleTom says
An aspect of the Christmas story that I’ve found meaningful (though seldom spoken of in sermons) is the way that Joseph handled the news of his fiance’s new baby. Full disclosure — I do not and have not ever embraced the literal truth of the Christmas narrative.
Joseph knew the baby wasn’t his. The concept of Jesus-as-the-son-of-God did not yet exist. The agenda of the Jewish Gospel writers (to demonstrate that Jesus was a descendant of King David) was almost certainly not known by Joseph (who was a carpenter, not a Rabbi).
Instead, a young man knew that the girl he wanted to marry was pregnant, that he had not had sex with her, and he married her (and loved his child) anyway. Although the biblical narratives are silent on the matter, I’ve always imagined Mary telling him that the baby was conceived from an act of love — he clearly believed her.
That is, in itself, a remarkable story for a young Jewish man and woman two thousand years ago.
In my view, there are learnings there for fathers who reject their children and their mothers because of infidelity. There are learnings for young men and women wrestling to align their faith with their sexuality.
There are learnings for all of us about “sin”, “sinners”, and “the fruits of sin”.
jconway says
There has been a small, but growing movement to re tell the tale of Joseph as an affirming tale of what a true “strong man” looks like. I think you articulated that courage and quiet strength quite well Tom. Definitely
a lesson that needs more retelling.
Peter Porcupine says
Joseph must have known he was descended from David as he knew to schlep to Bethlehem from Galilee for the censuus.
And his initial reaction to the pregnancy wad negative but another angel was dispatched to confirm Mary’s story directly to him.
But – he chose to accept that message and went on to have his own children with Mary – at least one other son, James.
SomervilleTom says
The Gospels differ in the genealogy of Jesus. Biblical critics suggest that Matthew traces his connection to David through Mary, while Luke traces the connection through Joseph. The former was one of the motivations for the “immaculate conception” meme, and the latter acknowledges the doubt about Joseph’s paternity (Luke 3:23, emphasis mine):
Christopher says
I have heard that the Marian descent gave Him the priestly as well as kingly line thus uniting the titles. When I was researching this a few years ago I discovered that Matthew seems to more closely match the royal genealogies given in the OT, which leads me to give it more credence. I think this is important because it means Jesus is not just any descendant of David, but THE primogenitive senior heir and real legitimate Pretender to the Davidic throne. I think His contemporaries knew this too, thus inspiring His supporters and scaring His opponents to death. Ultimately He was vulnerable to treason charges and crucifixion precisely because His claim on the throne of Israel really was that strong.
SomervilleTom says
I guess we have different understandings of these texts.
I remind you that all these texts were written decades after the events they describe, and were written by sources whose connection to the characters they describe is tenuous at best.
I and many critics share your interpretation that the agenda of the author of Matthew was to show, through use of the OT genealogies, the Marian descent and its implications. The author of Luke had a different agenda. Both authors were successful at accomplishing their goals (which, I suggest, is part of why both texts are in the canon).
I think the connection from these texts to the actual behavior of the characters and the knowledge of those characters is tenuous indeed. These texts were not written as “history”, in the sense that we understand it today. My own interpretation is that he was executed because of the perceived threat represented by his growing body of supporters and by the revolutionary doctrines he advocated.
In my view, the claims (real or otherwise) to the throne of Israel were of far greater importance to the early church than to any authorities (Jewish or Roman) during his lifetime.
jconway says
My apologies
petr says
“… and yet he was not willing to publicly disgrace her. So he had a mind to divorce her quietly.”
Joseph’s reaction was not, in fact, negative. His reaction was faithful to the law of Moses –He was deciding what he believed he ought as a follower of the law– but also compassionate as he did not want Mary to suffer for it. (I may have some of the above quotation wrong… there are too many translations of the NT swirling around in my head… but that’s the essence of it)
The angel appeared to Joseph (in a dream) not necessarily to confirm Mary’s story but to give Joseph permission to deliberately disobey the law. It was, in fact, a tremendous ‘leap of faith’ on Josephs part to do so. It is unclear, at best, if Mary had indeed asked him to make that leap of faith. I believe that she did not. The angel, however, did.
kbusch says
There was no such census, and it was never Roman practice to conduct censuses in this fashion.
I suppose the beauty of the story can survive its deep implausibility. Attempting to make reasonable deductions from it is burdening it with more historical truth than it is ready to bear.