Page 4 of 5

Posted on

The Virgin Birth: what did Mary provide?

Now that the 12 days of Christmas are in full swing, I want to propose what I think will be a controversial reading of Matthew’s account of Jesus’ virginal conception and birth.  Consider it a theological thought experiment if you like, but it is an attempt to take seriously Matthew 1:20.  The first Gospel says no more about the topic but what he does say is clearly suggestive:

“Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:20)

Now immediately, we must set aside any modern notions of conception, for though Matthew and his audience would have been aware generally of how babies were made, they were not versed fully in the biology of it.   The Greek word translated “conceived” in most modern translations does not mean what moderns mean when they think scientifically regarding conception.  So we must not insist that it carry the full freight of our biological knowledge.  The word simply means “to bring forth.”  The same word was used earlier in the chapter dozens of times to refer to how fathers bring forth children: e.g., “Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob” (Matthew 1:2a,b).  The King James read: “Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob” (Mat 1:2 KJV).virgin-mary-and-jesus

If we assume for a moment that Matthew was aware of at least some of the biological processes involved, would he have thought that Mary provided the ovum or was Mary for him more like a surrogate mother, a vessel in whom the Christ-child, Emmanuel, was destined to grow?  If Mary provided the ovum, who or what supplied the seed?  I suggest Matthew’s account should be interpreted as making Mary Jesus’ surrogate mother not his biological mother.

Now to be fair neither Matthew nor his audience could have been familiar with the notion of an “egg” as we know it.  Not until the invention of the microscope were humans able to see the mico-world.  Instead they viewed the woman’s womb as the ground upon which the seed could be planted.  They were after all an agricultural people so many of their life images were drawn from agriculture.  If the seed found favorable “ground,” then a child would result.  If a woman’s womb were “barren,” then the couple remained childless. 

Let”s be clear.  Matthew does not see her pregnancy as a sexual act.  In fact, the way he tells the story it is obvious he is trying to distance his account from any notion of sexual intercourse.  Perhaps that is because during his days charges were being made by Jesus’ opponents about his legitimacy; or more likely in my view, Matthew had a theological and apologetic purpose.

According to the first evangelist, Mary is a virgin and stays a virgin up to the time of Jesus’ birth (Catholics and many other faithful believers say forever).  Furthermore, the child which will come forth from her is “from the Holy Spirit” (likely a genitive of source governed by the Greek preposition ek).  Matthew must have been aware of Greek myths and pagan stories of gods coming down and having sexual relations with women and giving birth to semi-divine beings (e.g., Hercules).  His account of Jesus’ miraculous birth is meant to distance Jesus’ origins as far as possible from these pagan notions.  That which is in Mary is from the Holy Spirit.  Full stop.  It is the work of God in her from start to finish.

Reading Matthew’s account in this way makes it possible to view Jesus as a new Adam in line with other NT writers (e.g., Paul in Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15 and the Gospel of Luke in particular).  The genealogy of the third Gospel (Luke 3) begins with Jesus and traces his lineage all the way back to Adam (cf. Matthew’s geneaology which begins with Abraham and ends with Jesus: Matthew 1).  Jesus is therefore the Son of Adam, who is none other than the Son of God..  The God who said, “Let there be light” and light “became” can surely say, “Let there be a child in the womb of my loyal servant, Mary,” and make it so.  Adam was the product of adamah (Hebrew for “earth”) and the breath (Spirit) of God (Genesis 1-3).  Jesus, son of Mary, was the product of the Holy Spirit, according to Matthew.  Mary did not provide the biological raw materials. What she did provide–by common agreement with God–was a nurturing place or “ground” for the Christ child to grow and develop.  Natalogists can explain to us all that the woman’s body provides a child that grows within her.  Once implanted there is a great deal of exchange that takes place from the mother’s body to the baby’s. Needless to say, “we are wonderfully made.”

Now some may wonder whether reading Matthew’s account in the way I propose detracts from Jesus’ full humanity.  How could Jesus be fully human if he did not have a biological mother the way we moderns understand it, that is, in sharing Mary’s DNA?  Well was Adam “fully human”?  He had no mother.  His wife was to become the mother of all the living.  God sculpted Adam from the earth and breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living soul, fully human.  The analogy I suggest we consider here is new creation and new Adam.  What was in Mary was “from the Holy Spirit” start to finish.

Now if we take Mary’s role as surrogate rather than biological mother, we do not detract one bit from her ultimate significance in the story of salvation.  She remains the virgin mother in whom a miracle has taken place to bring forth a son who is properly called “Emmanuel” (God with us).  All of the honor due Mary as theotokos (“the Mother of God”) is not set aside by this reading of Matthew.

Posted on

Xmas: Is It Taking “Christ” out of “Christmas”?

I remember my fourth grade teacher, Mrs. Potts, opening a vein when anyone wrote “Xmas” instead of “Christmas.”  She felt there was a war on Christmas  and that people who abbreviated the name of the holiday were trying to take Christ out of Christmas.  I suppose that is true for some people, but when you look into the real story of “Xmas” you realize that something else is at work.

The story begins with the Ten Commandments.  One of those commandments says, “Do not take the name of the LORD in vain.”  The name by the way is not “LORD,” that was a respectful translation or substitute for the name.  In Hebrew THE NAME is four letters, yodh-he-vav-he. The technical term for the name is the tetragrammaton (literally, “the four letters”).  Scholars today think the name may have been pronounced—when it was pronounced—Yahweh or Yahveh.  But we aren’t sure.  This was the covenant name of God, the name revealed to Moses and Israel at Mt. Sinai. nomina_sacra

Under the influence of the commandment about the misuse of God’s name, the faithful spoke it less and less.  By the time of Jesus speaking the name was considered blasphemous in almost every circumstance. The rabbis made their mark by building a hedge about the law. If you never spoke God’s name, you could never be guilty of taking the name in vain. It was a way of safeguarding the name.  Even when reading Scripture in the synagogue, a substitute word was used.  In Aramaic-speaking synagogues the readers said “Adonai.”  In Greek-speaking synagogues they said “kyrios.”  Both mean something like “Lord” or “Master.”

The Dead Sea Scrolls provide good evidence for how the name of God was written in the centuries and decades leading up to the New Testament era.  In many of the biblical scrolls the name of God is written in paleo-Hebrew script.  That would be like shifting to a Gothic font when writing the name of God.  In other scrolls the name is not written at all; it is represented by four, thick dots written in the center of the line. In yet other scrolls where the name of God should be there is a blank in the line just large enough for the tetragrammaton.  Scholars theorize that the blank was left by a junior scribe and would have been filled in later by a senior scribe who had permission to write the name. Where there is a blank in the line, we think the senior scholar never got around to writing the divine name in the blank. These were some of the ways the faithful showed respect for the name of God.   

Early Christians developed their own way of signaling respect for the names and titles associated with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  Copying the New Testament books in Greek, they abbreviated the names (usually first letter and last letter) and placed a line above those letters. You can see this in the picture.  Scholars refer to these as nomina sacra (Latin for “sacred names”).  Copyists continued to write sacred names this way for centuries.  It remains a common practice still among artists who create the icons used in the eastern churches.  Many names and titles were written this way including “God,” “Father,” “Jesus,” “Son of God,” “Son of Man,” “Christ,” “Lord,” “Holy Spirit.” For our purposes note the nomina sacra for “Christ;” it was written XC. Now remember these are letters from the Greek alphabet not our Latinized version. It is not “X” (eks) the 24th letter of our English alphabet but the Greek letter “Chi,” the first letter of the title “Christ.” 

Earliest versions of writing Christmas as “Xmas” in English go back to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (about 1100).  This predates the rise of secularism by over 600 years.  The Oxford English Dictionary cites the use of “X-“ for “Christ” as early as 1485.  In one manuscript (1551) Christmas is written as “X’temmas.”  English writers from Lord Byron (1811) to Samuel Coleridge (1801) to Lewis Carroll (1864) used the spelling we are familiar with today, “Xmas.”

The origin of “Xmas” does not lie in secularists who are trying to take Christ out of Christmas, but in ancient scribal practices adopted to safeguard the divine name and signal respect for it.  The “X” in “Xmas” is not the English letter (eks) as in “X marks the spot,” but it is the initial Greek letter of the title “Christ.”  No doubt some people today use the abbreviated form to disregard the Christian focus of the holy-day, but the background tells a different story, a story of faithful men and women signaling the deep respect they have for Jesus at this time of year. 

Merry Christmas!

 

 

Posted on

Avoiding Transliteration in Translating the Bible

There are many words found in most Bible translations that aren’t translations at all.  They are transliterations.  Let’s consider some key words in the New Testament. Words like “Christ,” “baptism,” “angel,” and “apostle”  are not translations  from Greek to English but transliterations, that is, replicating  the sounds made by the words.William Tyndale

When scholars began to translate the Old and New Testaments into the English language, they faced enormous challenges. Not only were powerful people opposed to rendering the sublime texts of Scriptures in a common language such as English, but the English language itself did not have all the words needed to reproduce meaningfully what the original languages were saying. The solution was to invent words which did not exist in English. One example is the word passover .

In the fourteenth century when Wycliffe translated the New Testament into English, the word “Passover” did not exist in the English language. So when he came to those New Testament passages that referred to the Jewish Passover, Wycliffe transliterated the Latin word pascha—which is itself a transliteration of the Greek word pascha—into English as “pask” or “paske.” As you see, transliteration involves representing the characters of one alphabet in another alphabet; it has nothing to do with translating the meaning of the word, only the sound of it. How readers and hearers may have reacted to this new word we do not know. Did they understand what it meant, or was some further explanation needed?

In 1535 when Tyndale translated the Old Testament into English, he decided to invent a new word in English to communicate the meaning behind the Hebrew root pesach:

When your children ask you, “What does this ritual mean to you?” you will answer them, “It is the Passover sacrifice to the Eternal, for He passed over the houses of the Israelites when we were slaves in Egypt. And although He struck the Egyptians, He spared our lives and our houses” (Exodus 12:26–27).

The Hebrew root of the name of the Jewish festival alludes to the fact that God “passed over” the houses of the Israelites on his way to judging the cruelty of the Egyptian slave owners. Tyndale combined the two English words—“pass” with “over”—to create a single, new word which carefully and accurately reproduced the meaning of the Hebrew word. Transliteration, at its best, can only reproduce the sounds made in another language not their meaning. What Tyndale did by creating the word passover.  The Voice translation has done for other key words which, until now, have not been accessible to a modern audience.

 
Posted on

Jesus as “lordly example”

(I’m grateful to Larry Hurtado for the expression “lordly example”)

Philippians 2:12–3:21

The lofty thoughts of Jesus’ universal acclamation (Philippians 2:9-11) did not hijack Paul’s original intent which was to set Jesus as the lordly example of humility and self-sacrifice.  He continued to drive the point home by appealing to the examples of Timothy, Epaphroditus, and Paul himself.  They have actualized the mind of Christ as their own life-stories will show and serve as examples for the church to imitate.Rediscovering Paul cover 

Implicit within the story of Jesus’ humiliation, incarnation, exaltation and acclamation is the promise that those who humble themselves will be exalted.  This teaching is certainly consistent with what we find elsewhere in the NT.   Nevertheless, the exaltation of the humble followers presents no counterpart, even remotely, to the universal acclamation of the Lord Jesus.  Still, even without developing the point, believers are left to ponder how God will exalt them for their humble obedience. 

The only proper response in the face of so lordly an example is obedience, “working out your salvation with fear and trembling” (2:12).  This does not mean, of course, that people can save themselves; it means they cooperate with God’s transforming energy in them.  They work without grumbling so their light can shine in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation (2:14-15).  They hold on to the “word of life” now so that in the day of Christ (at the parousia) Paul can be proud (2:16).  After all, their apostle may be poured out as a libation on the altar, facing obedience unto death sooner rather than later. 

Timothy and Epaphroditus provided Paul with good examples of faithful followers who exhibited the mind of Christ.  Paul hoped to send Timothy soon to Philippi.  Like Jesus before him, Timothy was genuinely concerned about the Philippians’ welfare (2:20-21).  While others were watching out for themselves, Timothy would seek the good of Christ and his church.  Epaphroditus too had nearly died for the work Christ.  He had risked his life to serve Paul on behalf of the Philippians (2:29-30).  Now the apostle was going to send him back with his sincere thanks in hope they would receive and honor him. 

Paul next turned to his own life as an example of one who had “the mind of Christ.”  Following a warning against the threat of false teachers (“dogs,” “evil workers,” “the mutilators,” likely referring to the mutilation of the flesh in circumcision), the apostle claimed that Christ-believers were in fact the true circumcision (3:1-3).  After all they worship God in the Spirit, boast in Christ Jesus and place no confidence in the flesh.  It was this last remark, “no confidence in the flesh” that prompted Paul’s discourse on his own past.  Prior to his Christophany, Paul had quite a resume and enjoyed a number of bragging rights: (1) circumcised as per the Law on the eighth day; (2) from God’s covenant people; (3) from the important tribe of Benjamin; (4) a conservative, Hebraist Jew; (5) from a prestigious sect, the Pharisees; (6)  practiced “zeal” against the church; and (7) blameless under the Law regarding righteousness (3:4-6).  The pre-Christian Paul enjoyed a status nearly all would have envied.  But like the pre-incarnate Christ, he emptied himself of those gains and wrote them off as losses for the sake of Christ (3:7).   Indeed, he suffered the loss of all things and considered them “dung” compared to the excellence of what it meant to “know Christ” and be found in Him (3:8-10).  To “know Christ” implies intimacy and a knowledge based on experience.  It is knowledge of a person not knowledge about a thing.  The upshot of his own Christ-patterned humility meant that he left behind a law-based righteousness for the faith-based righteousness of God made possible through the faithfulness of Christ’s obedient sacrifice on the cross (3:9).  As Paul identified completely with the humiliation and death of Jesus, he expected also to share in his exaltation/ resurrection (3:10).  In that sense, Paul’s own story would be absorbed one day into the wider story of Christ. Paul

Although Paul had journeyed deep into the knowledge of Christ, he had certainly not arrived at his final destination.  So he pressed on toward the goal of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (3:14).  To do so he had to forget his past, namely, the “exalted” status he formerly enjoyed, and stretch out toward the future.  Those who wish to move toward perfection in the Christian life need not look back. 

Paul invited the Philippians to join him in imitating Christ and to pay attention to those, like Timothy and Epaphroditus, who present a model for how to walk.[1]  They are not to follow the example of those who lives as “enemies of Christ.”  Their destiny is not exaltation with Christ but destruction and shame because their mind is not the humble mind of Christ.  Their mind is set on earthly things (3:18-19).  Genuine believers understand their citizenship is in heaven; they belong to another city.  As “resident aliens” they are not at home in the world; instead they wait patiently for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.  The Christian churches of Paul stand therefore as an alternative community in the world.  They do not look to Rome for guidance; they look to heaven.  They do not worship Caesar as Lord; they worship the Lord Jesus.  They expect only small benefits from any so-called earthly saviors; they wait ultimately for a Savior from heaven who will transform the world with power beyond this world.  Those who pattern their lives on the story of the Christ’s humiliation and exaltation can expect their humbled bodies to be transformed in conformity with the body of His glory.   As the apostle looked the future, the Christ hymn continued to echo in his inspired imagination.  We note here the following correspondences:

  The humiliation of Christ (2:6-8) –>the body of our humiliation (3:21)

  The exaltation of Christ (2:9) –>transformed to the body of his glory (3:21)

  The universal acclamation (2:10-11)–> the subjection of all things (3:21)

Clearly the Christ hymn provided Paul with more than a pattern for humble service to others; it also provided the (implicit) promise that believers who enter into his humiliation will also enter into his glorious exaltation (3:20-21).

[1] The imperative in 3:17 is difficult to translate.  It means either “join together in imitating me” or “join me in imitating Christ.”  Both are possible since Paul clearly urged believers to imitate Christ elsewhere and he also encouraged others to imitate him as one who imitates Christ (see Eph 5:1; 1 Thess 1:7; 1 Cor 11:1; cf. Phil 4:9).

Posted on

“Why not just explain it?”

Frank Couch and I recently traveled to Lynchburg, Virginia to speak at Liberty University. We were invited by Dr. Vernon Whaley, head of School of Music. He and his staff did an excellent job preparing for our visit and making us feel welcome.  If you haven’t noticed, Liberty has grown exponentially in the last decade.  The university has 85,000 students (most of those online) and a $1 billion endowment. And, believe it or not, the school is only 41 years old.  The university is building new buildings, starting new programs, and realizing its grand vision like few schools I’ve ever seen.  If you have a son or daughter preparing for college, you might want to check it out.

Liberty UniversityFrank and I talked with several hundred students over two days about the Voice project and the reading of Scripture in worship.  We had a great time thanks to the good folks there.  Along the way Frank and I fielded a number of great questions. I wish I could remember them all. Some of the questions we had heard before, but there was one which sticks out in my mind.

After Frank and I gave some of the reasons why we translated the Greek word Christos as “the Anointed,” a student asked why we didn’t just explain what Christos means and stick to the traditional rendering “Christ.”  Now we’ve discussed this issue at some length in our new book, The Story of The Voice, so I don’t want to repeat that here, but let me give you another side to that.

Go back to the prophets. The word “prophet” means literally “one who speaks for God.”  So we find in the Scriptures a number of prophetic oracles or speeches in the prophetic books (e.g., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, etc). But when you read through the prophets, you’ll also notice that sometimes God calls prophets not just to speak a message; he calls them to act it out. And to be honest, God’s servants did some pretty bizarre things. Isaiah walks naked and barefoot for 3 years (Isaiah 20). Jeremiah buys a piece of real estate just a few days before the country is invaded and destroyed by the Babylonians (Jeremiah 32). Ezekiel laid mock siege against a brick he called Jerusalem and laid on his left side by the road for 390 days and then turned over to his right side for 40 days (Ezekiel 4). You might ask: why didn’t Ezekiel just explain God’s message and be done with it? It would have saved him a lot of trouble. Why didn’t Jeremiah just explain his message, keep his money, and not invest in what everybody else thought was a lost cause? It would have saved him a lot of trouble. Why didn’t Isaiah just explain his message and not go through the shame and humiliation that came from what God asked him to do?  It would have saved him a lot of trouble. Well the reason is simple: they sensed God directing them not just to explain a message but to act it out. Sometimes actions do speak louder than words. Had they simply stood up one day in a single place and given a sermon, then I doubt we’d be reading about them today. Their message would have been . . . well, forgettable. It was the combination of word and action which imprinted their messages so clearly on the hearts of their followers.

Now, I find what the prophets did instructive. In the Christian tradition we are encouraged to imitate the noble saints of the past. So, sometimes it is more important for us to act out and live out the message than it is to just explain it.  As we were involved in this translation project, we sensed God directing us to do some things differently with this translation.  We could have just explained the meaning of these key terms in a well written and clear essay somewhere but frankly, that would have been . . . well, forgettable. 

A few of our translation decisions may seem controversial to some, but the scholars, writers, and editors we gathered were aiming to do something unique with this translation. What one writer told me is this: when controversy comes, consider it a teachable moment. This translation project has given me an opportunity to share with hundreds of thousands of people (via television, radio, personal appearances, etc.)  key elements of the Christian faith.  What we continue to hear is how people are hearing in fresh and helpful ways the Voice of God.