JESUS AND THE SEA OF GALILEE MYTHS - MYTHOS AND MEANING

 MYTHOS

There appears to be two different myths involving Jesus and the Sea of Galilee which are largely the same thematically, as there was with the myths of Jesus feeding the four and five thousand.  All of these the Sea of Galilee myths involve stormy weather and rough seas, with Jesus walking on the water in one version and  Jesus calming the storm that is rocking the boat where Jesus and his disciples are in in the other.

Jesus walking on the water is found in Matthew 14:22-22, Mark 6:45-52, and John 6:16-23.  Jesus calming the stormy sea is found in Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:35-41, and Luke 8:22-25.  Once again Matthew and Mark contain both stories, but Luke has Jesus calming the sea and John only has the story of Jesus walking on the water.   

* * *

JESUS CALMS THE STORMY SEA

I'll begin with the less dramatic of the two myths, Jesus calms the stormy sea.  Since the three gospels in which this myth is found are almost identical, I am going to offer the portions of homily I delivered at Christ Episcopal in Yankton, SD on June 16, 2021. The gospel for that Sunday was Mark 4:35-41.  For the purpose of this post, I am substituting myth for the word "miracle" in the original text of my homily:

"The myth of Jesus calming the sea paints a picture, an icon, or a triptych to meditate on. If this myth was to be depicted as a triptych, the first panel might portray a boat packed with Jesus’ disciples.  The boat has a mast with the sail loosed from its fittings and flapping wildly in the wind. The boat is being buffeted by the waves on all sides and filling with water.  Nobody is in control of the boat’s rudder. Jesus is asleep in the stern near the rudder and appears oblivious to the storm raging about him. The disciples, drenched with water, are depicted pleading with Jesus to wake up, with gesture suggesting they want him to take control of the rudder.  Jesus does not appear wet at all and has a serene expression on his face.

In the second panel, we see Jesus standing serenely at the stern, ignoring the rudder, with one hand raised to the wind and the other pointing to the waves. He appears to be talking while his drenched disciples are crouched down and holding on to the sides of the boat, the mast, or each other.  

In the third panel, Jesus hands are still in the position we saw them in the second panel, but now the sky is blue and cloudless, the sun is shining, and the sea is as calm as glass. The disciples are no longer wet, their faces are lit with a mix of amazement and laughter.  If this triptych was in a museum, a docent might ask, 'As you are looking at this triptych, what do you think is going on? What is your take away?'”

JESUS WALKS ON WATER

Of the two myths, Jesus walking on water is by far the more dramatic.  Nothing says myth than using an  impossibility to explain a proclivity we humans are prone to.  Jesus walking on the water is treated differently in each of the three Gospels it found.  I want to start with John's account because oddly it is the most straightforward.  It's as if John really didn't want to spend much time on it.  In all three of the gospel accounts that contain this myth, this event takes place after the feeding of the five thousand.  After which Jesus heads toward the hills.  In Matthew and Mark Jesus went into the hills to be alone and pray.  In the Gospel of John's case, it is to escape from the crowd who wanted to crown him king because he fed them. 

John points out that Jesus's disciples went ahead of him in a boat to get to the other side of the Sea of Galilee.  Later when the sea was getting rough Jesus come to them walking on the water. Naturally the disciples frightened, but when Jesus says that it is him, they stop being afraid and helped him in the boat.  That is all there is to it.  The people on the side of the sea who were present when the disciples took off without Jesus wondered how he ended up in the boat when the disciples arrived. 

Mark offers a similar account.  After Jesus was praying around dawn, he noticed that the disciples were struggling with their oars as a wind came against them. Jesus takes off and walking towards them he almost passes them by.  The disciples are frightened because they think Jesus is ghost, but Jesus tells them it is him and Jesus helps himself into the boat and immediately the wind stops blowing.  Marks tells us that the disciple were amazed (as well they should have been) but Mark says they were amazed because they did not understand the miracle that Jesus did in feeding the five thousand because their hearts were "hardened."  

The Gospel of Matthew basically follows the story line of Mark.  Jesus goes into the hills to pray and sends his disciples into a boat to cross to the other side of the Sea of Galilee.  While Jesus is prayer a strong wind comes up and the disciples are struggling against it.  When its about dawn, Jesus goes to them by walking on the water. As in Mark the disciples are terrified by what they perceive is a ghost coming towards them.   

It is at this point that Matthew adds a twist to the whole story.  The ever-questioning Peter offers a test to Jesus, "If you are who you say you are, tell me to come out on the water."  That should give anyone ready pause to question Peter's sanity.  As fisherman by trade, he should know, better than anybody, that people immediately sink if they step on water. At any rate, when Jesus says, "Come," Peter steps out of the boat and starts to walk towards Jesus, but then notices the waves and the wind and immediately starts to sink and cries out, "Lord save me."  Jesus does, saying to Peter, "O you of little faith.  Why did you doubt?"  After entering the boat, the wind stops and all are safe.  

MEANING

The original meaning of these myths of the miraculous calming of the sea is that Jesus is truly the Son of God; as evidenced by the wind and wave obeying him.  But every myth, biblical or other, is layered with meanings.  Mythic stories are there for us to explore and probe the meaningful depths they contain. 

As the wilderness is used as a metaphor for transitional and/or transformative periods in biblical mythology, storms on the sea are a metaphor for the storms we encounter in life, those moments when it is rough going is caused by some form of chaos.  Whatever blows our way or is impeding our progress is when Jesus comes to us in order to calm the chaotic environment we find ourselves in.

In the story of Jesus calming the stormy sea, Jesus is asleep, resting on a pillow in the stern of the boat.  It is only when awakened to the disciples's fear he calmly rebukes the wind and immediately everything is back to normal. The meaning of this myth is quite simple when the disciple proclaim, "Surely this must be the Son of God; " Even the wind and the waves obey him." 

Awakening Jesus is a metaphor for prayer in this myth.  In some ways, this myth implies that Jesus, knowing that everything will ultimately turn out just fine, doesn't seem a bit bothered by the chaos of the environment.  Jesus knows everything will turn out just fine, but as far as Jesus' disciples are concerned everything is not fine.  They fear being swamped by the waves and drowning in the sea.    Jesus is awakened by their pleas for him to wake up and do something.   Jesus awakens and rebukes the wind and the wave and immediately the sea is miraculously calm as if nothing ever happened.  

Did Jesus know the storm was scaring the dickens out of his disciples?  Was he waiting for them to come to him and ask for help?  Perhaps.  The Gospel of Mark implies a connection between the disciples failure to see the miracle that took place in feeding the five thousand and probably didn't see the "miracle" in the feeding of the four thousand either because feeding themselves was not the issue for them, even though they were concerned about a large number of hungry people..  It is probable, in Mark's view, that Jesus delayed in stopping the storm until they demonstrated a personal need for an answer to their immediate concerns.

In the myth of Jesus walking on the water,  Jesus takes leave of his disciples to go off on his own to recoup by heading into the hills - the high place above the fray of life and nearer to heaven from where he can see his disciples, his followers, struggling against the sea of life.  Interestingly, Jesus doesn't stop praying when he sees them struggle.  He completes his moment of meditation and prayer and when a new day is about to dawn he comes down from the hill walking on the surface of surface of the water as his disciples are battling the forces of nature. 

Jesus is unaffected by the storm, a sign of his being above nature (supernatural) and beyond the limitations of other mere humans.  Jesus knows that he will calm the storm.  He could have done it from where he was praying but he comes to them on the water instead. Why?  As mentioned above to prove a point of his ability to do the miraculous in order to meet their needs.  Their lack of faith is the issue in both of these mythic representations.  

Matthew's Petrine twist to the myth of Jesus walking on the water is both baffling and intriguing.  If Jesus walking on water is not enough, Matthew drags Peter into the scene for a purpose that is not entirely clear. The absurdity of this twist to the original story begs either its dismissal or a deeper look into its presence.  What is absurd about this story is Peter's response to Jesus declaration that he is Jesus, "Lord if it is you, tell me to come to you on the water."  WAIT - WHAT?  

If Peter had any doubts about who he was talking to why make such a ridiculous suggestion?   

Perhaps therein lies the point of Matthews version of this myth.  If one follows the story of Peter in the Gospels, one can see that Peter has a problem with distinguishing between what he believes should be true and faith that will lead him to what is actually true.  In the twenty-first century we are seeing this difference between beliefs and faith being played out in real time in our politics and in the rise of Christian Nationalism within the United States. What we believe to be true can carry us only so far before one starts realizing that one is in deep water and sinking fast.

Belief is not Faith.  

What Peter believed prompted him to jump overboard.   If Peter had faith, he would have waited in the boat to discern whether it was truly Jesus. He would not have challenged Jesus to perform a personal miracle to validate his belief.  As a mythic story this Petrine twist exposes the naivety of those who possess ardent religious beliefs in the absurd.  

Peter's belief that he could walk on water if Jesus' says faltered as soon as he comes to realizes that the sea he is walking on is anything but a walk in the park.  If this wasn't a mythic story, he would have started sinking before both feet hit the water, but as a myth we need to suspend the rational to explore the meaning it is offering.   Even though Peter is able to make a few steps towards Jesus, the sea being rough and the waves are high, his common sense kicks in at the most inopportune time making him realize he should be sinking which he immediately does.   If this myth was written in the present day, the author or authors might have been compelled to attach a warning banner which would read:  "Kids, don't try walking on water!"  

Personal beliefs that are not based on fact or experience can be fatal; especially, when the obvious is being ignored in the belief that the obvious does not apply to one.  How many cults in recent years have led people to take their own lives, to justify killing as righteous cause?  These myths possess the tint of truth.  Faith is not belief.  Faith discerns.  Faith does not challenge.  Faith awaits.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm 

 

 

THE FEEDING OF THE FOUR AND FIVE THOUSAND - MYTHOS AND MEANING

 MYTHOS

The story of Jesus feeding the four and the five thousand is generally treated as a two separate miracles in Mark 6:30-44 and Mark 8:1-9 and in Matthew 14:13-21 and Matthew 15:29-29.  The Gospels of Luke and John only contain the story of the feeding of five thousand in  Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:1-13.    Miracles are, for the most part, highly personal experiences.   I've experience the miraculous in my own life, but as Rabbi Jonathan Sachs has rightly pointed out they rarely convince anyone to become religious or prove the validity of the person who experienced such an event religious beliefs.  I am not going to address the accounts of Jesus miraculous healing of individuals as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels because they are events that are subjectively experienced rather than objectively understood.

Unexplained (miraculous) healings are a likelihood, particularly in the ancient past.  While one can speculate as to why they occurred; that they may have had a scientific or psychological reason for occurring, it would be presumptuous to say that they did not occur which begs the question why consider the "miracles" of Jesus feeding the four and five thousand as myths?  Could not Jesus have performed such miracles?   Perhaps. 

Whereas healing miracles can be claimed today because there are healings that, for a lack of better word, "miraculously" happen for which there is no current known medical or scientific reason for their occurrence.  On the other hand, there appears to be more magic than miracle in these mass "feeding" events of the Gospels if taken literally.  What marks them as myths, in my opinion, is a specificity in their telling that points to their being metaphorical myths rather than actual events for which there are no like events by which to suggest possibility.

* * *

New Testament myths often contain coded messages that point to their being more than stories intended to confirm Jesus as the Messiah by displaying supernatural acts like feeding four thousand men (not to mention women and children) with seven loaves of bread and a few fish or feeding five thousand men (not to mention women and children) five loaves of bread and two fish.  One cannot help but notice the use of specific numbers regarding how many loaves, how many fish, or how many people, the time of day, the location and other features of these stories.  Such specifics are not backed by verifiable fact and if they occurred some two thousand years ago, at best would have to be considered one-off events that have no explanation and no applicable meaning in the twenty-first century.  The writers of these Gospels would have been aware of the mythic mystery they were presenting and as such used coded language to give it meaning. 

For example, four thousand people, like forty years or forty days and forty nights, is basically saying there was a lot of people.  The number 4, however, has numerological significance as well as representing  wholeness as in the creation of the universe (i.e Sun, Moon, planets, and stars) the four corners of the earth and in this context might represent the whole world of "men."  [I'd like to say humans or mankind but these stories are specifically patriarchal, reflecting who in the culture of the time was counted as important.  For the moment I'm going to stick with the Gospel script.} Any number that is a multiple of 5 is connected to the notion of grace, particularly in the New Testament.  As such both the feeding of the 4000 and the 5000 as multiples of 5 represents acts or symbols of God's grace.  

Then there is the meal itself consisting of bread and fish.  Why not merely say some loaves and some fish?  Why seven loaves of bread in the case of feeding four thousand and five loaves and two fish in the case of feeding five thousand? Why the specificity? Obviously these numbers mean something.  In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke Jesus has his disciples, in the story of feeding the five thousand, seat them in groups of 50 or 100, which lends to being able to count how many men were present, but why that number  Why not smaller groups? 

What makes this myth so "magical" is that after feeding the four thousand men from seven loaves of bread, the disciples pick up seven baskets full of left over bread, which means that more bread was generated as it was being handed out than the seven original loaves which was used to establish it as a miraculous event.  The same is true in the case of feeding the five thousand men, the disciples pick up twelve baskets of bread.  So let unravel the numbers for a moment.  

* * *

Seven is a holy number.  It is the number of completion and wholeness as on the seventh day God rested after creating the cosmos and all living things.  Five loaves reflects the grace of God, the two fish also represent faith in the feeding of the five thousand.  In astrological circles the two fish represent Pisces, which in Christian astrological circles represent faith.  As Christians are aware that an early symbol for Christ or being a Christian was to draw a fish, which in Greek is ICTHOS whose five Greek letters serve as an anagram meaning Jesus Christ God's Son Savior.  The number 2 in Christian numerology also implies multiplicity and cooperation   In this story, the disciples fill twelve baskets  The obvious correlation of twelve baskets is to the twelve tribes of Israel being fed.  The number 12 also is used to demonstrate the perfect power of God as 12 is a perfect number.

One can interpret the meaning of these numbers in several ways.  If one knows the numerological value of the numbers then one can decipher the meaning behind the story.  Numerology undergirds many stories in the New Testament.  This particularly noticeable  in the Johannine scriptures attributed to Jesus' disciple John.  I have already addressed the mythic element of John's presentation of this story in a post on "The Bread of Life."   The Gospel of John offers a unique mythic telling of this story that supports the Pagan Continuation Hypothesis talked about in the preceding posts on the Mythic Jesus. I encourage everyone to  read my post on John's presentation of Jesus feeding the five thousand here. 

* * *

That all the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death and were likely edited throughout the following three centuries after his death is something to give serious consideration to.  It is quite possible that the feeding of the four and five thousand are two versions of the same story.  That the Gospels of Luke and John only has the feeding of the five thousand indicates that both authors of these gospels didn't see a need to write about two similar events.   

As noted in my last post, the wilderness is a place of testing and self-discovery.  Like God, Jesus is leading these crowds into the wilderness to find themselves.  There is also an eschatological theme present in these stories as what makes the disciples anxious about sending the people home is that it is late in the day and the people will get and looking  for food. It is possible that their anxiety is due to the fact the hungry people can quickly become hangry people who will take what is not theirs.  Here we see a metaphorical need for haste in feeding the multitudes before it is too late.  In addition to their concerns about their own safety,  if night falls, the people will have to wander through the wilderness without sustenance.  They could become lost and weakened from hunger. They could easily become prey for wild beasts who are also looking to be fed, which in mythical terms is a reference to the demonic.

When they bring their concerns to Jesus, they are undoubtedly shocked when Jesus says, "Feed them."  Against all reason about their and the people's safety, they bring out their meager rations.  What initiates this miracle, is Jesus blessing the bread and the fish.  In the Synoptic Gospels breaks the bread and in some cases the fish and distribute them to the people. Jesus turns their fear into a feast.  One cannot help but notice the connection between this act of Jesus and the Jesus breaking bread at the Last Supper.  As such this myth serves as a precursor to that event and it is why this myth is found in all four Gospel.  

MEANING

Spiritual hunger is a major theme being addressed in these stories.  To take them literally as a "miracle" of feeding large numbers hungry men as proof of Jesus divinity would miss the point of completely.  These are myths that address the biblical (if not perennial) truth that humanity is not fed by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4 and Deuteronomy 8:3).

Speaking of Deuteronomy 8, there is a likely connection between these feeding stories and the mythical journey of Israelites in the wilderness after their exodus from Egypt in which God feeds them with manna; a tangible emblem of every life-giving word of wisdom that comes from the mouth of God.  God feeds the Israelites with not only with miraculous bread, but also wisdom to understand who they are and whose they are.  The same is true with these feeding stories.  The wisdom of God is as tangible as the bread we eat and God feeds those who seek it.  

* * *

Christians are prone to misunderstand what is an essential story in all four Gospels of the New Testament canon.  Fundamentalist, who are perpetually sidetracked by insisting that everything the Bible has to say must be taken  as fact, see the meaning of this miracle as proof that Jesus is God, citing nothing is impossible with God. (Matthew 19:26)  While this is a standard teaching of most theistic religions, fundamentalist are largely inhibited by their literalism from probing the depths of scripture beyond its surface meanings. 

More mainline Christians have tried to explain the "miracle" by giving it a rational basis for happening; as in, the miracle, in all likelihood, was the result of Jesus and his disciples deciding to share their meager stash of loaves and fish which prompted those who came prepared for the possibility of finding themselves in a place where no food was available to wisely bring t their own stash of loaves of bread and fish with them.  So when the disciples started passing around the loaves and the fish, those who had fish and bread merely passed the loaves and fish that Jesus blessed on to those who might not have been as prepared, which explains why everyone was fed and why the disciples were able to pick seven or twelve baskets of bread pieces.   I have heard at least two sermons based on this interpretation of these stories.  

There are serious flaws with this interpretation.  Who were these men?   They were Jews like Jesus and his disciples. On the surface this interpretation inadvertently fosters an anti-Semitic stereotype associated with Jews as being hoarders, selfish, and only looking out for their self interests. Another flaw is that it deprives this story of being a miracle of Jesus in which Jesus blesses the ordinary to manifest the extraordinary, something not readily perceived by the human mind, the communal spiritual hunger we all share.

The Gospel of Matthew demonstrates the metaphorical nature of this myth in Matthew 16:5-12 when his disciple were the ones to forget to bring bread:  

When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.  “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.” Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?  Do you still not understand? 

Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.  [Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®]

All of Jesus' teachings underscore the richness and fullness of God's grace and love for all.  He frequently uses yeast to illustrate what he called the Kingdom of God. But here we see that there are different kinds of yeast, metaphorically speaking.  Teachings that attract people are memetic and have the ability to spread for good or bad just like five or seven loaves expanded to five or seven baskets of left-over bread. 

Another feature regarding the feeding of the five thousand in the Synoptic Gospels is that Jesus doesn't appear concerned about the time of the day it is or that people would have to find their way home in the dark on empty stomachs.  It is the disciples who are concerned to which Jesus says, "Well, do something about that."  This is not too subtle of a message that when we see people hunger for physical and spiritual food to do something; to check one's or the communities resources and offer what we have to meet the needs of others as distributers of God's grace.  

* * * 

In the twenty-first century, this myth's importance is underscored by the sense of haste that resonates with the need to do something about the important issues that we are faced with; climate change, political and economic turmoil, wars that threaten world war and nuclear annihilation, the scourge of racism and rising nationalism worldwide, the refugee/immigration catastrophe that is already taking place, and in the United States, the almost daily tragedy of gun violence and mass shooting.  Amidst all of this is the feeling that religion has gone missing, stuck in its outdated doctrines and dogmas while believing Jesus or God will do something about the needs that face us if we but bring it to God's or Jesus' attention.  This myth tells us otherwise.  

It tells us that we are led by Jesus' teachings to comprehend the wilderness of our making in order to find ourselves by listening to voice of Jesus, the voice telling us "Well, do something!  What do you have to meet the physical and spiritual hunger that is looking you in the face."  Complacency disguised as praying about it is not the answer, prayer without a desire to act is nothing more than an act in futility.  Ora et labora - not prayer alone but a willingness to work at finding and implementing solutions quickly is what is needed. Darkness, in its many shapes and forms is upon us.  Yet there is hope that in our actions, God will act as President Kennedy said in his inaugural address in 1961, "...that here on earth God's work must truly be our own. "

Finally, the communal nature of this myth cannot be dismissed.  Jesus breaking bread and distributing it to the masses is essential to understanding this myth and its application in the twenty-first century.  The use of numerology and astrology is present to underscore the universality of this myth.  While it is true that we exist because of creative power (word) of that which we call God, that power empowers us to be creative which is obvious in all the technological and scientific advances made within this new century alone.  there is hope that should prompt us to be involved and be concerned with finding valid solutions to address the encroaching darkness that we as a species have greatly contributed to.  The clarion call to do something is vital to God's intervening blessing.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm   

JESUS IN THE WILDERNESS - MYTHOS AND MEANING

MYTHOS

The story of Jesus in the wilderness is recorded only in the Synoptic Gospels:  Mark 1:9-13, Luke 4:1-13, and Matthew 4:1-11.  The Gospel of John does not record this story as Jesus is presented in John's Gospel as more divine than human and above the human frailty of succumbing to temptation.  In John, Jesus doesn't fall for anything.

There are two ways to look at the story of Jesus being led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan.  The first is to treat it as a metaphor of Jesus' struggle with being told he is God's Son in a vision after being baptized by John the Baptizer, which I have written about in a post that can be viewed here.   

The second way is to treat this story as a myth.  Buddha, Mohammed, and others identified as founders of a religious movement throughout history have mythic stories about being tempted before becoming a leader of religious movement.  It is the mythic version of Jesus temptation in the wilderness that is the topic of this post.  The mythic elements of this story is both its setting in the wilderness and its cast of characters: the Spirit of God, Jesus, the tempted; Satan, the tempter who is God's appointed adversary;  and the angels who comfort Jesus following his being tested.   

The first consideration is why the Spirit would lead Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan.  There is no biblical or prophetic reference; much less, a biblical precedent regarding why God would test Jesus.  This is not God's usual modus operandi.  

An omniscient God has no need to test anyone or anything.  As such, there is something Jobian about this story that makes one question whether Jesus' test is a challenge to Satan; as in, God's challenge to Satan in Job, "Have you considered my servant Job" or in this case "my Son, Jesus?"  The Jobian similarity is the wager-like motif that is implied between two immortal beings over the capability of a mortal to remain faithful to his calling.  

The divine testing the quality or worth of a mortal to fulfill a divine task is as old as theism itself.  That this concept finds its way into the Gospel narrative supports the idea of the Pagan Continuation Hypotheses forwarded by Brian Muraresku, the author of Immorality Key.  That early Christians thought it necessary to include a test to prove that Jesus was worthy to be declared God's Son is understandable, given the time and place in which nascent Christianity emerged, but it leaves something to be desired in the twenty-first century.

* * *  

The Gospel of Mark simply records that Jesus was sent into wilderness for forty days and forty nights to be tempted by the Devil and attended to by angels.  It does not elaborate on the type of testing that occurred.  On the other hand, both Luke and Matthew give us some detail what was involved.  The temptation of Jesus involves three tests to challenge his faithfulness in God.  The first test is to turn stones into bread.  After forty days and night of fasting, Jesus' body was craving something substantial, like carbs, to satisfy his hunger, but Jesus reminds Satan that humans do not live by bread along but by every word that comes out of God's mouth.  

The second test depends on whether one is reading Matthew or Luke.  For the sake brevity I am using Matthew's test in which case, Satan takes Jesus to the highest pinnacle of the Temple and challenges Jesus to jump, citing Psalm 91 which states that angels will rush to his aide to avoid him dashing his foot against a stone, to which Jesus retorts, "You should not tempt the Lord."  In an odd twist, one can't be sure if Jesus is talking about himself or whether he is accusing Satan of tempting God to act.  Either interpretation is valid.  If that is the case,  Jesus knows or at least believes that as God's Son no harm can come to him as long as he is doing the will of his Father.  The catch here is that Jesus knows he is being tested and he doesn't need to prove anything to Satan.  What would be the point?   If, on the other hand, Satan is trying to get Jesus to test God, to see if God would respond to him as the Psalmist said God would, then Jesus would prove himself faithless and defeated by Satan before he would even begin his ministry.  There is a sense that if Jesus had succumbed to that temptation, the story of Jesus would have ended and we would not be talking about him, mythically speaking.  This brings us to the final temptation in Matthew.  

Satan takes Jesus to the highest mountain peak from which he shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and appeals to his human nature and the lust for wealth and power.  Satan offers Jesus all of them to him if he would simply bow down and worship Satan. It would appear that if Jesus would be attracted to such a proposition, Jesus' divine nature would be questionable, but Jesus doesn't.  Jesus' response is to tell Satan to go to Hell, that as God's Son he must worship God and only serve him.  It is at this point that Satan leaves and Jesus is attended to by angels, which confirms that Jesus has passed the test by averting Satan's temptations.  

I have preferred using the term Satan as opposed to the Devil, simply because Satan in Jewish mythology performs a special function, as God's appointed adversary in God's court.  Satan is the ultimate prosecutor who ferrets out the unfaithful as a reminder to God that God's perfect creation is anything but perfect; that the creation of humans was a mistake God should regret having made.  In the Old Testament, it was the righteous and faithful that was put to the test by Satan and again we see God leading Jesus into the wilderness to be tested which in a mythical way for God to poke a divine finger in Satan's eye to remind him that the creation of humans was no mistake that, in spite of their many failing, humans have an innate capacity for faithfulness. 

MEANING

The original meaning of this myth is to prove Jesus to be the Son of God who can withstand the temptations of Satan on his way to being the perfect sacrifice needed to redeem the world.   Its theological importance to Christians is that Jesus can be relied on to be faithful  in meeting our needs just as he was faithful to his heavenly Father.  As our exemplar, we are prompted to resist the temptation to chose expedience over thoughtful consideration in the choices we make; to understand that immediate wants are not consistent with what we truly need.  To discern the will of God is not a quick process.  It requires patient introspection.   There is an element of patience in the story's premise that Jesus took a long time (metaphorically 40 day and 40 nights)  to discern what it was that God wanted from him as God's Son. 

* * * 

In the twenty-first century, this myth can be problematic.  One has to question why God would have had a need to test Jesus.  In my earlier post on this subject, I used this myth as a metaphor for the inner conflict Jesus faced following the vision in which God called him God's son in whom God was well-pleased.  That particular interpretation of the story seems reasonable to the modern ear, but it would not have resonated with an ancient ear; especially, if the purpose of this myth is demonstrate Jesus' worthiness in being chosen as God's Son.  

The problem with this myth is that God sent Jesus into the wilderness.to be tempted by God's appointed adversary.   As a metaphor for those of us who struggle with the challenges that life throws at us from time to time, this story makes some sense, but as a mythical story designed to prove the faithfulness of Jesus to God or to Satan  it leaves me unimpressed as it implies, like the story of Job, that God has a capricious streak.  While I doubt the writers of the Gospels in which this myth is recorded intended that to be the message the reader would get from this story, it is the message that comes glaringly comes through some two thousand years after writing it down.

As a mythic event, its meaning is found in its being treated as a metaphor as described in my earlier post.  The story is emblematic of those who struggle with an identity that at some point in their life was  revealed to them.  Ultimately, the meaning of this myth is to seek understanding who one truly is regardless of how that identity is seen as inconsistent with one's beliefs about who one should be or with what others think a child of God should be or act like.  As I mention in earlier posts, God's ways are rarely our ways.  We grow up with the opinions of others as to who we should be and how we should act, never giving thought to who we are in the sight of God, a beloved child in whom God is pleased.  

Self realization can take a long time to come to fruition. Forty days and forty nights is a metaphor for doing something a long time.  It can take forty plus years to know who one truly is.  I think the meaning of this myth today guides us to recognize the questions and challenges each of us have faced as shaping self-understanding through examining how we answered or addressed them without entertaining guilt in the process. The answers and the responses we gave set us on a course to who and where we are today. In that sense to be faithful to our calling as children of God is to embrace those experiences with grace in the knowledge that we are God's, for God has made us who we are.

* * *

Until next time, stay faithful,

Norm

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS - MYTHOS AND MEANING

MYTHOS

 To my readers the idea that Jesus baptism was a myth may seem a stretch.  Couldn't Jesus have been baptized by John the Baptizer?  Couldn't he have experienced a vision in which he heard God declaring him to be God's Son in whom God is pleased and see the Spirit descend you him like a dove?  Yes, all of this could have happened, but what becomes mythic, in my opinion, is the interpretation that has been assigned to this story.

The story of Jesus' baptism is recorded in all three of the Synoptic Gospels.  What all three gospels attest to is that John the Baptizer is "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the Lord.'"  [Isaiah 40:3]   The Gospel of Mark is the earliest Gospel and gives us a description of John the Baptizer and the statement that the one coming after him is greater than him, that John is unworthy to untie the straps of his sandal, and that he only baptizes with water but Jesus will baptize with fire.  This claim by John is basically recorded in all four gospels.

What strikes me defining this story as a myth is the lack of a credible explanation as to why Jesus sought the baptism of John.  The Gospel of Matthew subtly noted there is a problem with Jesus seeking to be baptized by John; in that, by the time the Gospel of Matthew was written, Jesus was understood to have known he was the Son of God before he approached John. If that was the case, why then bother to be baptized?  

Matthew, gives a typical Matthean answer in the form of a conversation between Jesus and John:  "Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, 'I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?' Jesus replied, 'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.' Then John consented." Matthew 3:13-15. [Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®] 

The author of Matthew is hard pressed to find a prophetic reference that Jesus is fulfilling (Matthew's usual mode for explaining why Jesus does something) so Matthew resorts to the vague explanation that Jesus is seeking baptism by John to "fulfill all righteousness," which Matthew apparently thought was a sufficient enough answer because there is no prophetic connection for Jesus doing so, which begs an explanation as to what Jesus means by "to fulfil all righteousness,"  but Matthew doesn't bother with trying to explain  it.

The Gospel of Luke has Jesus receiving his vision after his baptism while he is praying, but otherwise stays close to the basic script. What is interesting in Luke is that John the Baptizer's preaching style and his condemnation of hypocrisy is very similar to Jesus' style.  In fact, Luke reports that John's preaching was so effective that both tax collectors and soldiers came to him for baptism.  Herein lies another problem.  If John was such an effective preacher to draw a diverse following, couldn't he be considered the Messiah?  The Gospel of Luke records that people did in fact wonder if John was the promised Messiah.  John denies that he is, making  the same claim that he is unworthy to untie the sandals of the one coming after him, ect..  

The Gospel of John, however, presents a different story in which John the Baptizer plays a bigger role; a story in which Jesus isn't baptized by John.  The author of John has John the Baptizer saying the same things the other Gospels do but within the context of a different narrative that occurs over three days.  In John's narrative [John 1], John the Baptizer is being questioned by the priests and Levites from Jerusalem if he is the messiah and later by the pharisees who question why he baptizes if he isn't the Messiah or Elijah or some prophet.  

On the second day, as Jesus approaches, John the Baptizer says: 

“Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!  This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’  I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”  Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”  [Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®] 

On the third day, Jesus passes by and John tells his disciples, "Behold the Lamb of  God."  As a result, two of John's disciples leave him and start following Jesus.  This is where the story of Jesus' baptism becomes mythic.  

As with Jesus' birth, the Gospel of John's influence on the meaning of Jesus' baptism is what defines its significance.  Jesus is not only the Messiah, but he is the sacrificial lamb of God who will take away the sins of the world.  The prominence of John the Baptizer in all of these stories is not that he baptized Jesus, but rather it suggests there is something going on behind the scenes that requires the reader of these Gospels to underscore that John the Baptizer is not the Messiah.  

Perhaps the biggest give-away is that John the Baptizer did not drop everything and follow Jesus as two of his disciples did.  Matthew 11:1-2 tells us that while in John is in prison, he sends his disciples to Jesus in order to ask if Jesus is the Messiah or if they should look for someone else. I think the most nagging question is if John the Baptizer believed Jesus was the Messiah, why he didn't follow him?  

What is telling is the fact that to this day there remains a religious group in the Middle East that claims John the Baptizer is the greatest prophet of all, the Mandaeans.  According to gthe Encyclopedia Britannica, Mandaeans believe that Jesus was a false Messiah. This explains the need for a mythic telling of Jesus' baptism to clearly make the distinction between Jesus and John the Baptizer by having John deny his being the Messiah. The Gospel of John gives an interesting twist to the story of Jesus' baptism by stating it was John the Baptizer who saw the Spirit of God descend on Jesus.  For the Mandaeans, this must come across as a slap in the face.

As with Jesus' birth story, Christians cannot understand the story of Jesus' baptism without the Gospel of John's mythic interpretation of it. Jesus, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world is entrenched in the Christian mind and worship.  It's likely that most do not notice that Jesus wasn't actually baptized in the Gospel's account because the baptism story of Jesus blends all four gospels accounts of it, into one narrative.  That John the Baptizer sees Jesus approaching John doesn't mean John baptized Jesus. In fact, Jesus as depicted in the Gospel of John knows he is the Son of God the moment he steps onto the human stage.

 

MEANING

Does this myth convey any truth about Jesus?  For Christians it does.  It's clear intent is to establish that Jesus is the Messiah at the start of his ministry and that John the Baptizer wasn't.  This may seem like water under the bridge to the modern Christian, but it was likely a hot issue the early Church. That John the Baptizer wasn't a disciple of Jesus and has a following after both his and Jesus' death cast a shadow of doubt on Jesus being the Messiah.

In Brian Muraresku's book, "The Immortality Key," he quotes the archeologist overseeing the site of the Eleusinian Mysteries in Greece, Kalliope Paangeli, who makes this interesting observation regarding the Pagan Continuation Hypothesis, "Whatever they (the Christians) cannot extinguish... they keep.  It's a very clever technique."  [Muraresku, Brian, The Immortality Key, St. Martin Press Group, 120 Broadway, New York, New York,]    This seems applicable to the Gospels treatment of John the Baptizer, given the confrontational questions by John the Baptizer's disciples.  The Gospels literally turn John into "the voice of one crying in the wilderness." 

Ironically, since the days of the early Church Christians continue to utilize the baptismal format of John as the baptism of Jesus.  Grant it, a baptism with fire would be hard to facilitate and is understood metaphorically.  In application there is little difference between the two.  In meaning, it symbolizes the start of every Christians ministry to follow in Jesus' footsteps and continue his ministry.  

If one looks past the notion of Jesus being the only begotten Son of God as promoted in the Gospel of John, the Baptism of Jesus and his vision of being declared God's Son in whom God is well pleased, if true about Jesus,  is true about us also.  As children of God, we too are well pleasing in God's sight and in the divisive world we are currently living that is something we need to embrace.

* * *

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

JESUS' BIRTH - THE MEANING OF THE MYTHOS

 

[Blogger's Note: After finishing my last post, my son-in-law let me borrow a book he had recently purchased called, "The Immortality Key" by Brian C. Muraresku.  It is a scholarly book that begins exploring the Eleusinian Mysterys but which leads to an exploration of the Pagan Continuity Hypotheses  in relationship to  "paleo-christianity" (before 313 AD) and the early practice of the eucharist in the home-churches and catacombs of the Greek speaking Mediterranean.  It's a fascinating book I highly recommend for those interested in early church history, which we know so little about prior to the 4th century;  as much of what we do know has been sifted and filtered through the imperial church of the late fourth century.  I will likely make some references to this book as it offers some insight to the mythic understanding of Jesus. - Norm]

In my previous post, I examined the myths of Jesus' birth.   As mentioned in that post there are two distinct myths; one offered in the Gospel of Matthew from Joseph's perspective as Jesus' nominal father and the one offered in the Gospel of Luke from Mary's perspective.  That neither of these stories are based on fact, other than the fact that Jesus was born, leave us no choice but to consider them myths, which raises the question why there was a need to provide mythic tales surrounding Jesus' birth. 

The simplest answer is that whereas all the Gospels in the New Testament were written for the Greek speaking world of the Mediterranean and Jesus was just a man from Galilee who presented a different take on the law and prophets of ancient Israel and Judah, his teachings wouldn't have gone very far.  Jesus didn't actually teach anything that was new to Judaism.  What was new was his interpretation and application of the scriptures he knew.   What caught the attention of people living in the Roman Empire at the time was the stories about Jesus, which were used to declare him as the Son of God.  In Judaism,  the term "Son of God" could be applied to kings, prophets, and the awaited for messiah.  Beyond Judah that term meant divinity; in that, the Son of God is God.   

Matthew and Luke faced a mixed audience of both Jews and Greeks.  As noted in my previous post, Matthew was focused on proving Jesus' divinity by referencing Old Testament prophesies.  While the Gospel of Luke makes slight use of prophecy regarding Mary, it appeals to a broader, cosmopolitan  Greek-speaking audience within the Roman Empire where gods were known to impregnate women  who bore offspring considered to be Demi-gods.  

Brian Muraseku draws an interesting connection between the Greek god Dionysus and Jesus regarding their birth stories.  I will speak more of this when it comes to mythic Jesus in the Gospel of John, but for now (to whet one's interest) Jesus and Dionysus are both connected to Galilee, Jesus hailed from Nazareth and Dionysus hailed from Scythopolis or Nysa, hence the name Dionysus or the god from Nysa part of the Decaoplis area and close to Nazareth. [Muraresku, Brian, The Immortality Key, St. Martin Press Group, 120 Broadway, New York, New York, pg. 200]

The point here being that such connection in the first century would resonate to a much large audience.  Within the ancient world, the idea that Jesus is God had precedents for such an understanding  

But what about today? 

How are we to understand the stories of Jesus' birth in the twenty-first century if the initial intent was to present Jesus not only as a Son of God, but also God incarnate?  

* * *

I am an advocate for keeping Jesus fully human and the concept of God as something beyond our comprehension to fully know.  I do not see a need to divinize Jesus any more than we are divinized when God breathed God's self into our first mythical parent, Adam to life.  Here I am going to rely on my primary thesis regarding Jesus:  What is true about  Jesus is true about us; likewise, what is true about us is true about Jesus.  

That premise rests on the one fact that is demonstrable - Jesus was a human just like us:

                                                                    Jesus was born.  

                                                                    Jesus lived.  

                                                                    Jesus died.  

In liturgical terms, we can identify this statement as the mystery of life that applies to all of us.  

I'm not a huge fan of using the term mystical, but for the purpose of this series on the Mythic Jesus, it is a term I cannot avoid because myth moves us from the concretized factual towards the perennial truths that myths often present in a mystic sense.  Given the facts, many of the stories about Jesus formulate mysteries based on myths which have been distilled into what is called the mystery of faith within liturgical settings:   

                                                                    Christ has died.  

                                                                    Christ is risen.  

                                                                    Christ will come again.  

It is the mythic that forms a demarcation between the factual and the mystical.  

* * *

If Jesus is purely human and nothing more, what truth(s) does Jesus' mythic/mystical birth stories present?     

I think there may be several.  The myth of Jesus' birth offers the idea that  every person born into this world is ultimately God's child and that this unfathomable creative and animating force is our true lineage.  Such a lineage is not based on a bloodline but rather a breath-line.  We share breath with every living thing that has been born on this earth since the dawn of  life on this planet.  

Mary's question, "How this can be?"  is the ultimate ontological question.  Gabriel's answer that the spirit of God would hover over her recalls Genesis 1 when the spirit of God hovered over the waters before God said, "Let there be light."  This creates a mystical connection between Jesus and God's first son Adam.  Jesus' birth represents a reset of the original creation story with a twist.  

Instead of Eve coming from Adam's side (rib), this new Adam (Jesus) comes from a new Eve's (Mary's) womb.  In essence, Jesus' birth is a mystic rebirth of who we are.  The Christmas story, especially as recorded in the Gospel of Luke, is essentially our birth story.  We enter the world naked and in need of care from the moment we take our first breath, the breath that every living thing shares with us on this earth.  To this day we continue to recycle the the first breath that Jesus took, that Adam took, and that every creature took since the beginning of life on this planet.  We are more connected by air than by blood, and we are more connected by being alive and experiencing life together more than anything else.

If God is a verb, the creative force that energizes all the power within the universe and animated life on this planet, then within this minimalist story of a baby boy born in a stable we are brought down to earth in order to be grounded in mystery that is life.  The idea that God came down and became incarnate is to recognize our common source and our common essence, the very ground we walk on. We are all incarnations of the creative and energizing force we call God.  In this sense, the birth story of Jesus in Luke resonates with the Gospel of John, more than it does with the Gospel of Matthew.  

Mary is the main character in this birth story.  Her visit from Gabriel starts her on a mystical journey with the child she bears.  She doesn't question the mechanics of the situation, she accepts the position God has placed her in.  What does it all mean?  How can it be? Are question that open the gate into her mystical journey where her pondering nature is the mode of transportation.  That which she has given life to becomes her life.

In Luke's version there are "shepherds abiding their fields by night, keeping watch over their sheep" to whom a host of angels appear to give them the good news of Jesus' birth.  Shepherds keeping watch over their sheep during the night present strong metaphorical connotations.  It is to those who watch over the vulnerable who get invited to see for themselves a new creation's humble beginning.  

Being awake to the dangers that lurk and prey on the helpless and unaware is a prophetic calling.  In the twenty-first century the shepherds of this era are the "WOKE," the people who are on the lookout for those who agitate and separate people into warring factions so that they are easy prey for the power-hungry.   They are the peacemakers that Jesus talks about, who are specifically called the children of God.  [Matthew 5:9] 

* * *

The Gospel of Matthew offers another perspective of Jesus' birth; that of a parent or a caretaker.  The "in-name-only" father of Jesus, Joseph, is the main character in Jesus' birth story in the Gospel of Matthew.  In order to protect Mary and Jesus, Joseph must give up his personal pride, his ego.  Joseph is dreamer (a mystic if you will).  He processes his dilemma of being married to Mary when he finds out she is pregnant with someone else's child.  His first impulse is to put Mary away privately.  He cares about Mary because he loves her, but he is faced with a nagging question, "Does she really love me?"  As far as the child goes, why should he care about it? It's not his.  He's in an awkward position and something deeper is nagging him not to  make a quick decision, so Joseph sleeps on it.

In his dreams an angel comes to him and fills Jospeh in on the details of Mary's pregnancy.  He immediately understands  and accepts that the child she bears is God's child.  Joseph awakens with a fresh outlook on both his wife and this child of God who he is entrusted to his care for as his own.  Joseph is not exactly an adoptive father.  He like Mary and Jesus are being used as archetypes, the Holy Family.  There is an otherness to their relationship with each; in that, they serve as exemplars of how we are to relate to each other and treat each other. 

Joseph is the adult in the room; both by age and by role.  He must overcome his inclination for self-preservation and become the preservationist of the other regardless of how the other appears to him.  He not only is given insight into their importance to God, but he sees their importance to whole family of God, the whole of humanity.  

The Gospel of Matthew also has visitors coming from a long distance to see Jesus.  The priestly Magi from ancient Persia, like the shepherds in the Gospel of Luke are watchers.  Unlike the shepherds, however, the Magi are seeking fulfillment of a Hebrew prophecy that said a king would be born in Bethlehem.  [Micah 5:2,4].  They offer the toddler Jesus metaphorical gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, which are traditionally understood as standing for his being a king, a priest, and a prophet.  Some see myrrh as symbols of the oil used to prepare his body for burial.  

The Magi were not Judaic priests, they were Zoroastrian priest of one of the oldest monotheistic religions.  How they came into contact with the prophet Micah can be explained by Jews sent into exile by the Babylonians who later came under the rule of the Persians. Their meaning in the twenty-first century is that their presence represents the perennial wisdom that exists throughout the world, a wisdom that will find a path to truth for those who are seeking it. 

The world of our making is never safe, and it wasn't safe for the infant/toddler Jesus.  Herod is a symbol of the paranoia that always accompanies those who seek power.  Any threat to power inches everyone in the way closer to death.  

The journey into Egypt is a reverse of the Israelites escape from Egypt.  Egypt in Jesus' day was a safer refuge for Jews than Jerusalem, a  city in the throes of constant power struggles between religious leaders, potentates like King Herod and the Roman governors.  

In the twenty-first century we must see Jesus as a refugee like the hundreds of thousands of refugees today on the move throughout the world.  Every human has ancestors that were refugees at some point.  Every person of European and Asian decent living in the U.S. is refugee of some kind.  Those who follow Jesus cannot turn a blind eye to those seeking refuge. 

The meaning of the mythos of Jesus' birth has many layers.  I have touched on only what had seeped into my mind at this time.  The reader may think of others, but from my perspective what I have written here will suffice for the present.

The next post in this series will be address the mythos attached to Jesus' baptism in the Jordan.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

  

 

  

THE MYTHIC JESUS - JESUS' BIRTH - THE MYTHOS

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.  Through him all things were made.  For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven:  by the power of the Holy Spirit  he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,  and was made man.   

From the second article of the Nicene Creed

* * *

It is probable that what we consider myths today were considered fact in ancient times by a vast majority of people.  Virgin births or a woman being impregnated by a god was always considered an exception to rule of human conception, but not unheard of.  The resulting offspring was considered semi-divine and could ultimately ascend to the status of full divinity, once his or her mortal coil was shrugged off and with the approval of the other gods and goddesses. 

In Jesus' case, the New Testament gives us two versions of Jesus' birth, one from the perspective of his mother, Mary's, found in Luke's Gospel and one from his nominal father, Joseph's point of view, found in Matthew's Gospel.  There are some interesting nuances to both stories that insist Jesus, by virtue of Joseph being Mary's husband, is a direct descendent of King David; an important factor in his being the Messiah and having claim to the Davidic throne.  As such, both Gospels offer the reader two genealogies of Jesus that make a point of Jesus' claim of being a direct descendent of David through Joseph's lineage, while making the point that Joseph is not Jesus' biological father but rather his nominal father by virtue of having married Jesus' biological mother.  (See Matthew 1 and Luke 3).

Jewish myths are often cast from within a genealogical perspective to offer authenticity, in the sense that the myth involves a real person chosen by God for a divine purpose.  In Jesus' case this becomes a bit murky; in that, Jospeh is disclaimed as having any sexual relationship with Mary prior to conception and birth of Jesus.  This is where the mythic imagination is needed.  

Why Jesus' birth was cast as a myth in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke is a bit of a mystery.

Couldn't Jesus have been declared God's Son as the biological offspring of Joseph? 

Couldn't we have accepted Jesus as the Messiah and God's Son without the insistence that Mary had no previous sexual encounter with a male that resulted in her becoming pregnant with Jesus?   

Both the Gospels of Mark and John make no mention of Jesus's "virgin" birth, leaving room for Joseph to be Jesus' biological father.  As noted in past posts, Paul's epistles make no mention of Jesus' birth other than saying he was born a Jew by virtue of being "born of woman, born under the law." (Galatians 4:4).

Why bother with creating a mythic story surrounding Jesus' birth?  

One probable reason is to provide continuity between prophecy and the person of Jesus.  That Jesus was born of a virgin is based on Isaiah 7:14, "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son..."  That Jesus was born in Bethlehem is based on Micah 5:2, "But you Bethlehem... out you will a ruler come..."   That Joseph had to escape to Egypt with Mary and Jesus due to Herod's plot to kill Jesus is based on Hosea 11:1 ..."out of Egypt I have called my son."       

Let's consider the "virgin" birth of Jesus.  Most biblical scholars today tell us that the Hebrew word for virgin in Isaiah did not imply a female who never had sexual intercourse, but rather was in reference to a young girl.  What is overlooked in that reference is no mention that God would be directly involved in the child's conception, only that a young girl will conceive and bear a son and will call his name Immanuel.   

Why did both Matthew and Luke decide to cast Jesus' birth as the result of a divinely wrought pregnancy? 

To answer that question, we need to consider the times in which the authors of these two Gospels lived and the audiences they were writing for.  Miraculous births would catch peoples' attention.  Nothing would point to the divine nature of someone than that person being declared the offspring of God; especially, in the cosmopolitan world of the polytheistic Roman Empire where such accounts would have drawn the attention of both gentiles and Hellenized Jews who would have been aware of such stories within other religions at the time.  There would have been an openness to the possibility that such a miracle could occur within a Jewish context as the prophecy of Isaiah was interpreted by both Matthew and Luke to lend credibility to such speculation.  

That angels appear to both Jospeh and Mary in these gospels lends mythic continuity between these stories. The presence of Gabriel adds to the mythology, as Gabriel is first cited as a mythic figure the mythical Hebrew stories of Daniel and Enoch.  The archangel Gabriel originated in the Zoroastrian religion of ancient Persia.  Gabriel serves as God's messenger to humankind.  Interestingly, Gabriel is not mentioned in prophecies that were promulgated prior to the Babylonian captivity, appearing in Jewish scripture after the Jewish exiles were subject to Persian rule following the fall of Babylon.  The presence of Gabriel lends also lends apocalyptic and eschatological significance to the story of Jesus' virgin birth. 

Was Jesus' conception asexual?

Anything sexual in Judaism is associated with uncleanliness and impurity that required special practices to ensure cleanliness.  To ensure that Jesus was completely sinless or spotless required that conception was as pure as could be.  God does not have sexual intercourse with Mary.  Instead, the Holy Spirit hovers over her, much like the Spirit of God hovered over creation and in this sense Jesus becomes a new creation forming in Mary's womb.  This is unlike the sexual trysts between mortal humans and Greek and Roman gods. Theologically, Mary was also considered pure and spotless herself as a virgin (and in Roman Catholic doctrine was herself immaculately conceived;  being free from original sin). That also begs the question, if God could cause Mary to be sinless, why not Jesus?   It also suggests that Jesus' conception occurred before Mary experienced menstruation which would indicate that she was very young indeed when she conceived. 

In Luke's account, Mary is portrayed as frightened by Gabriel's visitation and the thought of becoming pregnant and questioning how such an occurrence would take place since she had not "known" a man.  Gabriel assures her of a sexless union that will result in her having a son who she is to name Jesus.

What about Joseph?  

Meanwhile, in the Gospel of Matthew, we have Joseph's reaction to the news that Mary is pregnant with a child whose conception he was not involved with, although he was betrothed to her.  That he was betrothed to Mary brings a bit of drama to the whole story of Jesus' conception.  Apparently, it isn't till after he married Mary, that he found out that she was pregnant with a child that wasn't his.  That they did not engage in premarital sex places Joseph in a quandary. Knowing that he is not the father of this child led him to conclude he must find a way to quietly get Mary out of his life through a divorce.  He did not have to accuse her of adultery to divorce her.  In fact, under Jewish law he did not have to give a reason for a divorce other than he no longer wanted to be married to her.    

Enter an angel (Gabriel?) who informs Jospeh in a dream that the child is bearing was conceived by the Holy Spirit.  This is all the proof that Joseph needs to keep Mary as his wife. Given the patriarchal nature and religious rigidity of Judaism and the culture in which Joseph lived, the notion of getting a divorce without making a legal case for it or out of it could be understood as face-saving on Joseph's part, but reacting to a strong dream without question, though possible, is not very probable and lends credibility to the mythic nature of this story.  

In reality, it is more likely that Joseph and Mary were simply in love and married, as there is certain evidence for this on a genetic basis.  To be a direct descendant of King David by bloodline would have meant that Jesus was Joseph's biological son.  Even in the first century direct descendent meant someone could trace a biological link to someone in the past.  We can play with that by saying God was able to give Jesus' Joseph's genes without the need for sexual intercourse because all thing are possible with God.  

Yes, but why would God bother when God just as easily could have made Joseph's son God's Son simply by declaring him as such as in Jesus' baptism?  That was sufficient for the author of the Gospel of Mark.   After all, Jesus once stated that he could make children of Abraham from stones (Matthew 3:9).  The issue that requires a mythic interpretation of Jesus' divinely initiated conception is purity, i.e. sexual purity; as in, an asexual conception in order for Jesus to be the sinless, spotless Lamb of God described in the Gospel of John.  

Where was Jesus born?

Both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.  Unlike the Gospel of Luke, however, the Gospel of Matthew places Joseph's actual home in Bethlehem and it is there he had taken Mary after he married her and there, in their home, that Jesus was born.  To be clear, in Matthew there is no mention of Caesar Augustus, a census requiring a trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem, an inn with no rooms available, a stable in which Jesus was born or a manger in which he was laid.  

What about angels appearing to shepherds in their fields, guarding their flocks during the night?

This is where the mythic imagination of the author of Luke's gospel is evident.  Obviously, apart from Luke's account there does not exist any corroborating story to confirm what Luke's gospel is saying.  The heavens opening up and an angel announcing that Jesus is born and a large number of angels begin singing, "Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth, goodwill toward men" serves a mythic purpose, giving meaning to birth of Jesus as something to take note of; that there is more to this birth of baby boy than meets the eye.  Beyond that there is more to Jesus than meets the eye.  The angels don't wake up the sleeping residents of Bethlehem, rather they make their announcement to vigilant shepherds keeping watch over their flocks and it is their vigilance that should catch our attention and their willingness to believe the message of the angels and leave their flock momentarily to see this miraculous baby.  

Who are the wise men that follow the star to Bethlehem?

In Matthew's gospel there is no mention of angels making a grand appearance to shepherds at night. An angel approaches Jospeh in his dreams, but who come to see this miraculous baby is what the King James Version of the Bible identify as wise men.  Matthew doesn't give an exact number of how many.  That we have settled on three is due to the gifts they brought; gold, frankincense, and myrrh.    In the original Greek texts, these wise men were referred to as μάγος (magos) or magi.  They were not kings, but rather part of a priestly caste associated with (you guessed it) Zoroastrianism.  They were also considered astrologers whose supposed study of the stars led them to identify a movement in the stars that signified the birth of a king and a particular star that ultimately would lead them to Bethlehem. There is no need to say whether this star was an asteroid or some like phenomenon.  This is a mythic rendering of Jesus' birth.  

The author of Matthew was more concerned with casting Jesus' birth as a fulfillment of Judaism's prophetic scriptures than the author of Luke's gospel.  Although there is no specific prophecy regarding magi coming, there is a prophesy in Isaiah 60:1-6 of Kings bearing gold and frankincense.  The Psalms also mention "kings and nations bowing down before him"   with "him" referring to a messiah.  

If Jesus' was born in Joseph's home at Bethlehem, how did he end up living in Nazareth of Galilee? 

How Jesus ends up being in Nazareth is because King Herod learns of these magi coming into his realm in search of king.  According to Matthew, Herod was wary of anyone who might challenge his throne.  Accordingly, once he found out about a baby boy being born in Bethlehem who was to be king, he reported orders that all children between newly born and two years of age be killed.  There is no proof that such a thing actually occurred, although historians would not have put it past Herod to do such a horrible thing.   Once again what lends it be a mythic element is the likelihood that Matthew was using such a story to connect it to a prophecy in Jeremiah (31:15) "Rachel weeping for her children...". 

According to Matthew, Joseph is told in a dream to take both Mary and Jesus and flee into Egypt.  The journey to Egypt is also attached to prophecy fulfillment, "Out of Egypt I have called my son." (Hosea 11:1).  Of course, none of these interpretations can be specifically linked to the birth of Jesus.  God calling his son out of Egypt most likely would have been interpreted and is interpreted in Judaism as Israel.  That Jesus spent some of his early childhood in Egypt is possible, as there was a large community of Jews living in Alexandria and if there was political turmoil in Judah at the time of Jesus' birth, Joseph may have taken his family beyond the reach of Herod for a period of time.  Was there a reason for Joseph needing to leave Judah other than being told in a dream to do so?  If Jospeh was a known direct descendant of King David and Herod had gotten wind of it, it is possible that Herod would be searching for anyone who might make a claim on his throne and have the ability to raise an army against him.  All of this is speculation and while the possibility exists that there may have been legitimate reasons for Joseph heading off to Egypt and then resettling in Nazareth of Galilee strikes me as a more mythic reason for doing so as result of Jesus' birth.   

Matthew gives a reason for Jospeh heading towards Nazareth as a new home and for setting up shop as a carpenter is again associated with a prophecy, "He will be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23).  The problem with this prophecy is that there is no Old Testament scripture where it is found.  There is a number of speculative possibilities regarding the fact there is no known source to this prophecy.  My own thought on this is that this may be mythic overkill; in that, the author of Matthew was trying to make everything concerning Jesus' life associated with prophecy and needed a story-line to get him from Bethlehem to Nazareth.  These dramatic events are totally absent in the Gospel of Luke. 

Who are Simeon and Anna in the Gospel of Luke?

In Luke's Gospel one is given to believe that everything started in Nazareth and had Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem because that Joseph's ancestral home to be taxed and then returned to Nazareth.  In Luke, things normalize after Jesus' birth.  Jesus is circumcised and named Jesus after the eighth day and he is taken to the Temple to be presented by Joseph and Mary as their firstborn male child.  We are given to believe that by this time they found a home or place to stay in Bethlehem after Jesus was born, as they were in closer proximity to Jerusalem.   

The author of Luke does not rely on fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy once Jesus is born.  Instead Luke introduces us to two living prophets at the time, Simeon and Anna.   Simeon is not specifically depicted as a prophet.  Rather, he is depicted as a devout man upon whom the Holy Spirit rested, and likely was a priest.   He is attributed as being the author of the famous liturgical hymn, the "Nunc Dimittis."   Anna is depicted as a prophetess who lived in the Temple.   When Joseph and Mary presented Jesus in the Temple, they took him to Simeon, who was probably a priest.  Simeon takes Jesus into his arms and is the first to praise God for what he waited his entire life for, the Messiah.  Then Anna approaches at the same moment and prophesied the same.  

There are no other records regarding Simeon and Anna.  What we know of them is what the Gospel of Luke tells us about them.  That they are real people is likely and Luke's reference to them give legitimacy to his story.   Luke had no idea what Simeon or Anna actually said.  Luke literally uses poetic license to create "Simeon's Song," the "Nunc Dimmitis,"  just as he did in creating "Mary's Song," the "Magnificat," and the "Song of Zechariah," the "Benedictus."

What about Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth?

Part of the mythic story of Jesus' birth in the Gospel of Luke involves a distant cousin of Jesus, John the Baptizer, which played a role in the mythic birth of Jesus.  A mythic element attached to that birth is that the original Zoroastrian angel, Gabriel, appears to Zechariah and tells him that his wife, Elizabeth, who was of an age when conception was unlike, would conceive a bear a son, who he is to name, John.  As the story goes, because of his disbelief regarding Elizabeth's ability to have child  Zechariah was unable to speak until John was born.   At the time of naming the infant, Zechariah motions to those gathered who thought the child would be named Zechariah that he disapproved and motions for something to write on, Zechariah did as Gabriel told him to do and named the baby John, after which, he was immediately able to speak.   

* * *

THE MYTHOS

The Gospel of Luke gives us a family connection between John the Baptizer and Jesus that none of the other Gospels do.   Christians rarely consider the glaring fact that within the three Synoptic Gospels there are significant differences with regard to how the beginning of Jesus' story starts.  In the Gospel of Matthew we are offered a perspective that focuses on Joseph's role the protector,  the Holy Family mythos.  On the other hand, the Gospel of Luke offers a perspective that focuses on the Mary's role as the mother of Jesus, the Mother of God mythos, and differs greatly as to other characters involved in the mythos of Jesus' birth.  The Gospel of Mark offers no mythos regarding Jesus' birth.  

In the Christian mind, the birth of Jesus is a mixture of both the Gospel of Matthew's and the Gospel of Lukes mythic tales.  Both the tale of Jesus birth in Matthew and Luke are accepted as one tale from two perspectives thus forming the mythos of Jesus' birth. This is reflected in creche scenes around the world Mary and Joseph with Jesus wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in a manger with with cattle, donkeys, shepherds and sheep, wise men presenting gold, frankincense, and myrrh with an angel or two hovering overhead and the star shining in the background.  It has all become one piece, one story derived from two mythic interpretations.  

The mythos' initial intent is to define Jesus as the son of God from the moment of his conception and birth.  In the Christian mind today, is added the mystic mythos of John's Gospel; that what is laying in that manager is the Word made flesh.  God's very self in God's only begotten son or the Incarnation Mythos.  The Gospel of John has greatly influenced Christian understanding of Jesus' birth without mentioning any of the details found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.  John presents what has come to be known as the Cosmic Christ which is outlined in the first chapter of John's Gospel.  I will come back to the Gospel of John as it presents different understanding of Jesus and serves a different purpose than what one reads in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, as noted in the second article of the Nicene Creed at the start of this post

In my next post, we will examine the meaning of this mythos for today's world.

Until next time, stay faithful.

 

 

     

 

THE PRINCE OF PEACE WHO OFFERS NO PEACE - A Homily

 This homily was delivered on June 25, 2023 at Christ Episcopal Church in Yankton, South Dakota.  

May the words of my mouth and the meditation of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer.  Amen.

* * *

“Whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.

‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother… and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.  Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.’”   Matthew 10:32-36

New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, 

* * *

Wow!  That is a lot to take in!

Such passages makes one wonder why those trying to ban books that seemingly attack family values haven’t pushed to ban the Bible s from public libraries and schools?   In the conflicted  political and social climate of today ’s world might not Jesus’ saying, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” be considered a radicalizing enticement to violence?  In fact, there are reports of movements to ban the Bible from public schools  in places like Utah, Texas, and other states; in part, as pushback against people who would ban books, old and new, that talk about race and gender identity.

* * *   

Setting such issues aside, there does seems to be something off about Jesus in today’s reading from Matthew.  It prompts one to question if Jesus actually said this, given his Sermon on the Mount and his parables like, the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan.  We can never be certain about what Jesus actually said or in what the context he originally said it.  Knowing when something was written, along with textual hints, offers some insight into why something like today’s reading is found in both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.  

* * *

A pivotal time in the history of both Christianity and Judaism was the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE, which marks the approximate point at which Christianity and Judaism went their separate ways.   The Gospels of Matthew and Luke, where Jesus says he came to cause division in families is found, were written some ten to twenty years after the Temple was destroyed.  Interestingly, the Gospel of Mark, which was written ten to twenty years before the destruction of the Temple, mentions nothing about Jesus bringing a sword and not peace or causing divisions within families.  

In last Sunday’s Gospel from Matthew, Jesus tells  his followers they would be persecuted and flogged in the synagogues and dragged before governors and kings.  While this sounds like prophesy, the time in which this was written suggests that is what was happening at that time.  It accounts for the strong language we hear Jesus using about being denied by Jesus if they denied him.   Matthew uses it to address the problem Jewish Christians being enticed to deny Jesus as the Messiah.

* * *

Today it is established mainline churches that are increasingly experiencing division, throwing out members who challenge long held doctrines and practices as such individuals no longer see their relevance in a changing world.  On the other hand, some are leaving their church because their denomination has changed,  having become less doctrinally rigid and more inclusive to a diverse population with diverse needs.

For Example, the Southern Baptist Conference recently voted to remove one of its largest congregations, The Saddleback Church in California for ordaining women.  Churches like our own Episcopal Church are becoming increasingly concerned about following what Jesus taught; his inclusive way of unconditional love and seeking reconciliation with all of God’s children; especially the dispossessed and those living on the fringe of society.  Of course this has led some members and congregations to leave it, not only for ordaining women but also for ordaining openly LGBTQ priest and bishops.

* * *

When I look at today’s reading from Matthew, what comes to my mind is the paradoxical nature of God;  the God to whom dark and light are both alike (Psalm 139:12) and who causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:45).   What comes to mind is the paradoxical symbol of the cross representing both the inescapable finality of death that is essential for the emergence of new life. 

* * *

In today’s reading, the Prince of Peace did not come to bring peace.   He did not come to remove that which would disrupt or disturb our personal comfort.   Jesus’ teachings of love and reconciliation remain disturbing and disruptive within the world of our making, where might makes right and forgiving and loving one’s enemies is seen as a losing proposition.   

Today, denying oneself and taking up one’s cross has more to do with refusing to be lured into accepting a false image of who one should be, an image that others will try to impose on a person.  

To pick up one’s cross is being your authentic self, recognizing oneself as a child of God; a unique creation.  

To follow Jesus is to experience God by living into being the child God created one to be and to enter into the paradox of God, where there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor freeman, where all are one in Christ (Galatians 3:28); the perfect peace which passes all understanding (Philippians 4:7).

Amen.

* * *

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm