The Christmas Story is such a sad, sad story.
At least that is the way it is told in countless sermons in churches on Christmas Day. The sermonizers tell us that “Jesus was born among the poorest of the poor, poor baby in poor ratty stable with big cow drooling on poor baby, poor baby so cold in the winter, etc.;” a story of poverty and deprivation. However, I tend to believe that the Christmas Story (Luke 1:26-38, Luke 2:1-20, Matthew 1:18-25, Matthew 2:1-23) is really about Good News and blessings, just like much of the New Testament with themes of abundant Grace and Providential Love. Presumably the Christmas Story, which is the introductory story in two books of the New Testament, is consistent with the major themes there, particularly Jesus’ idea of a providential deity. I’ll guess first century listeners heard the Christmas Story and interpreted it as a story of blessings.
With a bit of imagination, we can, too.
What about the holy parents, Mary and Joseph? Were they poor? Well, Joseph was by trade a carpenter, perhaps a building contractor or doing general woodworking. Tradition has it he was older than the young Mary. Was the mature Joseph a flop at his trade? Or was he top in his craft in his hometown of Nazareth? Did he have partners and apprentices? Why not assume Joseph was solidly middle-class and a successful craftsman? Why not assume he provided for his family very well?
The New Testament includes two genealogies, one for Joseph and the other presumably Mary’s (Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 respectively), and indicates some significant royal connection to King David. Royals can be impoverished, but why not assume instead that this couple had some political significance and were well-connected and well-supported by their followers? All the talk about Jesus, the King, or King-to-be in the New Testament is based on some strand of truth about a political reality. Pilate was aware of this reality when he asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” (Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3, John 18:33).
The Christmas Story shows us the royals making a long, hard journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem (about 60 miles). Do paupers make journeys? Yes, sometimes. But a long journey tends to indicate resources for making a journey: first of all, clothing for foul weather, and shoes or sandals for hiking, but more importantly, pack animals, a large supply of food for pack animals, and provisions for the travelers. Also, there would be trappings for the animals (harnesses, saddles, saddle packs, animal mangers), and general camping supplies, such as blankets, buckets, ropes, satchels and packs, tents and mats, etc. Traveling required planning and having the right equipment and supplies, just as it does now.
So many Christmas cards show Mary and Joseph traveling by themselves with only one donkey, and Mary (soon to give birth) riding the donkey. Well, a man would have to be foolish to travel 60 some miles with his very pregnant fiancée, without the security of a caravan. Remember what happened to the man traveling to Jericho? The one who was wounded by robbers, and then helped by the Good Samaritan? (Luke 10:25-37.) The roads were not safe. There were robbers and worse. So people traveled in caravans – like the company of relatives and friends that returned the holy family to Nazareth after the “boyhood visit at the Temple” in Jerusalem (Luke 2:41-51). The caravan leader would know the location of wells and other sources of water, and there was safety in numbers.
Whether it is 60 miles or more (with twists and turns in the road) from Nazareth to Jerusalem and nearby places like Bethlehem I don’t know – I’ve seen different figures and I suppose the distance also depends on the specific route. However, according to one estimate I’ve seen, it would have been a journey of about a week, walking beside or riding a pack animal such as a donkey or camel. Wouldn’t first century listeners automatically have assumed the holy parents were traveling with a caravan, and were thus blessed with the security of the caravan, the journey made easier by riding the pack animals? Why not imagine it thus, with the couple secure and at ease, instead of imagining Joseph and Mary wandering in a wilderness with only one donkey, not knowing the location of the next well, constantly at risk from brigands?
Now someone has pointed out to me that “Nazareth” might have been the name of a political movement (as in “Nazarenes”), rather than an actual town (at least for many centuries). Matthew says Nazareth is in Galilee at least twice. Luke says it at least three times. But even if “Nazareth” is a movement in Galilee and there was no such place as “Nazareth” then, it would still be a long journey from Galilee to Bethlehem – approximately 45 miles at the closest point.
“Jesus was born among the poorest of the poor, the poor shepherds,” or so you’ve heard in innumerable sermons. Well, with the coming of the Industrial Revolution and the rise of global city, yes, many shepherd communities are marginalized. But at the time of the Christmas Story, shepherds were a mainstay of the economy. Shepherds had plenty to eat (sheep meat and sheep milk), plenty of sheep wool to make clothing and tent shelters, and had a ready supply of capital (head of sheep) to convert into cash. Not paupers, but well-fed and well-clothed. Shepherds’ flocks are a sign of wealth – none of these people were starving, naked, or homeless. In fact the shepherd was for centuries, the typical Hebrew.
Thus, the story teller is telling his first century listeners that Jesus the King was born among his own people, the everyday folks of Israel. The story teller is letting the listeners know that this King was not in any way linked with the oppressors of Israel (the ruling Romans), and not in any way linked with the Jewish elite that collaborated with the Romans. Rather this was a true king of Israel, one with the people. He was not a member of the oppressor class; he was apart from the economic structure that benefited the oppressors, and apart from the Roman armed forces that furthered Roman interests in that part of the Middle East. For first century listeners, the issue would not have been “rich vs. poor” but whether Jesus was a true king of Israel, one with the people, and not one with the oppressors.
Nor was Jesus a “poor man among the poor” as an adult. Jesus was learned, could read and did read at the synagogue; he was a “rabbi” and teacher – hardly disadvantaged. Likely he engaged in his father’s trade of carpentry, at least until his preaching and healing ministry began, and while he preached he had contributions from wealthy women (Luke 8:3). So hardly a pauper.
The presence of the shepherds in the Christmas Story told the first century listeners that there was plenty of water available for the holy travelers and their pack animals, and plenty of grass for grazing the pack animals. Sheep aren’t going to be in an area without sufficient water and grass. The flocks of sheep had grass for grazing and water for drinking and thus, so did the travelers who parked themselves near the sheep. The presence of the shepherds also indicates that the area had been cleared of robbers, gangs, and other security threats. Thus the holy parents were blessed with sustenance for their pack animals and they were secure. The shepherds would have immediately been drawn to any caravan passing through their territory and they would have sought opportunities for trade, perhaps offering hospitality, too. Nomads (such as the roaming shepherds) are often renowned for their hospitality to strangers.
“There was no room for them in the inn.” (Luke 2:7). Now this phrase in the Christmas Story is often invoked by preachers to make us believe that the couple was in some sort of desperation – “No room at the inn; no room in our hearts for the Holy Savior, blah, blah, blah!!!” I’m sure you’ve all heard it. So often preachers tell us that Mary and Joseph suffered hardship because they were turned away at the “inn.” But the inn in question was likely a caravanserai, just a courtyard where the pack animals could be corralled and watered. A courtyard that was crowded, noisy, and maybe frequented by thieves. A courtyard that had no privacy. (As someone has pointed out to me, the courtyard would have had little or no roofing to protect against the weather.) It was not like a Holiday Inn with private rooms and beds. The idea of sleeping away from the pack animals in a private room would have been unimaginable to the holy travelers. In those days you would stay with your pack animals – if you didn’t, they could be stolen along with all your provisions.
The biblical author is telling us that providentially, the inn didn’t have enough space, and so the caravan set out to find water elsewhere. The caravan succeeded in this, and it camped near some shepherds, and thus, the baby Jesus was born in a private setting, a secure setting, a dignified setting. Because of the local shepherds on “night watch,” the fields were secure. Mary, the Holy Mother, could give birth out in the darkness of the night without fear and in complete privacy.
What blessings do we have so far? The means to travel. Secure travel in a caravan. Royal status in the community. Water. Grass for grazing. Hospitality and trading. Privacy. Security among the shepherds. The Christmas Story is not a story of hardship and deprivation. It is a story of Divine blessings.
It wasn’t as if the travelers needed an “inn.” They had already been on the road for several days, and had likely been “camping out” much of that time or all of it, and likely were well-equipped to continue camping. The only thing the travelers needed to find was water – and they found it with the shepherds. By telling us that the inn didn’t have space, the author is reassuring us that the travelers did not stay there and in fact, they found something far better.
Another possibility is that we are supposed to assume that because there was no room at the “inn,” that the caravan was in fact too large to fit inside the inn, even when the inn was empty. The royal ones had a huge caravan, bigger than most, wealthier and more secure than most. Why not assume the best?
You may have seen a play or pageant where a nasty innkeeper, cruel and cold-hearted, turns away the holy family. Was there an innkeeper? Not in the original story!!! In fact no one in the original story is negative in any way, other than the political adversaries; instead, the baby king is welcomed, joyously welcomed, by a heavenly host of angels, throngs of shepherds, and (in Matthew 2) the gift-bearing wise Magi, searching for the “king of the Jews” (Matthew 2:2). Not a drop of cold-heartedness among them; rather, an abundance of joy, awe, warmth, and giving. What a blessing this welcoming celebration was! (I’ll give a nod here to G.J. MacDonald’s article in the December 26, 2009 NCR for its emphasis on welcoming.)
Should we pine because “poor” Mary did not have a bed for birthing? The idea that women should give birth by lying in a bed is a notion that is fairly recent (maybe as recent as the invention of waterproof mattress pads). In former times, if a woman had a bed, she would not soil it by giving birth in it. Nor would a woman give birth by lying down the whole time. Women squatted when ready to give birth. So Mary would not have wanted a bed for her labor, only the soft blankets and mats she had with her for camping. We can assume Mary had the pain of labor, but the biblical authors don’t mention it, focusing instead on more positive things.
Why were Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethlehem? Now I know the standard answer is that Joseph was going to Bethlehem to register in the Roman census. “And everyone went to his own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.” (Luke 2:3-5).
It has always puzzled me why the Romans would make Joseph travel 60 miles to register in a census. At least that is what the biblical text seems to imply. Would the Romans risk major economic disruptions by making every man in the empire travel to his place of origin? How could the Romans collect their taxes in such turmoil? How could they get an accurate census count under such conditions? (Think how well such a strategy would work here in the US – it wouldn’t work at all!) Also, wouldn’t it be quite a security risk for the Roman occupiers of Palestine if thousands of Jewish men were suddenly roaming the countryside en route to somewhere else? Romans wouldn’t want large numbers of men moving about the countryside. It was hard enough for them to maintain order at Passover when large numbers of people went to Jerusalem to offer animal sacrifices. There could be disturbances, even at the main Temple.
Is there another way to read this passage about a census? Could it be that with many years of re-telling, the original story got garbled and maybe should have an entirely different meaning? (I’ll speculate just a bit here, maybe it’ll be fun and I’ll come up with something interesting.) How about this? “Each man registered at his own town (where he currently resided). Joseph left because he belonged to the house and line of David and he went to his ancestral home in Bethlehem with Mary instead of registering.” Why would Joseph try to avoid the census? I don’t know, but I’m guessing that this story of going to Bethlehem in Luke is part of or is a parallel to the story of the flight into Egypt in Matthew 2; that the unborn baby Jesus was somehow at risk because he was destined as a descendant of King David to be “king of the Jews.” A census that might uncover his special lineage or kinship would be a threat?
The passage about King Herod plotting to kill the newborn Jesus in Matthew 2, and reportedly killing all the male babies in Bethlehem in a futile attempt to kill Jesus, indicates that it was not just a census that drove out the royals, but that the political situation in general was untenable. Of course a census that pinpointed the exact locations of all members of the royal clan would have made a massacre like Herod’s efficiently genocidal.
We shouldn’t assume the Roman census was a neutral happening like a modern day census in a democratic society where they count people to determine the number of potential voters or how many schools to build. I’ll guess the purpose of the Roman survey was to count the number of men of military age who could be a potential threat to Roman domination (or eligible to be conscripted?). The surveyors could also sniff out any active militias, any royal pretenders (like Jesus’ family), anything that could threaten Roman rule.
If indeed the journey to Bethlehem is an escape from the census takers or deeper political problems, then the presence of the shepherds is even more providential. The shepherds out in the countryside were relatively free from Roman rule (unless the shepherds went into controlled cities or towns). No way the shepherds were included in the census – the Romans would not attempt to tally roaming nomads like shepherds. If the holy family got hospitality from the shepherds and took shelter with them in their tents, they were out of reach of the Roman authorities and their spies and collaborators, out of reach of jealous, murderous kings. So let’s add another blessing to our list of blessings: freedom from oppression. The baby king was out of reach of the oppressors. Out of reach of those who might seek to kill him because of his royal lineage (unless some visiting Magi happened to give away his location).
The fact that Joseph took Mary with him on his journey to Bethlehem strongly indicates he was fleeing, not complying with, the census. Romans likely were not counting women. Back then women, like slaves, were the property of men. Mary did not need to take a long journey in her very pregnant state so that Joseph could register in a census that was counting men only; but Joseph did need to take his wife if he didn’t plan to go home again for a very, very long time, or if he didn’t know when he’d be going home again.
One important question here – if Bethlehem was Joseph’s ancestral home, why was the couple looking for a place to stay in Bethlehem, such as the “inn” or the shepherds’ territory? Why not just stay with family? Was there no more family left in that area? The answer might be that the family members residing in Bethlehem had already joined the caravan, joined the caravan as it approached Bethlehem in fact. All those sharing the royal blood were at risk, not just Mary and Joseph. So in-laws from both sides had joined or were joining the caravan to flee. Mary and Joseph’s flight did not end at Bethlehem, but rather had as its ultimate goal a safe haven in Egypt.
The travelers would have had some warning of the coming census and time to make arrangements for joining a caravan as a group, so this escape could have been a carefully planned exodus. Was Mary glad to have help and provisions from her in-laws? If so, what a blessing they were to her!
What about the wise ones or “Magi” from the East who bestowed gifts on the newborn baby Jesus in Matthew 2? Had the Magi been part of the caravan before it reached Nazareth? What a wonderful providential happening – surely the gift of gold from the Magi helped the holy family make provision for the long journey into Egypt. What a blessing that was, to get the gold and to find safe haven in Egypt. Many sermonizers place the arrival of the Magi two years after the birth of Jesus; however, the Magi could have been there the night Jesus was born, because Matthew indicates that when the Magi presented gifts to Jesus, it had been two years since they first saw the mystical star they had been following (Matthew 2:16). There is no indication the star appeared for the first time at his birth, only that he was born sometime in that two year interval.
What about those nativity scenes on Christmas cards where Mary is the only woman there? Would a woman about to give birth go traveling without her kinswomen? Where was her cousin Elizabeth who Mary had assisted with childbirth several months earlier? (Luke 1:56) How likely is it that there were no other women in the caravan? How likely is it that the visiting shepherds did not include women and children? Wouldn’t those shepherds actually watching the sheep, (those notified of the birth by the angels in the story), tend to be teens or even younger, both boys and girls, that is, those physically capable of constantly running after sheep? (My guess based on a video I saw.) Isn’t this scene of an all male cast of onlookers at the nativity much like the scene of a “Last Supper” with only men? Who did the cooking? Again, if the journey from Nazareth is a planned exodus of the royal clan, then Mary’s relatives would have accompanied her. Twelve years later, in the story of the “boyhood visit at the Temple” (Luke 2:41-51), there are kinsfolk mentioned traveling with the holy family to Nazareth, so let’s assume the kinsfolk were there 12 years earlier also. Why not assume that Mary was blessed with all the help she needed with her birthing?
Mary was prepared with clothing for her baby (cloths to wrap him). The biblical author lets us know Mary was well-supplied and well-prepared, and her baby did not lie naked like a pauper’s baby. Swaddling clothes implies a community of women weaving (spinning thread, making dyes, designing patterns, making looms, etc. and chatting all the while), not usually something done in isolation. So why not assume Mary was blessed with a community of women to support her? Of course her situation could have been pitiful, with only her husband to help her (technically, her betrothed husband-to-be, according to Luke). But the Bible seems to be reassuring on this point – she had the necessary clothing for the baby. What a blessing!
So many Christmas cards show the holy family in a stable; a stable that is a little wooden shack. It seems to me that in a country where there were few forests, wood would be precious and wouldn’t be wasted on an animal enclosure. The stable would have been more likely made of stone, brick, or been partly or completely a cave. If indeed there was a stable – the original Greek can be interpreted, “she placed him in a stable” or “she placed him in a manger,” in/on a manger, etc. It is not clear. My guess is that the wooden manger and wooden stable on Christmas cards are concepts that sprang from the wooded landscapes of Europe, probably some time after the first millennium.
The shepherds do not enter the Christmas Story until after the birth of Jesus. Nevertheless, if the shepherds had built some sort of shack, shed, stable, etc., then of course the travelers could have taken shelter there even before meeting the shepherds. But the shepherds were nomads. They lived in tents. They roamed about, following their sheep. As the sheep nibbled one meadow down to the roots, the shepherds would move on to greener pastures. It’s not clear how much need tent-dwelling shepherds would have had for shacks, sheds or stables.
Assuming we are supposed to envision a “manger,” (typically a container for animal feed) where would it have been? Could there have been a shepherd’s manger for their sheep somewhere, if not in a shed, then maybe in a cave that the shepherds frequented? Well, not likely they would put feed in a cave. Caves can be damp. Then feed would rot.
I think we are supposed to assume that the manger did not belong to the shepherds but rather belonged to Mary and Joseph and was part of their camping gear in the caravan.
What would a caravan manger be like? Maybe it was a container for storing animal feed rather than a container used to feed animals. You would not allow animals to feed directly from a storage bin because the animals’ slobbering would contaminate the feed with saliva, get it damp, and mold and rot would take hold. Likely the manger in the Christmas Story is not meant to be a feeding bin for animals (with animals trying to nibble around the baby, or nearly gnawing on the baby), but a container of some sort for storing animal feed.
Christmas manger scenes typically show a manger made of wood. I suspect the manger would not be made of wood, which was relatively scarce in Palestine, but would instead be of leather, like a duffle bag or closable pouch, or some other form easily slung over or hung from a pack animal like a camel or donkey. I’m thinking leather or oiled leather because that would keep the food dry in the event of rain. Maybe with some wicker component to give it more shape.
Would the manger be holding hay (straw, dried grass)? I know there are millions of Christmas cards showing the baby Jesus lying on hay. But in a country like Palestine with little or no snow, I can’t imagine anyone would need to gather hay for the winter. Grass is uncovered year round. And since I mentioned snow, I should also mention someone told me it is likely Jesus was born in high summer because the shepherds in the Bible are on “night watch” – evening being a better time for grazing woolly sheep than under the broiling summer sun. So much for Christmas cards with snow drifts all around, and so much for sermons bemoaning the bitter cold of winter.
Also, caravan animals would be allowed to graze during the journey on whatever they would find growing wild. That would include grass. So what feed would have to be carried by a caravan? Grain, of course. You wouldn’t allow your pack animals to graze in fields of grain. The local farmers would take a dim view of that. You’d have to carry whatever grain you’d need for the journey. And here I’m thinking of crossing the desert to Egypt – would there be enough for the camels to graze on along the way? Somehow I can’t envision a caravan carrying bales of hay to feed the animals – too bulky.
In one of The Silk Road videos, all the camels in the re-enacted caravan are allowed to graze on whatever is growing wild, except the lead camel which is hobbled. The other camels will not leave their leader and wander off. I’ll conclude the lead camel is fed if it is not allowed to graze, fed with feed taken from some feed pack transported in the caravan. And by the way, that caravan was not toting bales of hay.
So the next question is what type of grain is in the manger? Wheat, oats, barley, rice? Well, I’m going to guess that Luke, the author of the Christmas Story, wants us to think of wheat. Why? Because the New Testament is loaded with references to wheat and bread. Apparently, Jesus’ signature ritual was a communal “bread breaking.” “Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.” (Luke 24:35) There is some reason why this baby in a manger idea is important. Luke says “in a manger” three times. It is something we are supposed to “get.” Maybe we are supposed to think that the grain is a symbol of life and abundance. Gospel writer John has Jesus say, “I am the bread of life.” (John 6:35); and “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” (John 10:10). Of course the manger could be empty except for the baby, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Is the baby Jesus “in” the manger, that is resting in contact with the grain, or is the baby lying “on” the manger? Prepositions can be tricky in translating and I’ll guess that the baby was not actually placed “in” the grain (too messy), but rather, the baby was placed “on” the grain container (sack, pack, pouch, or bag) and had a very comfortable bed, sort of the sensation of lying in a bean bag chair, or on one of those therapeutic bean-filled pillows. And think about it – if you were a young mother in a caravan, where would you put your newborn baby to sleep? Where else but on a comfy pack of grain?
Whether the nativity manger belonged to the shepherds or the travelers, whether it stored grain or was a feeding trough, whether the baby was in the manger or on it, the message is clear – the grain is a symbol of harvest abundance, of Divine Providence. Perhaps the baby lying on the grain is a symbol of the Divine manifested in the midst of blessings, or perhaps a symbol of the ultimate gift from Divine Providence: the Divine being born into our lives.
I’ll guess the imagery of a baby lying atop grain is more potent if the manger is a storage bag for human food (food for the human travelers), rather than animal feed.
In one of The Silk Road videos, a woman of Asia feeds grain to her flock of sheep by first unrolling many yards of cloth on the ground, then pouring a thin ribbon of grain down the center of the cloth. Dozens of sheep come up to the cloth and eat. Could the manger in fact be a bolt of cloth, reminiscent of the winding cloths used for a shroud? If so, it could have been reminding the first century listeners of the resurrection of Jesus. I think of that rolled feeding cloth every time I try to imagine a bunch of animals trying to eat from the unbelievably teeny tiny wooden rack portrayed on Christmas cards. What would that rack feed? Maybe one animal at a time? Kind of useless.
Surely first century listeners never envisioned a nativity scene with a baby perched atop prickly straw in a little wooden rack, with a cow trying to lick the baby’s face, all housed in a wooden shed-type structure or stable. More likely, first century listeners envisioned the camp of a caravan with tents, camels, horses, and donkeys; lots of men, women, children, and sheep milling about, and the holy baby plopped comfortably on top of a closed bag of grain. No cows, by the way. Shepherds usually don’t keep cows because they can’t compete with sheep.
The biblical author(s) writing as Luke and Matthew tell us that Jesus was born of a virgin (Luke 1:26-38 and Matthew 1:18-25), a theme that parallels far more ancient spirituality, and they put Mary the Virgin and her son in a place of honor alongside the virgin Great Goddess, benevolent mother of fruitful harvests and her son. (Here I’ll point to the work of Merlin Stone, When God Was a Woman, 1993.) It’s interesting that Mary is “overshadowed” by the Divine (Luke 1:35). This is not a divine impregnation or “spirit” insemination in a biological sense, but rather a divinely inspired shift in Mary’s reality by Mary via her consent. In the most ancient Great Goddess tradition, there was no fatherhood, only motherhood; and in the case of this story of Jesus, no biological father, only a biological mother. Did the first century Jewish-Christians recognize the Goddess imagery in the story?
There can be no doubt that the Goddess theme does not signal misery, poverty, lack, deprivation or anything of the sort. Quite the contrary, the Goddess theme evokes plentiful harvests, good hunting, bountiful Earth. If the Goddess was recognized as a mild, non-judgmental, and providential deity, and I believe that was the case, then this imagery could have set the stage for the Gospel “Good News;” telling first century readers that the new vision of the Divine preached by Jesus is one of a benevolent, providential, mothering/fathering entity, much like the ancient Goddess. Jesus’ divine Abba knows what we need and is the One-Who-Provides-For-Us (Matthew 6:8, Matthew 6:25-34, Luke 12:22-32, Matthew 7:11). Abba is the One-Who-Seeks-Us, like the woman searching for her coin (Luke 15:8-9), like the child-shepherd searching for her sheep (Luke 15:3-6, Matthew 18:12-14), like the parent awaiting the prodigal (Luke 15:11-32), like the angel inviting Mary to become a partner in a divine process (Luke 1:26-38). For Jesus, creation is a process, the growing of the “Kingdom” (Luke 13:18-21) in which we are the recipients of Divine abundance, clothed better than the lilies of the field, fed better than the wild birds (Matthew 6:25-34, Luke 12:22-32). The Christmas Story with its avalanche of blessings for Mary, and Mary portrayed as fruitful Goddess, introduces this idea of divine abundance very effectively.
How much of the Christmas Story is based on Mary’s recollection and interpretation of events, “But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.” (Luke 2:19), and how much is symbolism to make a point? Are we supposed to assume that Jesus had some sort of supernatural beginning to his life, or are we supposed to think that each and everyone of us is an incarnation of the Divine, that “we are all avatars” (as a friend has postulated)? Can the virgin birth story serve as the foundation for a concept of Trinity: (1) Divine Providence, both indwelling and illimitable, yet indivisible, (2) all people who are receptive to the Divine as Mary was; and (3) the fruit of that interaction. All good topics for debate.
Did Father-God Creator abase himself to enter our “Wretched Existence” in the person of Jesus in order to redeem this “fallen” Creation? Proponents of this view are foremost in proclaiming the Christmas Story a story of wretched deprivation. Instead, why not assume that the Divine is not like an embarrassed cook with a fallen soufflé, but rather, the Divine wisely and providentially has mixed all the right ingredients for a perfect Creation (ingredients of good and bad, light and dark, joy and sorrow, etc.), and that the Divine enters our existence as our co-creator, with abundant Grace, an essential life force we could not be without. Unless there is not enough Grace to go around, why not assume that Jesus, the Holy Child, is not unique, but rather is an example of the divine nature all of us try to express?
Is the virgin birth story just something to make us, the readers, think that Jesus was “important,” or is the story somehow an essential part of the Gospels, and placed at the beginning of the Gospels because it is so very essential? Jesus put a lot of emphasis on the growing of the Kingdom – something to do with the triumphal finale of humankind I suppose; an idea seemingly not compatible with the earlier or later revisionist notions of humankind as a failure or “fallen” and in need of salvation or redemption, and not compatible with the notion that creation is a not-unanticipated failure on the part of the Creator responsible for it. Rather, there is every indication that the growing of the Kingdom is an intentional divine process, in which we are the main actors, co-creators, and destined for glory. We are not fallen degenerates or victims of deprivation; instead, we are growing towards our destiny and everything we need spiritually is at hand for furthering the Kingdom. That is Good News indeed. We are richly blessed to be a part of this process. We can think of humankind producing and delivering this final divine product much like a Virgin birthing a divine child.
One of the strangest ideas in theology is that humankind is capable of thwarting the will of an all-powerful Creator (Father-God) and he allows this, and then casts the miscreants into eternal damnation (the sermonizers really get going on this one). Under this pessimistic point of view, Father-God is all-knowing and knows the outcome in advance, yet nevertheless, he persists in creating miscreants and then damning them – is that futile or what? Instead, why not assume that despite the pangs of childbirth (and the obvious noxiousness of some members of homo sapiens), all of us are ever following the path to Life and our Divine seeker is shepherding us along that path like a good shepherd should. Why not assume we are never far enough from the path to be separated from Divine Love, and “nothing can separate us from that Love”? (paraphrase of Romans 8:38-39). That Love will carry us through and we will reach whatever our spiritual goal is. Is the Shepherd incapable of finding and bringing home every last sheep? I wouldn’t bet on it (Matthew 18:14). Each of us is blessed.
As the caravan of camels headed out across the desert in the moonlit cool summer evening, Mary clasped the little newborn king closely to her. She was really looking forward to seeing Egypt. She was so interested in those Egyptian ideas about life after death. Maybe she could find a teacher somewhere to explain it. Mary was glad she’d had the opportunity to meet the Magi, one in particular, and to quiz her about the Ways of the East. Maybe Mary would teach her baby about these spiritual ideas when he was older.
Joseph was sorry to leave his shop while business was booming but partners and apprentices would keep the business going while he was away, until the political situation improved. There was always lots of business for a skilled building contractor, always a need for general carpentry work. Nice to be solidly middleclass, able to support a wife, able to afford this expensive journey. He had no doubts he could find work in Egypt. They were blessed and would live well. A change of pace would be nice.
Mary was ever-mindful of Joseph’s devotion to her. He had accepted her pregnancy even though he knew the child was not his (Matthew 1:18-25). He could have broken off their engagement or worse, sought the legal remedy to have her stoned for illicit sex, killing both her and the unborn child. He was a blessing to her.
Mary knew that with so many earners in the clan, there would be no problem getting a nice house in a city. She was really looking forward to this adventure. Being young, being royal, being a new mother – what a wonderful life!!! This was not how she had envisioned her time as a new mother, but still, she was blessed with everything she needed. She knew nothing yet about how King Herod was just then massacring all the baby boys in Bethlehem in a futile attempt to kill hers (Matthew 2:16). It was only later she realized what a blessing their escape had been.
Herod’s massacred victims were hardly experiencing blessings, but the biblical author is not trying to explain the presence of evil and suffering (none of us can adequately explain it); rather the Christmas Story offers us a ray of hope, that the flow of Grace and blessings will lead to one inevitable result – the Kingdom will certainly come.
The Christmas Story is not about sadness and deprivation. Instead it is a story about abundant blessings. The angels in the story announce the holy birth as “good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10), and the story is overflowing with blessing piled upon blessing.
Was Mary blessed? Author Luke thought so. That’s why he has her sing out, “All generations will call me blessed.” (Luke 1:46-49); has her cousin Elizabeth exclaim, “Blessed are you among women.” (Luke 1:41-42); and has the angel say, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” (Luke 1:28). Seems like a consensus here.
This optimism is what the biblical authors were trying to convey I believe, but it is a bit too, too much for me even on one of my best days. Just the same, it’s given me joy to write this post. Whether the real Christmas story is exactly as I have recounted it, or whether I have been a bit too, too speculative at times, I’ll let the reader decide.
-2009-
