Interpreting Jesus’ Birth
December 9th, 2009 by Sean
Interpretation #1:
From eternity past the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit existed as a community of one, perfect in love, harmony, and joy. In the enternal counsels of this triune God the plan of salvation for the yet-to-be-created human race was decreed. The only question was who would go. Overwhelmed with self-sacrificial love, the Son volunteered to humble himself by uniting humanity to his divinity, veiling his deity by taking on human flesh. Two thousand years ago, this salvation plan was carried out by the second person of the Trinity. He entered the virgin womb of Mary and suddenly she became pregnant with God the Son. He was perfect God and perfect man, not half divine and half human like Hercules, but fully God and fully man in a totally unique way. This incredible event is called the incarnation—the moment when God became man for our salvation. In fact, the cross is not really the most important event for redemption, the incarnation is. For without the humbling act of God giving up his divine prerogatives to condescend to the lowly state of a first century Palestinian Jew, the cross would mean nothing. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, the incarnation is the premier event that brought God to man so that man could be reconciled with God.
Interpretation #2:
Throughout all of human history, from the instant God promised to defeat the serpent through a descendant of Eve, God has been working to bring his plan into fruition. A millennium before Christ an upstart Jewish king was promised that one of his descendants would rule over Israel forever. God promised King David that he father this descendant who then by both a son of David and a son of God. Generation after generation, Jewish women of Davidic ancestry hoped that they might be the one to give birth to the Messiah. Then, two thousand years ago, a Jewish teenager from a tiny village in northern Galilee was visited by the angel Gabriel. She was informed that she would have a son through a divine miracle. This child would be great; he would be called the son of the Most High; he would rule over Jacob on the throne of David forever. In the face of suffering a scandalous reputation, Mary, a model believer for all subsequent generations, said, “May it be done to me according to your word.” In fact, Joseph, Mary’s fiancé, nearly broke the engagement off when he found out that she was pregnant, that is, until an angel intervened to confirm what she had said. Thus, the Davidic King was born—the one who would be anointed to rule Israel, and through Israel to bless all of the nations; the one who would set right the whole series of wrongs that had begun with Adam; the one who would voluntarily give up his own righteous life on behalf of others who did not deserve it. Finally, at long last, the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, was born.
Which story will you be thinking about this holiday season? Though most Christians have no difficulty in combining these two descriptions of Jesus’ birth, we would do well to recognize that the two have different origins. One derives its content from the theologically complex propositions of Christian philosophers which were developed many years after the New Testament had been completed. The other is taken directly from the Scriptures. If the former is correct it necessarily casts a long shadow upon the latter and it effectively eclipses the simplicity and elegance of the historical facts about Jesus. Whereas the first version extols the self-sacrificial act of God the Son who existed apart from and prior to humanity, the second focuses on how God carried out his plans within time by working within the human race. In the first, the message is that humanity is a depraved and helpless species in need of alien salvation. The second conveys the idea that God is able to save mankind through a man, which thereby gives dignity and hope to all humans. In fact, from the point of view of the second account, Jesus is a new Adam—a new humanity—who succeeds where the former had failed. He gives the human race hope that, with God’s help, we can overcome sin and death.
God does not throw up his hands in frustration and say to himself, “I guess I’ll just have to go down there and do it myself,” instead, God looks down and says these people are made in my image, they are worth saving, and I have a plan to work through human frailty to save them all. Thus, through the weakness of human flesh God brought about salvation in and through the quintessential man who willingly resisted the temptation to rebel and instead humbly obeyed his Father to the uttermost. Our Lord could have sinned, he could have fallen prey to the deceptiveness of the Serpent, he could have grasped for equality with God, he could have esteemed his own life too precious to lay down; he could have chosen to exert his royal authority to rule over the world as a co-ruler with the god of this age; he could have called legions of angels to protect him from torture and death at the hands of twisted men; he could have come off the cross in a staggering demonstration of his innocence; but he did not. This miracle man consistently and tirelessly walked the narrow path that his Father had set for him. Hallelujah! Praise to God who loved so much that he gave his only begotten son. Praise to Jesus who loved so much that he obeyed his God to his last strained breath. It is a beautiful story, a story too easily lost when overlaid with mythology and too easily cheapened with an indestructible God in the guise of human flesh. May God give us courage to share the Bible’s real story with others who have been duped into substituting the flashy counterfeit for what really happened.
Sean,
Thanks for sharing the stark implications of this contrast. The Scriptures are definitely separate from the vague world of gnostic, neo-platonic thinking, in which, honestly speaking, it is DENIED that Jesus truly came as a human being ( I John 4: 2,3 / II John - verse 7.) Whether by convoluted trinitarian logic / or by converting Jesus into a spiritual “emanation” that effectively “borrowed” a human body temporarily (according to old gnostic thinking) / or by changing Jesus into a pre-existent angel (Arianism) - there seems to be a constant assault on Jesus’ humanity despite the warnings in 1st and 2nd John. It is even denied that Jesus had his “origin”/ “beginning”/ “genesis” as a human, despite the clarity of statements in Matthew 1 and Luke 1.
Understanding how God foreknew His Son and His Son’s accomplishments is key to not denying Jesus’ humanity.
I Peter 1: 20: He was marked out (literally “foreknown” in Greek) before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time for your sake.
There would not be any sense in “foreknowing” someone who already has some sort of “literal” existence.
“from the instant God promised to defeat the serpent through a descendant of Eve, God has been working to bring his plan into fruition”
If I were a nonbeliever and you just told me how God created the heavens and the world as we know it today in seven (7) days and now you are asking me to understand and believe this same God is “working” or has been working for the past 6000 years to redeem man from the sin of the man and woman He created, I am afraid I would be completely at a loss to understand.
Perhaps it should be clarified to mean that God already has everything worked out in His mind and it is a continued process. That is the first inclination that came to my mind as I read your quote above.
Randy,
honestly I’m mostly in the dark regarding God’s activity in history after the Bible, my comments were a reference to the history of redemption from Adam to Noah to Abraham to David to the Prophets to Jesus to the Apostles, etc. Good point though, the world is a mess. I certainly don’t mean to give the impression that God has been working to improve society/politics over time…apparently he has not been.
I’ve only read interpretation #1, but in that it seems to me that they hold the trinity doctrine over the importance of the divine conception, at least it gets most of the attention in their new member’s classes.
Sean
Tonight we visited a local church for its Christmas Spectacular, (which is a very professional production of music and dance) and amongst the celebration of the birth of Jesus is the espousal of interpretation #1. I saw this tonight being used in an emotional way to pull people in as if the idea that God coming down to earth to save man has more of an impact than what is the truth that Jesus as a man was born because God promised he would be born since Gen 3:15 and Jesus was obedient unto the death of the cross to legally redeen man. As outlined in interpretation #2
To the human mind without scripture to be its guide then #1 has a great emotional pull but the truth is always far more gut wrenching then mythology. That our Lord a man of flesh and blood of the seed of Abraham and of the seed of David would allow himself to be sacrificed in his obedience to God so that we might be reconciled back to God leaves one speechless in admiration at the majesty of God and the humility and sheer guts of Jesus.
so to quote your comment from #2
Hallelujah! Praise to God who loved so much that he gave his only begotten son. Praise to Jesus who loved so much that he obeyed his God to his last strained breath.
May God Bless us all who love his name
Reading the birth accounts of our Messiah I noticed something. There seems to be a discrepancy as to when Mary and Joseph were actually legally married. Matthew says that it happened as a result of the angel’s command for him to take her as his wife [Mat 1.20-25].
Luke says that they remained “betrothed” during the duration of the pregnancy and journey to Bethlehem for the Roman census [Lu 2.1-7].
Question: When do you think they were actually [legally] married? Before people would have found her to be with a child, or after? Considering the Jewish Law of the time where the woman would’ve been stoned for having sexual relations with her betrothed before the full legalisation of their marriage.
Xavier
I hope you don’t mind me interjecting my perspective on this subject. Luke was a companion of Paul and apparently had no contact with Christianity before he met Paul. At the very beginning of Luke he talks about how he made all kinds of inquiries of different people to try his best to determine the truth which he then lays out in his gospel. I think it is obvious that everything Luke writes about he has heard 2nd. or 3rd. hand from other people that had known Jesus or known people that had known Jesus.
All indications are that Mathew was an actual eye witness of most of the events he writes about. (Of course he couldn’t have witnessed the angel talking to Mary or Joseph.) As a rule of thumb whenever Luke contradicts Mathew or Mark I reject Luke’s version as being the less accurate of the three gospels.
Luke makes other contradictions as well the most obvious is the scene at the cross when according to Luke Jesus tells the one thieves being crucified with him that he will join him in heaven that day (or words similar to that). Where elsewhere it says that both of the accused that were being crucified with Jesus heaped insults on him right up until the time of his death. Again in this instance I reject Luke’s version of the events.
Of course these are just my own personal opinions.
Thomas,
I have found that the vast majority of apparent contradictions in the Gospels can be reconciled. As I suggested about the Jewish holidays, you can find info with Google on that too. Search for Bible Contradictions and you’ll get a wealth of material. Some from the perspective of disproving the Bible because of contradictions and some from the perspective of resolving apparent contradictions. I thank God for the Internet!
Thomas,
Are you a Christian? If so, are you a Marcionite?
Xavier
I’ve been told by Anthony that the correct term to describe my beliefs is Socinian which I must admit is a term I have never heard before. I’m sorry but I don’t know what a Marcionite is. I will google it and get back to you on that.
Xavier
I just googled it and I can say for sure I am not a Marcionite. From what I have read they seem to have believed almost the exact opposite of what I believe.
Thomas,
Reason I ask is due to your previous comment:
Marcion, as you can read, rejected not only certain NT books but the whole of the Hebrew scriptures. Something Christians are not supposed to do.
Although, we shouldn’t turn a “blind eye” to the discrepancies [grammatical and historical] of the NT, we shouldn’t “reject” them since this would mean denying its divinely inspired origin.
Xavier
I’m sorry if I was not clear in my last post. I do not reject the book of Luke that is one of the books that I consider to be mostly accurate and therefore valid. I am just pointing out that Luke by his own admission had to rely on the testimony of other people who may or may not have known Jesus directly since he himself was not an eyewitness to the events that he wrote about.
That being the case out of the three gospels I study when Luke contradicts one of the other two synoptics I dismiss Luke as it is obviously the least reliable of the three.
Mark was a companion of Peter and it is believed that Peter himself dictated the book as Mark transcribed it onto paper (or sheep skin or whatever). It must be remembered that Peter himself was an uneducated fisherman and his writing skills would have been very limited at best (very similar to mine).
Like I said all indications are that Mathew was an actual eye witness just like Peter but being a tax collector his writing skills would have been very evolved and he could write his own gospel.
Luke on the other hand was not a direct eye witness to the events but there is no reason to dismiss the gospel he wrote.
I must now retire now as it is getting very late. I hope you and everyone else have a very Merry Christmas.
Thomas,
Again, you cannot cherry pick the scriptures like that if you consider yourself a Christian whose after the truth.
Who gave you the Scriptures as they are Xavier? Did God send them down to you from heaven in a golden chariot? or did you receive them from drunken German and French Reformers who received them from the Whore of Babylon itself? You’d be a fool to not recognize they corrupted them somewhat. Jesus himself said tares would be sown among the wheat in the same field. That field is Scripture and although Jesus sowed a good word, the devil sowed his word in there too.
Consider that every prophecy in Matthew’s first two chapters is ripped out of context. Isaiah 7-8 is about Mahershalalhashbaz to be born of a virgin as a sign of when the kings of Damascus and Samaria would be defeated. Jer 31 is about Rachel weeping for her children in Babylonian exile not because they are murderer by Herod. Micah 5 is about a man from Bethlehem to fight Assyrian incursion into Palestine not to save souls on a cross. Hosea 11:1 is about Israel being called out of Egypt in the Exodus not Jesus as a baby. “He shall be called Nazarene” (Matt 2:23) doesn’t even exist in the Old Testament.
Jesus says in Matt 11:11 that “of all those born of women none is greater than John” implying strongly that He Himself was not born. And in John 6:51 “I am the come down bread from heaven…the bread is my flesh” showing that he descended from heaven with his flesh already, he descended full-grown.
The Catholics took the Marcionite canon and corrupted it with Pagan mythology lightly wrapped in twistings of Old Testament passages. Protestants should return to Marcionism and abandon the Catholic fables. Know also that Marcionites only called themselves Chrestians, and that Catholics gave them the name Marcionites.
Jeremiah 31:15-17 “Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. (16) Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. (17) And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border.”
This is what the Catholics twist into Herod murdering children. Yet Josephus who would love to lambast Herod doesn’t mention this crime. Because they’re twisting. This is exile not death.
Hosea 11:1 “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.”
Exodus, not infant vacation of Jesus.
Interpretation #2 sounds great (I’ve rejected #1), and if it were just the Old Testament and the Synoptics I would be with you on it. But the pre-existence language of John and Paul seems to demand a more Arian approach. Here are some texts that seem to plainly teach Jesus’ pre-existence:
John 1:15,30
John bore witness of Him … “He existed before me.”
Ιωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγε λέγων· οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον, ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.
John 3:13
And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man.
καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.
John 3:31
He who comes from above is above all…
῾Ο ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν.
John 6:32-33
Jesus therefore said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. …”I am the bread of life … For I have come down from heaven. …
εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ πατήρ μου δίδωσιν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν. … ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐχ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν, ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με.
John 6:62
What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before?
ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον;