"When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord commanded. He brought Mary home to be his wife..."
When I initially read this passage in preparation for this project, I didn't know what to write about it. In American Christian culture, there is no area that receives more attention than the birth of Christ, with the possible exception of His crucifixion. Finding some new angle on the birth narrative is difficult, if not impossible, and I still have two more to go!
With this in mind, I decided a) not to attempt innovation at the expense of accuracy and b) to focus on the unique aspects of Matthew's birth narrative. Reading it in parallel with the other accounts in Luke and Mark, the primary difference seems to be Matthew's emphasis on Joseph.
There may not be any important biblical character more marginalized than Joseph. As Jesus' earthly father, he was given the important task of raising the Son of God1, but if Joseph is mentioned at any length, the focus is almost always his reaction to finding out about Mary's pregnancy. Understandable, since it's the most interesting thing we're explicitly told about Joseph. It's hard to imagine what a shock it would be to learn that your virginal fiancee was pregnant at all, let alone that it happened under such atypical circumstances. The natural reaction for most of us, myself included, would probably be hurt and anger. However, if Joseph experienced these prior to the angel's confirmation of Mary's story, we aren't told. Although Mosaic law allowed Joseph to publicly break the engagement and save his own reputation, his only recorded reaction is to discreetly break the engagement, explicitly to save Mary any embarrassment.
So what do we learn from Joseph's reaction in this passage? Maybe to trust the ones we love, maybe to trust that God has a plan that is bigger than us. Still, there is one lesson that seems to stand out above all the rest: When given the opportunity for vengeance or, at least, absolving himself of wrongdoing, he chose to act mercifully. Notably, we don't know much about the aftermath of Mary and Joseph's wedding. Chances are, there was plenty of talk--after all, it wasn't like the angel filled in all of Nazareth on what was happening. Still, the Bible itself never speaks negatively about Joseph. History has absolved him, even if it hasn't glorified him.
Joseph's actual position in terms of the biblical family structure pretty interesting too, although I don't know if it's really more interesting than Joseph's character. It did stick out in my mind though, so here goes: The family structure is intended to parallel God's relationship with us. The complex relationships between family members are representative of the relationship between God and his Church and God and the world at large. The most important aspect for this particular observation is that fathers are intended as metaphors for God himself. A child's perception of God is heavily influenced by his view of his father. If his father is authoritarian and harsh, he will likely visualize God similarly. If his father is untrustworthy, trusting God will likely be more difficult, and vice versa. This puts Joseph in a strange and somewhat amusing position. By virtue of simply being a father, he became a representative of God in the symbolic familial structure, but, because his son was literally the Son of God, he was also acting as a physical stand-in for Jesus' actual Father who was, of course, God Himself! So, it's a lot of pressure for one poor guy who just thought he was about to marry his sweetheart.
1 This is particularly important if you believe, as I do, that Christ had the potential to sin.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Building Jesus: Matthew 1:1-17
Matthew 1:1 - The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham
This undistinguished verse is the start of the New Testament. If you grew up in church, you know that Matthew starts with a fairly lengthy (but not comprehensive) genealogy of Christ, from Adam through Mary and Joseph. Reading through the list of names here isn't all that exciting, particularly if you don't look up the names, but I do think there are some interesting insights to be found.
I. The Genealogy Question
Looking at verse 1 in a couple different translations, I noticed that "genealogy" was sometimes translated differently, as “history” or “works.” Looking up the original word shows that both of these are legitimate translations, which suggests that Matthew 1:1 may be an introduction for more than just Chapter 1. If it is read as “works” or “history” instead of genealogy, it can be seen as an introduction for the entire book of Matthew, since the book itself tells the story of Christ.
Since I don't believe the ordering of the books of the New Testament was inspired, this next observation is primarily literary, but I found it interesting anyway: Taken even more broadly, Matthew 1:1 can be read as a forward to the entire New Testament. The only requirement is showing that the New Testament is structured around Christ. Broken down into a classical narrative structure, this is easily defended. I see the simplified structure of the New Testament thusly:
Exposition – Christ is born, political and spiritual settings established
Rising Action – Christ begins ministry, recruits disciples, makes enemies by shaking up status quo, Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem
Climax – Christ's enemies arrange to have him arrested, tried, and eventually crucified.
Falling Action – Christ rises from the dead, appears to disciples, ascends t Heaven to send the Holy Spirit to continue His work.
Denouement/Resolution – Christ's disciples spread the Gospel and recruit new followers, expanding Christ's doctrines into practical everyday life.
II. The Relationship Metaphor
While a few of the names in the list are notable, familiar even to non-Christians (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of Israel; Rahab of Jericho, the first Gentile in the list, who protected Joshua's spies; Ruth and Boaz; several kings, including David, the man after God's own heart), but mixed in are several people of whom we know little to nothing--Salmon, Shealtiel, Zadok, Matthan, etc. In fact, their only importance in the narrative is that they are in Jesus' line, related to the dramatic center of the New Testament.
In the same way that these people acquire historical significance from their historical relationship to Christ, Christians acquire their spiritual significance from their spiritual relationship to Christ. Seen in this light, Christ's genealogy serves as a powerful metaphor for “the least of these”, those forgotten by the world who are nevertheless important, irreplaceable members of Christ's spiritual family.
This is already getting fairly long, so I'll finish up my analysis of Matthew 1 in my next post.
This undistinguished verse is the start of the New Testament. If you grew up in church, you know that Matthew starts with a fairly lengthy (but not comprehensive) genealogy of Christ, from Adam through Mary and Joseph. Reading through the list of names here isn't all that exciting, particularly if you don't look up the names, but I do think there are some interesting insights to be found.
I. The Genealogy Question
Looking at verse 1 in a couple different translations, I noticed that "genealogy" was sometimes translated differently, as “history” or “works.” Looking up the original word shows that both of these are legitimate translations, which suggests that Matthew 1:1 may be an introduction for more than just Chapter 1. If it is read as “works” or “history” instead of genealogy, it can be seen as an introduction for the entire book of Matthew, since the book itself tells the story of Christ.
Since I don't believe the ordering of the books of the New Testament was inspired, this next observation is primarily literary, but I found it interesting anyway: Taken even more broadly, Matthew 1:1 can be read as a forward to the entire New Testament. The only requirement is showing that the New Testament is structured around Christ. Broken down into a classical narrative structure, this is easily defended. I see the simplified structure of the New Testament thusly:
Exposition – Christ is born, political and spiritual settings established
Rising Action – Christ begins ministry, recruits disciples, makes enemies by shaking up status quo, Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem
Climax – Christ's enemies arrange to have him arrested, tried, and eventually crucified.
Falling Action – Christ rises from the dead, appears to disciples, ascends t Heaven to send the Holy Spirit to continue His work.
Denouement/Resolution – Christ's disciples spread the Gospel and recruit new followers, expanding Christ's doctrines into practical everyday life.
II. The Relationship Metaphor
While a few of the names in the list are notable, familiar even to non-Christians (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of Israel; Rahab of Jericho, the first Gentile in the list, who protected Joshua's spies; Ruth and Boaz; several kings, including David, the man after God's own heart), but mixed in are several people of whom we know little to nothing--Salmon, Shealtiel, Zadok, Matthan, etc. In fact, their only importance in the narrative is that they are in Jesus' line, related to the dramatic center of the New Testament.
In the same way that these people acquire historical significance from their historical relationship to Christ, Christians acquire their spiritual significance from their spiritual relationship to Christ. Seen in this light, Christ's genealogy serves as a powerful metaphor for “the least of these”, those forgotten by the world who are nevertheless important, irreplaceable members of Christ's spiritual family.
This is already getting fairly long, so I'll finish up my analysis of Matthew 1 in my next post.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Introduction: Blogging the New Testament
Introduction: Why Blog the New Testament?
I have no idea if anyone will actually be reading this. I'm not alerting anyone that I'll be updating this blog after months of inactivity, and I'm not sure the content I'm actually updating with will interest anyone but me. It may not even be intelligible.
So why even try to blog the entire New Testament? Well, first off, I should confess that I've shamelessly stolen the idea of blogging the Bible from Slate's David Plotz. I admit, I've only read a couple of Plotz's dispatches, but the idea intrigued me. What better way to experience the Bible than to dig into it like I would any other piece of literature? As a Christian, the Bible obviously holds a different attraction for me than for Plotz, a non-practicing Jew, but the concept seems to translate. Read the Bible (or in my case, the New Testament) and write down my thoughts as they come to me. If possible, edit them into a readable form. It's a win-win for me; I get a bulk of material to write and write about, and I get more intimately acquainted with the Bible on both a personal and intellectual level.
So why only the New Testament? I initially planned to try writing about the entire Bible, but abandoned that idea (for now) for two reasons. One, the Old Testament is a lot longer than the New Testament. In my Bible, the Old Testament is 1,057 pages long, with the New is only 300. As difficult as sticking to any sort of long term project is for me, starting off blogging a book longer than War and Peace seemed to guarantee failure.
Secondly, the New Testament seems to me to be more practical for my purposes. Although the Old Testament is vital for fully understanding the new, the New Testament contains a lot more advice for daily living, particularly given my views of the authority of the Old Testament in the life of the believer, an issue I may or may not tackle later on, depending on my mood. The other reason the NT seems more practical is because avoiding the Old Testament avoids many of the issues that Christians tend to get caught up in at the expense of other, more important issues.
I have no interest (or the knowledge necessary to) debate Creation or the minutiae of Old Testament law. I may have something to say that would be useful to someone (even myself) about day-to-day living or the literary aspects of the NT; I doubt I'm going to add anything new to these age-old debates. I'd rather spend time on things that interest me.
I have no idea if anyone will actually be reading this. I'm not alerting anyone that I'll be updating this blog after months of inactivity, and I'm not sure the content I'm actually updating with will interest anyone but me. It may not even be intelligible.
So why even try to blog the entire New Testament? Well, first off, I should confess that I've shamelessly stolen the idea of blogging the Bible from Slate's David Plotz. I admit, I've only read a couple of Plotz's dispatches, but the idea intrigued me. What better way to experience the Bible than to dig into it like I would any other piece of literature? As a Christian, the Bible obviously holds a different attraction for me than for Plotz, a non-practicing Jew, but the concept seems to translate. Read the Bible (or in my case, the New Testament) and write down my thoughts as they come to me. If possible, edit them into a readable form. It's a win-win for me; I get a bulk of material to write and write about, and I get more intimately acquainted with the Bible on both a personal and intellectual level.
So why only the New Testament? I initially planned to try writing about the entire Bible, but abandoned that idea (for now) for two reasons. One, the Old Testament is a lot longer than the New Testament. In my Bible, the Old Testament is 1,057 pages long, with the New is only 300. As difficult as sticking to any sort of long term project is for me, starting off blogging a book longer than War and Peace seemed to guarantee failure.
Secondly, the New Testament seems to me to be more practical for my purposes. Although the Old Testament is vital for fully understanding the new, the New Testament contains a lot more advice for daily living, particularly given my views of the authority of the Old Testament in the life of the believer, an issue I may or may not tackle later on, depending on my mood. The other reason the NT seems more practical is because avoiding the Old Testament avoids many of the issues that Christians tend to get caught up in at the expense of other, more important issues.
I have no interest (or the knowledge necessary to) debate Creation or the minutiae of Old Testament law. I may have something to say that would be useful to someone (even myself) about day-to-day living or the literary aspects of the NT; I doubt I'm going to add anything new to these age-old debates. I'd rather spend time on things that interest me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
