Last year, I found revisiting 5 of Jesus' better known parables for Lent surprisingly profitable.  I say surprisingly for familiarity can breed - well, if not contempt exactly, then at least a feeling that there is little new to be discovered.  As it turned out, that certainly wasn't the case last year and nor is it proving to be so this year as we look at 5 more.

Last night, it was the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant.  You probably will all know it.  A servant having been forgiven a massive debt by the King goes out and demands a relatively small one from a fellow servant.  When the  fellow servant can't pay, the first servant has him thrown into gaol.  The King on hearing of it from other servants, distressed at what has happened, has the first servant handed over to be tortured until he pays his debt, something he could never hope to do.

Jesus' punch-line is unambiguous: 'So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart.'  (Matthew 18:35)

In my thoughts on the parable, I talked about three stages of forgiveness:

1.  Taking sin seriously.  The parable is about real debt, not imaginary debt.  In my preparation beforehand, I puzzled over the amount of the debt Jesus uses in the story.  10,000 talents is a huge figure.  The problem is that it is if taken literally, it is unrealistically so.  Commentators try to calculate how much it is with figures such as 60,000,000 denarii being used, meaning it would take a day labourer 164,000 years to repay.  I rather suspect that Jesus is not expecting the figure to be calculated in this way.  What I think he is saying is that the debt was so great, you couldn't put a realistic figure on it.  It was unimaginably great.

2.  Taking our own sin seriously.  The parable challenges to see that our debt to God is beyond imagination.  It is, however, a real debt and not an imaginary one, one that we can never hope to repay.  Taking our own sin seriously is not something we are encouraged to do either in the Church or out.  It goes against the emphasis of much preaching and teaching.  Reading older hymns and sermons gives you an idea of the difference in emphasis:  'Amazing grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me.'

Today's sermons are more likely to encourage people to think that they are not wretches, but valuable and loved by God.  The aim of the sermon being more to build people up than to bring them down in their estimation of themselves.  But surely if we do not think there is anything much that we need forgiving for, we are not going to appreciate Jesus' message of forgiveness.  This message is not that the debt does not matter.  It does.  More than we can ever comprehend.

We are I think in danger of confusing welcome and acceptance with forgiveness.  Because we rightly want to welcome and accept people, regardless of who they are or what they are like, we think we should not in anyway been seen to suggest that anything they have done is unacceptable to God.  Forgiveness thus verges on being about condoning and not challenging people's lifestyles.

Surely the Gospel message is one that challenges us in the first place to see how bad we are, but then offers us the good news that if we turn from our wickedness, God will out of his boundless love and mercy forgive us.  We may know this in our minds, but seldom nowadays, I think, do we feel it in our hearts.  Certainly not with the intensity of a John Newton, who wrote Amazing Grace, or of a Charlotte Elliott, who wrote these words:

Just as I am, poor, wretched, blind;
sight, riches, healing of the mind,
yea, all I need, in thee to find,
O Lamb of God, I come.

3.  Forgiving other people their sin.  Jesus made forgiving others a central part of his teaching. Hence our promise to forgive others every time we say the Lord's Prayer.  But it is hard, isn't it?  We are very good at forgiving ourselves, largely because we don't think we have done anything particularly wrong.  But even the smallest of hurts or sleights causes us to come down heavily on other people.  I know that many of us have suffered great wrongs at the hands of others.  But Jesus' point is that even they are nothing compared to our debt to God.  Last night, I think the few of us who studied this parable together felt its challenge to forgive very clearly.

As we all agreed, however, doing it is much harder.

Our Lord was known as a 'glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners' (Luke 7:34).  There can be no doubting that he was a friend to sinners and to tax-collectors, but those of us who follow him today would not accept that he was either a glutton or drunkard.  And yet you can't be accused of being either if you don't like food or wine.  Jesus clearly did.  His first miracle, as we have noted here, was to turn water to wine and when the guests clearly had already had a lot.  Presumably that was why they had run out in the first place!

And he was so concerned that the crowds had not eaten all day that he performed his greatest miracle feeding the five thousand.  The last thing he did was have a meal with his disciples, and it is a meal that he left as the central act of Christian worship.

Now I know all the theological and alleged theological significances of all this, but meals, real meals, were a focus of our Lord's ministry.

I find this something of an encouragement.  I rather like food myself.  I came to cooking itself rather late in life, and am a rather amateur, albeit enthusiastic, cook for my own pleasure as much as anything else.  I am a massive fan of Elizabeth David and won't cook anything without checking whether Jane Grigson has a recipe for it first.  One modern cook I especially like is Vivek Singh, whom I have actually had the privilege of meeting and watching cook!  He brings to Indian cookery this sense of passion and depth that you find in Elizabeth and Jane.

What is sometimes lacking in modern cookery writing, I think, is a sense of spontaneity and sheer love of food.  It is all very professional and well-researched, beautifully photographed, and fool-proof if you follow the instructions.  What is lacking, however, is the sheer sense of thrill and inspiration that you cannot miss in Elizabeth David's writing.  One of my favourite pieces of hers is where she talks of how a stock cube won't do!  Indeed, one of the very first dishes I ever cooked was a Tomato Consommé using a recipe of hers.  The recipe calls for chicken stock.  She gives alternatives, but then writes:

'A non-alternative, I'll repeat that, a non-alternative is a bouillon cube.  Water is a preferable one. (ED, Is there a Nutmeg in the House, pp.30-31)

Her point being that it is the final flavour that counts!

Which brings me back to Christian worship.  We have all sorts of modern liturgies and liturgical aids.  I use Visual Liturgy myself.  It is a piece of software to help clergy plan services.  It produces beautifully laid out services, which if you follow are also fool-proof.  It provides lots of alternatives and choices of hymns, prayers, and readings.  Much like modern cookbooks or cookery web-sites.  Yet one of the ironies of cookery at present is that the number of people actually cooking is declining as the number of books being produced about it are increasing.

As with food so with worship.  We need a sense of enthusiasm and excitement that focuses not on celebrity, glamour, and show, but on the flavour of the real thing.

The start of a new week.

Tonight I have the Church Council meeting - always a challenge!  I am hoping beforehand to spend some time preparing for the Lent Bible Study on Wednesday.  This week it is the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant.  The one where a servant who is forgiven a massive debt goes out and insists on collecting a relatively small one.  We Christians are not always the most forgiving of people.  The key I am sure is to have a better sense of just how much we have been forgiven.  Not easy in a cultural climate that minimizes the seriousness of personal sin.  It is unlikely we will ever appreciate how much we have been forgiven when we have no sense that what we have done was all that wrong in the first place.

But before that there is a mound of stuff from the weekend that must be dealt with as must the people who are coming to do the annual maintenance of the air-conditioning system.

Church Council, administration, building maintenance, and thinking about forgiveness.  It's one way to start the week!  I hope yours is good.

I am getting ready for tomorrow and thought I would take a break to post the second in the Lenten series I called the Question of God.  I hope you are having a good weekend.

2.  The Question of God: The Evidence of the Cosmos

Last week, we saw that the question of whether there is a God, or not, is a real one in the society in which we live.  We noted that there were, in this world, problems with the idea of ‘proof’ and that this applied to everything, not just to God.  Nevertheless, we concluded, belief in God still needed to be rational.  There should be evidence for believing.  We are now going to think about some of the evidence for God as well as some of the objections to it.  Time, sadly, prevents us devoting as much attention to it as we should.  We can, at least, make a start.

October 23, 1996 was a special anniversary.  On that day, the world was 6,000 years old.  At least, it would have been if you accepted Archbishop Ussher’s dating of creation.  Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656) calculated that, according to the Bible, the world was created in the year 4004BC.  Bishop John Lightfoot (1602-1675) further refined it to 9.00am on October 23.  While people would not necessarily have gone along with that precise dating, there was a time when most would have accepted the basic point, namely, that it was God who had created the heavens and earth.

Then came Charles Darwin (1809-1882).  Suddenly, God did not seem necessary anymore.  We arrived here not by the supernatural, creative act of God, but by the natural, selective process of evolution.  Human beings were not the result of the plan of God, but an accident of nature.  This was excellent news for those who wanted to get rid of God.  At last, they had an alternative explanation for the origins of life.  No more did we have to resort to God to explain where we came from.  Goodbye, God.

Except that God has not quite gone away.  Indeed, the very persistence of faith in God is itself evidence for God.  Despite all that the 20th century has thrown at him, God is still here and still very much on the agenda.  But we will return to this.  Those who want to argue for chance, and chance alone, have not had things all their own way.  Firstly, not everyone is completely happy with the theory of evolution.  This is not to say that I am siding with those who still stick to a belief in six day creation.  I simply note a fact.  Secondly, and more importantly, even if right, evolution only describes a process.  It still begs the question of whether it was a chance or purely natural process.  As a method, it is fine, but did it simply happen, or was there a mind behind it?  Evolution as a theory cannot answer that.

Many of us think that rather than undermining belief in God, the descriptions that scientists themselves give us of the evolutionary process seem rather to reinforce such a belief.  Indeed, have you noticed the way some people talk about evolution?  They set out to describe what they believe to be a natural process and end up attributing to evolution intelligent, thinking characteristics.  They will talk about evolution doing this or that, deciding and determining this or that, so that evolution starts to sound, not so much like a process, but more like a person. 

Now, of course, they do not intend to do this, and would be horrified to know that this is what they are doing.  However, when faced with the fact of the natural order, is it the case, perhaps, that we are compelled by the evidence to think that it could only have got here if there had been a thinking, intelligent mind behind it.  A mind which decided and determined that this is how it should turn out.  And if the natural world as we see it compels us to think and talk like this, could it be because that is precisely how it is?  Is it that in the very evolutionary process we see the work of God? 

This seems to be a good point to introduce Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).  Aquinas lived long before evolution as an idea was ever thought of.  He went to the University of Naples, and, while there, in 1244, at the age of 19, joined the relatively new Order of Preachers, the Dominican friars.  His family wanted him to become a Benedictine, and kidnapped him, locking him in the family castle for a year.  He got his way, and continued his studies at Paris and Cologne.  In 1252, he returned to lecture in Paris, thereafter lecturing at Paris and in Italy.  In 1323, he was made a saint.  In time, he came to be hailed as the Common Doctor of the Catholic Church and as the Angelic Doctor. 

One of the greatest philosophers and theologians ever, Aquinas wanted to demonstrate that the Christian faith was in every way a rational faith and belief in God thoroughly reasonable.  Aquinas defined five ways by which we could know there was a God.  Behind each of them is the idea that the world itself reveals God as its creator.  If you read a book, look at a picture, listen to a piece of music, you can often immediately tell who its author, painter, or composer is simply from the style.  Aquinas’ five ways have been subject to many criticisms.  Certainly the way he expressed his arguments reflects the language and thinking of his day, just as the way we express ourselves reflects the age we are living in.  His basic point is, though, a good one.  When we examine the cosmos, and ask how it got here and how it got to being the way it is, is not the most reasonable explanation not that it just did, but because someone wanted it to and purposed that it should?

Aquinas, in his fifth way, also pointed to the nature of the cosmos.  It is extremely intricate and ordered.  If we were talking about anything else, we would say it is well designed.  But does not design suggest a designer? William Paley (1743-1805) taking up the argument used the example of a watch.  If someone was to find a watch, even if they had never seen a watch before, would not they know, simply from examining it, that it could not have just got like that by chance, but must have been made by someone.  The complexity of the design argues for a designer.  If we can see it with a watch, why not with the cosmos which shows even more evidence of design?

That Aquinas was right to argue like this receives support from the Bible itself.  St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans, writes of human beings:

‘For what can be known about God is plain to them.  Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.’ (1:20)

All this proves nothing.  If you want to persist in believing that the universe just happened and that we are a result of chance or purely natural processes, then you are perfectly entitled to do so, that is one interpretation of the evidence.  However, I would like to ask you to consider whether, in all honesty, it is the most reasonable one. 

Last night was the second of our Lent Studies.  We were looking at the Parable of the Wedding Banquet in Matthew 22:1-10.  It is not the easiest of parables.  One writer, Klyne Snodgrass, in his magisterial work on parables, says he has finds it the hardest parable to interpret.  Having said that, the overall meaning of the first part  seems clear enough.  The Kingdom of God was offered originally to Israel who has rejected it so it will now be offered to others.  It is in the second part that it gets especially tricky.

The King comes into the room where the guests who have been gathered in by his slaves are congregated.  We have already been told that they consisted of people who were both bad and good.  The King asks one of them why he not wearing the correct clothes - a wedding robe.  The man is speechless and the King has him tied up and thrown into outer darkness.

Jesus is telling this parable to the chief priests and Pharisees.  They would probably have got the point of the first part, but what would they have made of the second part?  What does the wedding robe stand for?  Christians have interpreted it in various ways.  A common interpretation is that it refers to Christ's righteousness, which we all must be clothed with if we are to come into God's presence.  Unfortunately, whatever the truth or otherwise of this idea, it does seem to be reading later Christian theology back into the story.  As I said last night, whatever we think the parable means to us today, it had to mean something to them then.

Others such as Tom Wright take the wedding robe to mean the good works we now do as Christians and that while we are freely called by God we must respond with acts worthy of that call.  Again, this is doubtless true, but would that had been something that the chief priests and Pharisees would have been in a position to work out?

The best I can come up with which I offer as a suggestion is this:

Guests at a wedding, whoever they might be would be expected to dress appropriately both as a sign of respect and to show they were entering into the spirit of the occasion.  The banquet for the King's Son was a time of rejoicing and celebration.  The un-robed guest, although he finds himself called to the banquet, refuses to take part in it.

This parable is in fact the third of three parables Jesus tells the chief priests and Pharisees, all making similar points.  Jesus uses the first in Matthew 21:28-32 to tell them that tax-collectors and prostitutes were going into the kingdom of God ahead of them.  Jesus ate many meals with people during his ministry, meals at which tax-collectors and prostitutes respond with faith and enthusiasm.  In Luke 7 we are told that on one occasion a Pharisee holds a dinner for Jesus, but is then shocked when Jesus allows a prostitute to his anoint his feet.  Jesus says this to him:

'Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair.  You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet.  You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. (Luke 7:44-46)'

Although he had invited Jesus to dinner, the Pharisees treatment of Jesus shows a refusal to respond to Jesus in the way he should, whereas the prostitute responds with love and generosity.

The man who doesn't wear a wedding garment does not respond to the generosity of the King in the way he should.  It is not so much that the garment represents something, such as Christ's righteousness or good works.  It is rather the man's attitude demonstrated by his refusal to dress properly that is significant.  It is not the wedding robe that represents something so much as the lack of it.  Jesus is saying the chief priests and Pharisees, and those like them, will miss out on the salvation God offers because they have not responded with faith and enthusiasm to God's call.

God calls all both bad and good, but it is how we respond that shows whether we are amongst those who are his chosen ones.  As the parable ends:

'For many are called, but few are chosen.'

The first thing I came back to after Chinese New Year was Lent!  This year, for our Lent Bible Studies at my Church, we are looking at five more parables of Jesus to add to the five we studied last year.  The first which we studied last week was the one about the tax-collector and the Pharisee (Luke ).  Jesus told this parable Luke tells us to those who 'trusted in themselves that they were righteous'.  The implication, of course, being that we can only be righteous by trusting in God.  Regular readers of this blog will know that this is a question I often find myself turning back to.  It also raises the issue of the link between being righteous in God's eyes and how we live our lives.

As it happens, I also found myself last week back at Ming Hua, our theological college, teaching Christian Ethics.  This is the second module where we consider specific issues: abortion, sex, euthanasia, war, etc, etc  I intend to pick up on the blog where I left off a few months ago about this.  But as far as I can see it is very hard to be as dogmatic as some would like us to be on these issues - as class discussion often illustrates.

I thought, however, that I would get back into posting here by posting today the first in a series of Lenten Studies I gave during my time in Banchory in the 1990s.  They were on the 'Question of God'.  I have to confess that I don't remember them exactly filling the pews, but reading them again at the end of the first decade of the 21st Century, I am Pharisaical enough to think there is some merit in them!  I must have done at the time as these are the only ones that I kept and only recently rediscovered them on my computer.

Indeed, the questions:

whether there is a God or not

how, if there is, we can know and be acceptable to him

and what happens when we die 

have always seemed to me to be three of the most important questions in life.  I don't think we always manage as Christians to give convincing answers to them.  But that is another matter.

Anyway, it's good to be back in cyberspace!  Thank you to all who keep visiting and reading.

1. The Question of God: Introduction

Today we begin a series on God.  Am I alone in thinking that sermons and talks matter?  Well, whatever we may think about sermons, there should be no doubting the importance of our subject.  I have always found it strange that we do not worry about God.  We are rather casual about God, and this irrespective of whether we are believers or not.  I do worry about God, and have done for as long as I can remember.  Surely the issue of whether there is a God, or not, is one that must have profound implications for us all?

Of course, for most of our history there has been no question about it.  That there was a God was as obvious to people as was the sun, wind, and rain.  It still is to many in other parts of our world.  We forget the extent to which true atheism is a minority opinion.  But the question of God is a very real one to us living in the West today.  Nietzsche, at the turn of the century, said that God was dead.  However, throughout the 20th century we have seen that rumours of God’s death have been greatly exaggerated.  Nevertheless, for most people there is, at least, a question about it.

The question is expressed well in a book I was given to read over the summer.  It is by Jill Paton Walsh and called, ‘Knowledge of Angels’.  This was shortlisted for the Booker Prize in 1994, and some of you may know it.  Now let me say I dislike the book and certainly would not recommend it to you.  I refer to it only because it seems to sum up where many liberal intellectuals are when it comes to God and where they would like us to be.

The book is set in the 15th Century at a time when Christianity was undivided in the West and when people believed in God as a matter of course.  A stranger is washed up on the shore of a Mediterranean island.  The stranger, whose name is Palinor, declares that he has no religion and does not believe in God.  The Cardinal responsible for religion on the island takes pity on him and arranges for him to discuss the claims of faith with Beneditx, one of the holiest and wisest men in Christendom.  This is in the hope that Palinor will come to see the error of his ways and believe in God.  The stranger turns out to be cultured, sensitive, wise, and accomplished.  Instead of Beneditx convincing him with his arguments for the existence of God,  Palinor succeeds in undermining Beneditx’s faith.  Towards the end of their discussions, Palinor says:

‘For I think that it is in principle impossible to know whether there is a God or not.  I know therefore with immovable certainty that I shall never know that God exists.  Likewise I shall never know that he does not.  Such knowledge is always, and in principle out of  reach.’

So there you have it.  Doubt as a religious principle!  You cannot prove God one way or another.  You cannot prove he does not exist, but you cannot prove he does either.  So best not to worry about it.  Celebrate, not divine intervention, but human achievement.  Nowadays, in matters of faith, doubt has become the order of the day, both inside the church and out.

The father of modern philosophy - and in many people’s minds the father of doubt - is one René Descartes (1596-1650).  Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist, and philosopher.  He was a contemporary of Oliver Cromwell and Charles 1.  Descartes asked what it was possible to know for certain, beyond any doubt.  If you were to doubt what you could not prove, what would you be left with?  Many of us know the answer he came up with.  Descartes concluded that we could be certain of our own existence.  Why?  ‘Cogito, ergo sum’.  I think, therefore I am.  Not much of which to be certain maybe, but something.  What is not generally known, perhaps because it suits modern philosophers not to make it known, was that Descartes also believed it was possible to be certain of God’s existence.

But that was all.  I can only be certain of my own existence and God’s.  Now whatever you think of this, Descartes has a point.  Modern thinking has tended to follow Descartes in demanding proof and doubting what cannot be proven.  This is what lies behind what is believed to be science’s rejection of God.  God cannot be proven in the laboratory, so we cannot believe in him.  Yet Descartes reminds us that it is very hard to prove anything with absolute certainty.  It does not lie in our power to be that sure.  Given the way scientific theory changes so rapidly, you would have thought that people would have grasped that.

What we normally ask for is not proof in an absolute sense, but evidence.  Reasonable evidence.  We do not want life to be based on blind leaps in the dark.  We can accept that an argument cannot be infallibly proven as long as there is sufficient evidence in its favour for us to believe that it is true.  We want to be rational.  We want what we believe to be reasonable: not mere superstition or wishful thinking.  In this series of talks, I am going to disagree with the father of modern philosophy.  I do not think God’s existence can be proven.  But, as Descartes showed, in the sense people often use the word, very little can. 

I do, however, think that belief in God’s existence is rational.  There is sufficient evidence for God to make believing in him reasonable.  If, however, this is the case, it follows that it is UN-reasonable to do nothing about it.  If we can establish that there is good evidence for believing in God, then not to act, not to do something about it, can only be to do with either a determined, self-destructive rebellion or blind prejudice.  What you cannot claim is that you are acting in a rational and reasonable way.

The question of whether God’s existence can be established by rational enquiry as opposed to simply having faith is one that has exercised some of the greatest minds in the church.  In the next few weeks, I hope to introduce you to one or two of them.  We should not turn our backs on the teachers of the past.  They have much to teach us today.  They demonstrate that it is possible to be a Christian without having to abandon your intellect. 

Some believers have believed unbelievers’ propaganda.  They are frightened to think too seriously about God in case it turns out that either he does not exist after all or that there is no evidence for his existence.  They have believed people like Walsh’s Palinor that if you look at the arguments you have to surrender your faith.  We have nothing to fear from honest enquiry.  If it were the case that belief in God was not rational, then we would be wrong to persist in believing in him.  As we shall see, however, the Psalmist is right in affirming that it is fools who say that there is no God (Psalm 14:1).  It is atheism that is unreasonable.

After a break for Chinese New Year, I am hoping to get back to posting here!

A very Happy Year of the Tiger to all visitors to this blog.

Setting Up Home

Jesus’ trips with his mother and father to Jerusalem for the Passover each year remind us that Jesus did not grow up in a vacuum.  For thirty years, he lived the relatively normal life of a Jew growing up in Galilee.  Indeed, so normal was it that the people in Nazareth, who knew him better than most, could not believe he was anyone special when he began his ministry.  Jesus seems to have realized that this would happen and comments in both the Synoptic Gospels and John on how a prophet is not accepted amongst those who know him best. (Luke 4:24, John 4:44)

Both the Synoptics and John alert us to the fact that Jesus continued to be in touch with his mother and brothers during his ministry.  This reference to Jesus’ mother and brothers raises some fascinating and important questions.

First, what happened to Joseph?  Joseph seems to disappear from the Gospels and it is only Mary who is spoken of.  This has led scholars to speculate that Joseph may have died before Jesus began his ministry.  It is only speculation, but it does seem somewhat reasonable.

Secondly, were Jesus brothers really his brothers?  Some have argued that they were only his half brothers, being Joseph’s children from a previous marriage.  Or, alternatively, that they were in fact only his cousins.  The only reason for this sort of speculation is the desire to argue that Mary remained a virgin even after Jesus’ birth.  This does not seem to have been the case.  St Matthew, for example, says:

‘(Joseph) took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.’  (Matthew 1:24-25

The desire to keep Mary a virgin has more to do with Christian attitudes to sex than historical reality.  We are safer to take the text at face value and accept Jesus’ brothers and sisters as his full brothers and sisters.

Everything we hear about Jesus’ family suggests that they were devout and that Jesus and his siblings had a devout upbringing.  The best known of Jesus’ bothers, James, was to become the leader of the Jerusalem Church, aquiring a reputation for being devout in his own right.  He even merits a mention by the Jewish historian, Josephus.  That James became the leader of the Jerusalem Church is interesting given his parents regular visits to Jerusalem.  But more about James another time!

The first mention of Jesus’ brothers occurs in St John’s Gospel.  St John describes the miracle at which, Mary and his first disciples were present.  We are then told:

‘After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples; and they remained there a few days.’  (John 2:12)

I have spoken in previous blogs of the importance that Capernaum was to assume in the ministry of Jesus.  Jesus first disciples seem to lived and worked there.  Jesus cured Peter’s mother-in-law there.  Did Jesus and his family stay with the disciples or did they make their own home there as well?  From the way the Synoptics present it, it sounds as if Jesus’ family literally moved house to Capernaum.  Take this verse from Matthew, for example:

‘He left Nazareth and made his home in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali.’ (Matthew 4:13)

St Mark puts it like this:

‘When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home.’ (Mark 2:1)

Further support for the idea that Jesus set up home in Capernaum with his family comes from St Mark’s account of Jesus’ visit to Nazareth.  St Mark records the reaction of the people there in the following way:

‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’  And they took offence at him.  (Mark 6:3)

While the people of Nazareth know Jesus, Mary, and his brothers, they refer to his sisters as actually living there in Nazareth with them.  This surely suggests that Mary and Jesus’ brothers did not live there any longer.  The sisters presumably had married and would, therefore, have been expected to live with their husbands.  Also interesting is that Jesus is referred to as the ‘carpenter’, but we are not told what his brothers did.

Capernaum keeps coming up in both the Synoptics and John as the centre for Jesus’ ministry in Galilee.  The fact that Jesus is said to go to Capernaum with his mother, brothers and disciples means that, at the very least, the family of Jesus and his disciples knew one another and may even have shared a home with each other.  It seems likely to me that they did do so.  What it didn’t mean apparently was that the brothers were as comfortable with Jesus’ ministry as his immediate disciples were.

So what was Jesus’ relationship with his family and his brothers in particular?

Jesus and the Temple

It has not been a good week for posting, but I was determined to do so before it finished even if I have left it a bit late!  I am preaching tomorrow.  The readings are on the Presentation of Christ in the Temple, which seems a little bizarre given that we have moved in the past few weeks to the beginning of Jesus’ adult ministry.

Jesus’ relationship with the Temple is ambivalent.  He was presented in it by his parents receiving recognition from Simeon and Anna.  St Luke again records the one incident we have from Jesus’ childhood when he was taken to Jerusalem by his parents and causes them some panic by going missing only to be found by them sitting in the Temple.

The Synoptics only mention one visit of Jesus to Jerusalem: the one leading up to his death.  St John, however, records several and as I have argued previously this seems historically likely.  What St Luke actually tells us about the visit when Jesus was 12 is:

‘Now every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover.  And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival.’ (Luke 2:41-42)

‘Every year’ they went to Jerusalem and the visit at 12 was ‘as usual’.  This strongly suggests that Jesus was brought up to go to Jerusalem and surely this would not be something that he would stop when he was older.  St John tells us that after his first miracle in Cana and a visit to Capernaum (more of which in subsequent posts!), Jesus went to Jerusalem for the Passover where he ‘cleansed’ the Temple.

Scholars argue over this.  The Synoptics record this event, but put it at the end of his ministry, not the beginning.  They have to as this is the only time they record Jesus going there as an adult.  Some have argued that Jesus cleansed the Temple twice: once at the beginning and then again at the end of his ministry, but most don’t think this likely.  Most go with the Synoptics and argue that St John has put the event at the beginning for theological reasons.

One reason scholars have for locating this incident at the end of Jesus’ ministry is because of their understanding of what Jesus was doing when he turned over the tables and drove out the money changers.  For them this is a prophetic act pronouncing God’s judgement on the Temple and is a reason for Jesus’ arrest and subsequent crucifixion.  This doesn’t work so well if it happened at the beginning!

However, this doesn’t seem to be how either the Synoptics or John understand the event.  Yes, Jesus did speak of the Temple’s eventual destruction, but here he seems more concerned with its purification:

He told those who were selling the doves, "Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!"  His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me."  (John 2:16-17)

If concern for the Temple’s purity is his main concern, and I fail to see why those of us living 2,000 years after the event should have a better understanding of it than those who may even have been present at it, then it could well have occurred at the beginning of his ministry.  Whenever it happened, it shows that Jesus wasn’t anti the Temple as such.  It truly was his Father’s house and should be respected as such.  Jesus’ attitude is best explained by what St John tells us happened next.  After celebrating the Passover, Jesus spent some time in Judea effectively continuing the ministry of John, baptizing people - though as St John tells us, it was Jesus’ disciples who did the baptizing.  St John then makes a somewhat enigmatic statement:

‘Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, ‘Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John’ - although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized - he left Judea and started back to Galilee.’ (John 4:1-3)

Quite why the Pharisees learning that Jesus was becoming popular should send him back to Galilee is not immediately clear.  Is it that he doesn’t want to undermine John?  Is it that he wants to avoid possible hostility from them?  Or is it that he realizes the time has come to begin his own distinctive ministry and emerge from the shadow of John?

Whatever, he sets off for Galilee where the Synoptics will pick up the story, but to get there he travels through Samaria.  From Jerusalem, in the south, to Galilee, in the north, would have been about a three day journey.  During it, he meets the Samaritan woman at the well and breaks all social convention by talking to her.  In the course of the conversation, the woman asks him a question over an issue that divided Jews and Samaritans:

‘The woman said to him, ‘Sir, I see that you are a prophet.  Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.’  Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.  You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.  But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him.  God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.’

This is very much what Paul argues in Romans.  The Jews were God’s people.  The Temple was God’s house.  Jerusalem was the Holy City.  But all that is going to change.  As a result of Jesus’ ministry, God will no longer be worshipped in special places, but in spirit and in truth.

This verse is uncomfortable reading for many like myself who minister in Churches that place heavy emphasis on special buildings and sacred spaces.  I don’t think there is any escaping that fact that the New Testament not only rejects Jerusalem and the Temple as being any longer special places of worship, but also rejects the idea of special places altogether.  The Temple is now the people.  We are God’s house not the building we meet in. 

It’s an idea we are all familiar with, but one we find hard to act upon.

Happy Saturday

I am having a break before continuing some preparation for Lent!  I know it might seem a little early, but I want to give details out of what we are going to be doing to people tomorrow.

Last year, I did a short series on the parables (for some details, see under the label Lent) and, at the risk of sounding boring, I thought I would do a second series this year.  Last year, I focused on the well-known parables (the Good Samaritan, the Sower, etc).  I thought it might be fun this year to look at some parables that often get a bit neglected - such as the one about the Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22:1-14/Luke 14:15-24)  Oh, and has anyone any ideas why the poor guy who didn't have a proper wedding robe was thrown into outer darkness?!

Anyway, the series will be begin on Wednesday, February 24.  If you live in Hong Kong and want to join us you will get a warm welcome.  Drop me a line and I will give you more details.

I hope your weekend is good.

From Nazareth to Capernaum

While Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea about 6 miles south-west of Jerusalem, he grew up in Nazareth in Galilee and was known by all as Jesus of Nazareth.  Interesting, then, is the fact that he seems not to have spent very much time there once he began his ministry.  Doubtless this is because of his conviction, recorded both in the Synoptics and John (Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4, Luke 4:24 and John 4:44) that a prophet is not accepted by those from where he comes or as we might say ‘familiarity breeds contempt’.  This coming Sunday’s Gospel reading (Luke 4:14-21) records a visit Jesus did make to Nazareth.  This is a visit that ends with the people there trying to kill him.

St Luke uses this passage to introduce the ministry of Jesus and its themes.  Probably St Luke felt it appropriate to begin his account of the ministry of Jesus with a story from where Jesus grew up.  St Luke himself, however, records that Jesus’ ministry was well under way before he went back to Nazareth and that the people of Nazareth had already heard about it.  Jesus says that they will doubtless say to him, ‘Do here also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.’ (Luke 4:23)

Nazareth, in lower Galilee, is about 16 miles south-west of the Sea of Galilee, 9miles south of Cana, where he performed his first miracle, and about 25 miles from Capernaum on the north of the Sea of Galilee.  The mention of Capernaum is an important one for Jesus seems to have made both his home and base there once he embarked on his ministry.

Before discussing Capernaum, it is worth mentioning ‘The Mystery of the Two Missing Cities’!  The first is Sepphoris, a very significant city.  Nazareth was just 4 miles south of Sepphoris.  It would have been almost impossible for Jesus not to have gone there at some time in his life, and yet there is not a single mention of it in the New Testament.  The second missing city is Tiberias, effectively the main city of Galilee.  St John tells us that the Sea of Galilee was also known as the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1) and mentions an occasion that some boats came from Tiberias with people looking for Jesus (John 6:23).  But it is only in St John’s Gospel that Tiberias is even mentioned and Jesus is never recorded as having gone there himself.

The reasons for this seemingly deliberate avoidance by Jesus of even talking about these cities, let alone visiting them are complex.  Tiberias was built on graves, which made it unclean for Jews, so that may be part of the explanation when considering Tiberias.  Sepphoris is much harder to explain.  Whatever the reason, Jesus avoided the two biggest population centres in Galilee although, given the relative closeness of places in the region, doubtless people from each went to hear Jesus as we know, from John, they at least did from Tiberias.  What they thought about Jesus’ refusal to go there personally we can only guess.

So why Capernaum?  It was certainly conveniently placed as a base for Jesus’ ministry around the Lake and its villages, and it was just 9 miles from Tiberias.  Perhaps more important was that this was where some of his earliest disciples seem to have worked and lived. 

St John tells us that Andrew and his brother Peter, who were fishermen, together with Philip were from Bethsaida.  The location of Bethsaida is not absolutely certain, but it was probably a place in Galilee about 2.5miles from Capernaum going north-east around the Lake.  By the time of the ministry of Jesus, however, Peter and Andrew were certainly living in Capernaum.  St Mark tells us that after Jesus had preached in the synagogue in Capernaum, he entered the house of ‘Peter and Andrew’ (Mark 1:21) where apparently Peter’s mother-in-law also lived and presumably Peter’s wife!  Again, St Mark tells us that when they entered the house they discovered Peter’s mother-in-law ill in bed with a fever (Mark 1:30)

The fact that James and John, who were also fishermen, are associated so closely with Peter and Andrew (Mark 1:19) and with this visit to Peter’s house (Mark 1:29) may suggest that they too lived in Capernaum.  There is some suggestion that Jesus rather than simply staying at Capernaum in St Peter’s house may have actually moved his own family there as well.  I will talk about family next!  

Visiting Israel

For many years, I resisted the temptation to visit Israel.  I do not know why.  As a young man, I wasn’t particularly interested in travel so that was doubtless part of it, but by no means all.  I was, perhaps, also reacting to the rather romantic view of the ‘Holy Land’ that many I knew who had been there seemed to have of it, talking always about going on pilgrimage rather than on holiday.  Whatever, my first visit was in 1998, coincidentally the 50^th anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel.  I went only after some heavy arm twisting by two dear friends in my Church at Banchory.

Knowing Israel well themselves and having family there, they were convinced that any self-respecting Christian minister should visit there.  They were right and I was wrong.  Spectacularly wrong!  I had only been there a few days to realize what a difference being there made to everything.  Subsequently, I was to return many times and I now get withdrawal symptoms if I haven’t been for a while.

It is not that I think Jerusalem is a holy city in the way it was before the coming of Jesus - although I do think it is still a significant city.  Nor is it that Jerusalem and Israel still look as they did in Jesus’ time.  I am afraid that unless you have been there you won’t get it, but part of it is perspective: getting a feel for distance, geography, and landscape.

Galilee provides a very good example of what I mean.  I will never forget my reaction seeing the Sea of Galilee for the first time.  It was one of utter amazement at how small it was.  Rather like a large Scottish loch!  I had been brought up with the word Sea of Galilee in my mind and sub-consciously imagined a much bigger lake than it is and not one that you could drive around in a few hours!  It is in fact about 13 miles long and 7.5 miles wide with a circumference of about 32 miles.

Descriptions in the Bible of places using words such as cities, towns, villages, mountains, etc also took on a new meaning.  Capernaum is so small.  Jerusalem in the time of Jesus you could walk around in an afternoon.  I did so.  Even things like population came in to focus.  A place like Capernaum would have had only a population of 2,000 or so; Nazareth probably less.

Does it matter?  Well yes, I think it does.  We need reminding that the world of Jesus was a real and not a pretend one.  I recently read one scholar who, commenting on a passage in St John’s Gospel, said these sort of things happened in ‘John’s story world’.  Now I know what he means and this is a scholar who I know believes that Jesus was very much a real person.  Nevertheless, we can let the world of Jesus become something like a Narnia or Middle-earth, that is, an imaginary kingdom rather than a historical one.  This, I think, is how some scholars really do see the world of the Bible: something created by the Biblical writers themselves and not a real place. 

The trouble is only imaginary things can happen in imaginary worlds!

It's Monday morning and I am picking up all the bits and pieces from the weekend.  At long last the building work that we have been engaged with here at Christ Church is coming to completion.  The hardest thing is getting the finishing touches completed.  It can take as long to get the builders to come back to fix a window that won't open as it did to arrange the project in the first place, but I am beginning to look forward to life without builders - for a  short while at least!

The First Phase of Jesus' Ministry

All the Gospel writers are agreed that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.  What is not totally clear is what the relationship was between them.  The general understanding is that Jesus turned up at the Jordan, was baptized by John, and then got on with his own ministry.  An impression, it has to be said, that is reinforced by the way the Gospel writers present it.  That it is more complicated than that is suggested by a closer reading of the Gospels.

Firstly, St Luke tells us that there was a family relationship between Mary and Elizabeth (Luke 1:36).  We don't know exactly what the relationship was, but if Mary did stay with Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-56), it at least suggests they were on reasonably close terms.  Did Jesus and John meet as they were growing up?

Secondly, the Synoptics give the impression, at first sight, that Jesus originally called his disciples by the Sea of Galilee, meeting them for the first time as they tended to their nets (Mark 1:16-20).  St John, however, tells us that Andrew and another unnamed disciple were originally disciples of John the Baptist.  There is the suggestion that Peter and Philip are also, and perhaps Nathaniel as well. (John 1:35-45)

The Synoptic Gospels begin their account of Jesus' ministry in Galilee, basically after John had been arrested.  St John, however, suggests that there was a period of ministry before this, which certainly included a visit to Cana and Capernaum in Galilee, but also involved time spent in Jerusalem and Judea as well.

This earlier period of ministry saw Jesus continuing John's ministry by baptizing people in the Judean countryside while John was baptizing people at Aenon near Salim, although as St John tells us it was Jesus' disciples who baptized rather than John (John 3:22-24).  This is what you would expect if they had previously been disciples of John assisting him in his baptism of people.  This should not seem strange.  Jesus, by being baptized by John, identified himself both with John's ministry and with John's practice of baptizing people.  It is only when he begins to overtake John in popularity that Jesus moves back to Galilee to begin his own distinctive ministry. (John 4:1-3)

St John tells us: 'When he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, since they had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the festival; for they too had gone to the festival.  Then he came again to Cana in Galilee where he had changed the water into wine ...' (John 4:45-46)  This then would be where the Synoptics take up the story.

It is impossible to be too neat and precise about the order of events and no doubt the Evangelists were more concerned to communicate the truth about Jesus than to give a precise chronology.  Nevertheless, if we take St John as giving accurate historical information, then we get the following impression of the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, which might even be called the Baptizing Phase!

1.  Jesus who knows John the Baptist and agrees with his message and ministry identifies with it by being baptized himself.

2.  Some of John's disciples join Jesus and they go to Cana of Galilee where one of them, Nathaniel, comes from (John 21:2).  At a wedding there with his mother, Jesus performs his first miracle.

3.  After the wedding, Jesus, his mother, brothers and disciples go to Capernaum before Jesus sets off for the Passover in Jerusalem.

4.  After the Passover in Jerusalem, Jesus and his disciples continue John's ministry of baptizing in the Judean countryside while John baptized further north, at Aenon near the Sea of Galilee.

5.  When his ministry gains attention and popularity, Jesus moves back to Galilee.  It is then at this point that the Synoptics take up the story.

The reading for this coming Sunday in St Luke's Gospel gives an account of some of what happened during the following few months in Galilee.

I must confess to being a bit scared by the speed at which this year is already disappearing!  Meetings are coming back into fashion after a temporary lull over Christmas.  This will be the last post for this week as a consequence so have a good weekend when it comes!

I will be presenting prizes at a school sports day on Saturday.  I always think it a bit ironic when I do this sort of thing given how much I detested taking part in sport when I was at school.  My most vivid memory was getting stuck on the last obstacle in the obstacle race and getting a cheer when I eventually did get over it.  My only success was in the three-legged race ...  Not a tale of sporting prowess I am afraid.  I did, however, make it into the School chess team!

Trying to Understand the Ministry of Jesus

St John tells us that Jesus' first miracle took place in Cana of Galilee.  Cana was probably a place about 9 miles north of Nazareth.  Nathaniel who becomes a disciple was from there.  Quite why he thought that nothing good could come out of Nazareth when it was so near is an interesting question!

I have just read an article by Richard Bauckham, a scholar I much respect, arguing that St John's Gospel amongst other things was originally written with those in mind who may had already read St Mark's Gospel.  It is something I have felt myself for some while, but never really followed up on.

As is well-known, the first three Gospels, the so-called synoptic Gospels, focus on Jesus' ministry in Galilee apart, of course, for the events in Jerusalem leading to his death.  St John records Jesus also ministering in Jerusalem and making relatively frequent visits there.  Scholars are rather sceptical about the value of St John's Gospel historically, so much so, that even the more conservative leave it out of consideration when writing about the life and ministry of Jesus.  This results in a very Galilean focused account.

St John's Gospel, however, while ackowledging quite clearly that Jesus had a significant ministry in Galilee, even performing his first miracle there, fills in the gaps by telling us about the Jerusalem and Judean ministry.  If this is historically based then it means that many, if not most accounts of the life of Jesus are somewhat imbalanced.  It is notoriously difficult to piece together the events in the life of our Lord to create anything like a diary of events.  The Gospels are not those sort of documents.  However, it is worth thinking about how the ministry of our Lord took shape.

Given that Jesus' teaching focused on the coming Kingdom of God, that he himself was a good Jew, and believed that he had a message for all Israel, how likely then is it that he would have avoided going to Jerusalem and Judea during his ministry?  Did he really only turn up there at the end of it for just a few days?  It seems improbable to say the least.  St Luke tells us that Jesus' parents went every year to Jerusalem for the Passover (Luke 2:41)  This would be true of many Galilean Jews.  Was Jesus really so different?  Even in the synoptics there are hints that Jesus was not in fact such a stranger to Jerusalem.  How did he know the owners of the donkey he borrowed to ride in to Jerusalem and of the Upper Room in which he celebrated the Last Supper?

St John tells us of Jesus that, 'When he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, since they had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the festival; for they too had gone to the festival.'  (John 4:45)  The typical view of Jesus is that people in Jerusalem wanted to hear him, when he eventually came from Galilee to Jerusalem at the end of his ministry, because his reputation had gone before him.  If St John is right, then it is all a little more complicated than that and part of St John's aim in his Gospel is to show this to those who only know the synoptic tradition.

Of course, if St John is right, it raises the interesting question of why the first three Gospels focus so exclusively on Jesus in Galilee.

Mary as a Source for the Gospels

I am only preaching at the 8.00am service this week so I just have a short sermon to prepare.  I am, however, interested in the reference to Jesus' mother in the Gospel reading.

As will be known, many scholars are very sceptical about the historical value of the Gospels and so treat them more as novels or novellas, that is, as fictional stories.  It is true that the stories that may contain historical data, after all, novels do contain historical data whether they were written by Agatha Christie or Salman Rushdie.  They also, however, contain events and characters invented by the author so, too, to a greater or lesser degree, it is argued, do the Gospels.  Some scholars think the Gospels contain only a little invention; some think they contain a lot.  As all scholars have to work in a mixed ideological and intellectual environment so even those who are more conservative have to take on board the scepticism of the more cynical.

This means that the Gospels themselves are seldom taken at face value by many scholars and the sort of questions scholars generally deal with are those questions of interest to other scholars and not those of interest to those outside the scholarly community. Scholars will speculate for hours on such things as supposed sources behind the Gospels and the nature of the communities for whom they were written, but will often rule out of order speculation which may arise from accepting the Gospels as essentially historically accurate.  This, I think, often makes the Gospels seem little more than interesting historical novels, in much the same way as I have been arguing that the typical presentation of the Nativity makes it seem no more than a romantic fairy story.

For example, a hypothetical source called Q is believed by many scholars to have been used by Matthew and Luke in the compiling of their Gospels.  It may well have been, we can't know for sure as Q is only a hypothesis.  Not a single copy of it exists anywhere.  And yet scholars will write books and dissertations on the theology of Q, the community which produced Q, the Christology of Q, the history of Q, the different versions of Q and so on.  Not bad when we don't even know what was in Q even if it did exist.

A speculative question I personally would like to ask is to do with the role, if any, people such as Mary and the Lord's family played as sources for the Gospels.  Now I realize that many would see this sort of question as being more than a little naive, belonging to the Sunday School rather than the Academy.  But given that we know from several sources that James, the brother of our Lord was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem after Jesus' death (from Luke in Acts, from Paul, and from the Jewish historian Josephus), it would seem at least possible that they played some role in the preservation of stories about Jesus.  I mean wouldn't people ask James, 'What was your brother like?'

We also know from Paul that the other 'brothers of the Lord' played a missionary role in the early Church: a role that was even familiar to people as far away from Palestine as Gentile Christians in Corinth (1 Corinthians 9:5).  Wouldn't people they spoke to ask them about their 'brother'?  And surely they would have stories ready to repeat?  They would be pretty useless missionaries if they didn't.

And then what about Mary herself?  Luke records her as having been present in the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost.  (By the way: 'Upper Room' in Greek is the same the word in Luke that is often translated 'inn'!  See the previous post.)  According to John's Gospel, the beloved disciple whose testimony the Gospel claims as the basis for the Gospel, is entrusted with the care of Mary by our Lord as he hung on the Cross: 'Then he said to the disciple, "Here is your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.' (John 19:27)

Mary then is identified as the mother of both the person the Church worshipped as well as of the leader of the Church in Jerusalem and also as a sort of surrogate mother to the beloved disciple.   Surely if Mary was so closely associated with the beginning of the Church, then wouldn't people in the Church have asked her about her son?

Because the Church became so successful among Gentiles outside of Palestine, we have only a limited knowledge of what went on in Palestine.  However, it is, of course, Palestine where Jesus actually ministered and where the stories about him were first preserved.  It defies belief that the family of Jesus, who went on to have such a prominent role as leaders of the Church, would not have had a role to play as sources for those who wanted to write an account of their brother or son.

Personally, I find the idea that Mary was a source for the Gospel accounts much more convincing than that of the imaginary Q.

The Baptism of Christ

Yesterday, in the Liturgical Calendar, it was the 'Baptism of Christ'.  I commented in my sermon on how strange it seemed to be moving from the birth of Jesus to the Baptism of Jesus after only just over two weeks.  It is, of course, made somewhat inevitable because of the way the Gospels tell us nothing about the life of our Lord after his birth until he begins his ministry at the age of about 30.  Apart, that is, from one brief incident recorded by Luke when Jesus is in the temple at the age of 12 (Luke 2:41-52).

This makes the words of the Voice from heaven at Jesus baptism all the more intriguing: 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.' (Luke 3:22)  To put it in a very human way: what was it about Jesus that the Voice was pleased with?  The intrigue deepens when we read on in Luke to the beginning of Jesus' ministry.  Luke records an incident at the synagogue in Nazareth: 'When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom.' (Luke 3:16)  Jesus claims that words from a prophecy of Isaiah about One who will be anointed by God apply to him.

The reaction of those listening to him is interesting.  Luke tells us they are amazed.  They ask, 'Isn't this Joseph's son?'  In other words these people who had known Jesus for most of his life are amazed both by what he says and the way he says it.  Nothing about him and their knowledge of him had prepared them for this.  Mark puts it more starkly.  The people ask: ' "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.'

Presumably, however, Jesus had had some understanding of what his role and mission was to be while he was growing up and before his baptism.  Luke tells us Jesus knew at the age of 12 that he should be about his father's business!  Is it partly, at least, Jesus' willingness to keep silent about his identity and mission and live an ordinary life until his baptism that the Voice is pleased with?

I realize the speculative nature of these questions, but it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that Jesus had lived for 30 years already before he began his 3 year ministry.  This coming week the reading is about the wedding at Cana of Galilee, where it is Jesus' mother who encourages him to do something about the shortage of wine.  Jesus' identity may have been hidden to most people in Nazareth as he was growing up.  Apparently, not, however, to his mother!

Happy New Year!

Everything is getting back to normal here now with the start of term for all our schools.  For those of you returning to work today after the festive break, I hope it doesn't come as too much of a shock!

The Birth of Jesus

I am preparing for this coming Sunday's sermon and can't believe we are on to the baptism of Christ already.  I think it is a real shame that liturgically we  move on so quickly from what happened after Jesus was born to his ministry.  We know about the shepherds AND their sheep (let the reader understand!)  We also think we know about the Magi and their gifts.  We often, however, miss the fact that Jesus was circumcised 8 days after his birth (Luke 2:21) and that Mary and Joseph went to the temple in Jerusalem (not too far away) 33 days after his birth 'according to the Law of Moses' (Levticus 12, Luke 2:22) taking Jesus with them.  And, of course, the fact that Herod has all children under two years old murdered 'according to the time that he had learned from the wise men' (Matthew 2:16), suggests we do not know the diary of events as well as sometimes we think.

The chances are that Mary and Joseph stayed on in Bethlehem for some considerable time after Jesus' birth.  This means that, contrary to most nativity scenes, the shepherds and Magi are unlikely ever to have met!  It also suggests that Mary and Joseph were able to secure accommodation in Bethlehem.  Surely they did not live in a stable until the time of Mary's purification a month after Jesus' birth?  Matthew tells us that the star led the Magi to the 'place where the child was' (Matthew 2:9).  He continues describing them 'entering the house' (Matthew 2:11).     Romantic though it undoubtedly is to have the Magi in the stable, there is no basis for it in the text.

This raises the question of where Mary and Joseph would have stayed.  Here I confess to a failure of nerve.  I have long felt that the story of Jesus even being born in a stable is just plain wrong.  I don't believe it is what the Gospels ever say.  I remember lecturing on this over twenty years ago, but have refrained from preaching on it for not wanting to spoil people's Christmas and, in any case, I don't think it is an essential issue when it comes to explaining the meaning of Christmas.

The point, however, is that Mary and Joseph went to their 'own town' (Luke 2:3) to be registered.  Wouldn't it be just a little strange if they knew no-one in the city?  And did they get so little warning of their journey that they were unable to plan ahead?  The typical nativity play has Mary and Joseph turning up in Bethlehem on the night of Jesus' birth looking for a place to stay.  It works in the nativity play, but in real life?

Look again at what St Luke actually says: 'He (Joseph) went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child.'  (Luke 2:5-6)  'While they were there', notice!  Not, 'on the night they arrived'.  The Greek word, often translated 'inn', is better translated simply 'guest room'.  Families in Bethlehem would have lived in small houses and the animals would have been kept in the house at night with a manger built in to feed them!

What St Luke is telling us is that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem some time ahead of the due date for the birth of their baby, stayed in a house that was crowded, and that when the time came for the baby to be born - because the house was full - Mary gave birth to her son in the main part of the house and not in a special room.  The shepherds then visit having been told that the fact that the baby is in a manger will be a 'sign to them' (Luke 2:12)  Why should the baby being in manger be a sign?  It is a sign because God chose a humble and ordinary place for his Son to be born, not a palace.  The shepherds could go there with confidence: they could be sure they would be allowed in!

There would, then, be no difficulty for the Holy Family to stay on in Bethlehem for quite some time as they had already found friendly accommodation.  Sadly, some time in the next two years, after the visit of mysterious strangers, they had to flea for their lives as political refugees to Egypt.  Interestingly, after Herod's death and the coast becomes clear for Mary and Joseph together with their child to return to Israel, they evidently first thought to go back to Bethlehem (Matthew 2:22).  However, Joseph is worried about the person now ruling over Judea and so goes to Nazareth in Galilee instead (Matthew 2:23, Luke 2:39).

The Gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus are by nature somewhat fragmentary and we are left to piece them together in order to get a fuller picture.  Inevitably, we need some imagination to do this and there is much that we do not know, which, if we were to know, would change the picture.  The least we can do, however, is to make sure we listen carefully to what we are told before making our re-constructions.

The traditional account of the Nativity conveys the message of Christmas and is not to be despised.  Nevertheless, I wonder what reflection on what the Gospels actually say would produce by way of plays and preaching!