Where are the ox and lamb? Where’s the stable? What ELSE is not in the Bible?

Some of the familiar stories we hear, tell, and sing about Jesus’ birth aren't necessarily in the Bible. Joseph and Mary arrive at night after a long journey to Bethlehem, only to find all the inns are full (there’s a census going on). One innkeeper gives them a place in the stable because Mary is not only very pregnant, but about to give birth. Jesus’ birth is witnessed only by the parents and the animals in the stable. Shepherds, tending sheep on a cold winter’s night, rush to find them after hearing a choir of angels singing. Three kings from the east arrive with presents and they all gather around the manger to worship the baby king. The little drummer boy plays and they all sing pa-rum-pa-pum-pum. 

In a recent book on the early life of Jesus, Pope Benedict XVI wrote that there’s no evidence in the Gospels that animals were present around the manger. There’s also no evidence that angels actually sang at Jesus’ birth. 

Frank Viola touches on several other myths that have built up around the Nativity, including the inn:

Luke’s phrase “there was no room at the inn” is often taken to mean that Mary and Joseph couldn't find a local Hilton in town. But this is highly doubtful. Bethlehem was a very small village with no major roads. So a traveler’s inn would have been extremely unlikely. In addition, Luke doesn't use the common word for hotel inn (pandeion) that he uses other places. Instead, he uses a word that means guest room (kataluma). It’s the same word that he used to describe the place where Jesus took the last supper.  

It’s far more likely that since Bethlehem was Joseph’s ancestoral home, he had relatives there. And because of the census taking place at the time, none of his relatives had any room in their guest quarters. Guest rooms were typically in the front of houses and the animal shelters were in the back of the house or the lower level (in a cave). In the family shelter, the family animals were fed and protected at night from the cold, thieves, and predators. So Joseph and Mary were lodged on the lower level or in the back of the house—the animal shelter. Most likely, the animals were removed while the couple lodged there. (There is no mention of animals in Luke’s or Matthew’s account. St. Francis is credited with building the first manger scene complete with live animals.)

Take a moment to relax from the hustle and bustle of the season and read the accounts of Jesus’ birth. It’s not long – only 20 verses in Luke and 12 in Matthew. Here are some of the things that are not in those narratives:

• Mary giving birth on the very night they arrive in Bethlehem (Luke 2:6 says Jesus was born “while they were there…”, not on the night they arrived)
• The stable or the animals in the stable (Luke 2:7 says the baby was laid in a manger, but doesn't say anything about animals being present)
• An innkeeper 
• Angels singing to the shepherds (Luke 2:13 writes of “angels praising God and saying”, not singing)
• Three kings arriving at the stable (Matthew doesn't say how many wise men came; they visited Jesus at a house)
• A cold winter night (no date or time of year is mentioned)
• A little drummer boy (sorry, but that’s just the song)

So, how did all that stuff get into the birth narrative? Perhaps it’s a very human attempt at filling in holes with what made the most sense. For instance, we assume there has to be a stable and animals in the stable because that’s where we’d expect to find the feeding trough/ manger. We also assume there was an innkeeper who directed them to a stable because his inn was full. And we moved the birth to the time of arrival because it makes sense that, if they had been in town for a while, then certainly they would have found a more comfortable place for Mary to be when it was time to give birth.

Years ago, Grace offered an Advent series called A Clear View of Jesus’ Birth using a video series by Kenneth Bailey (it may still be in the church library). That was the first time I heard that “inn” may have been a “guest chamber” and that Jesus may have been born in a crowded house of relatives rather than in a stable filled with animals. You can read about his explanation by clicking here.  

So, what’s the point? When I first heard the possibility of an alternative account, it spoiled my idealized view of the birth of Jesus, but it also made me re-examine whether my core beliefs are based on what the Bible says or on what we've filled in for ourselves. Whether Jesus was born in a stable or in a house really doesn't matter much in the scheme of things. What is important is making sure our faith isn't so wrapped up in extra-Biblical traditions that it would crumble in the face of challenges or alternative perspectives.

Does it bother you to hear that Jesus’ birth may not have occurred like we've heard in the Christmas carols? Does it make a difference?

I wish you peace, joy, love, and understanding that came down on earth on what we now celebrate as Christmas!

An Advent Gift: Marveling at the Hubble Advent Calendar

I love this kind of stuff. As a kid, I used to lay on the ground at night, look up at the stars in the sky (back in the dark ages when I was growing up in West Virginia, light pollution wasn't the problem it is around the DC metro area and we could see so many more stars), and wonder what God had going on out there. And that was before the Hubble Telescope started bringing us images like this:

That's the Carina Nebula. You can find more pictures of it by clicking here.

The Atlantic is offering 25 of these images in it's 2012 Hubble Advent Calendar (<-- this link takes you to the Atlantic article announcing the calendar for this year). You can find all of the daily pictures by checking them out on Tumblr or liking their Facebook page. 

I look at these images and a host of childhood memories and questions flood in. Are we the only ones created in God's image in this universe? If we one day find other life forms in distant galaxies, what will they tell us about God? What else is God doing in this universe?

Look at these images and consider this: Why would the creator of all of these amazing things choose to come to this tiny planet and walk among us? Isn't it amazing that the one who set all of this into motion loves us? To me, it's a question that calls for humility, not pride or arrogance. 

Blessings to all of us!

What if being created in God’s image is a vocation rather than a description? A sort-of Advent reflection.

I planned on moving to questions related to the Advent season, but one question kept popping up as I re-read the creation story: What does it mean that we've been created in God’s image? 

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. [Genesis 1:27]

There’s nothing in the Bible to suggest a flesh-and-blood image. God is a spiritual entity, despite the very human-looking images we see depicted by everyone from Michelangelo to Monty Python. Does it mean that we are spiritual beings as God is spiritual, or is there something else to it? 

The comments to the post Do we have a purpose? sent me searching. In seeking, I found an interesting blog called Musings on Science and Theology and a post Love Is the Name of the Game, which included the video below from N.T. Wright. It’s over 11 minutes long, but well worth the listen (okay, at least it was for me… I’ll let you decide on your own). 

In the first 3 minutes or so, Wright talks about Jesus invoking the “ancient human vocation” of being image bearers:  

“God calls human beings to be his image bearers. … People sometimes think an image is like a mirror reflecting God back to God, but that’s not how it’s supposed to work. It’s supposed to be an angled mirror reflecting God out into the world and reflecting the praises of the world back to God. That’s what it means to be image bearers. That’s right there in Genesis 1 and 2…. The priesthood of believers is an Old Testament idea that all God’s people are supposed to be the ones who gather up the praises of the whole world and present them to God and who act as God’s stewards and agents to bring his love and his light into the world.” 

God’s people struggled – and still struggle – with what it means to be a priesthood of believers  and to be God’s image bearers [I realize “image bearers” may not mean the same thing as being created in the image of God, but Wright doesn’t exclude the possibility]. Wright says that Jesus brought this calling into focus. Maybe the question should be: How do I live my life as the image of God?

Here’s something NT Wright says later in the video (beginning around the 8:50 mark):  

“Sometimes people are frightened of the things they enjoy because they think of it as self-indulgent…. Again and again, God gives you the gifts so that the stuff that you enjoy doing may well be the way in which he wants you glorify him in the world.” 

This is something I keep telling my sons and I hope that one day some of it sinks in: Think of the things you love doing as a gift from God. Then think of ways to do the things you love that turn it into your gift from God to the world. 

In Love Is the Name of the Game is this advice to the communities of believers:

“We will not make a difference by having a better Sunday morning service, by serving better coffee, by having a more extroverted and energetic staff, by avoiding the hard questions, by keeping things shallow and palatable. Nor will we make a difference by focusing on precision in theological expression or the glory and sovereignty of God. We will make a difference by being the people of God such that his love is evident in us and through us.”  

Is being that people of God what it means to be created in God’s image? Do you see that as your vocation? 

Do you agree with NT Wright’s concept of being an image bearer? What do you think it means to be created in God’s image?

Do we have a purpose?

Maybe I should have asked this instead of “Genesis or evolution – why do scripture and science seem to conflict with each other?” Unfortunately, this inspiration waited a few days to pop up. 

The Templeton Foundation asked a number of scientists and scholars “Does the universe have a purpose?”. Here’s what Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and director of New York’s Hayden Planetarium, had to say:

I like Neil deGrasse Tyson. He’s very passionate about science and space and works to make it interesting and accessible to the public. But his response – in effect, “I’m not sure but it’s unlikely and even if it does, it certainly doesn't involve us” – illustrates the limits of science in answering the question “Why?” While science does a good job of describing “what” and “how”, it just doesn't serve us well when we ask “Why are we here? Why is the universe here?” Philosophical questions don’t always lend themselves to empirical observation and testing. 

This is certainly an area where science and religion could work together. But sayings like this don’t help:

[source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2008/07/reason-is-the-greatest-enemy-that-faith-has/]

That’s not just a Baptist church speaking. They’re quoting Martin Luther. It hangs like a “you’re not welcome here” mat for anyone who is a scientist or a thinker. Faith calls on us to trust in something that exists beyond reason, but it doesn't mean we’re not supposed to think. Science and reason, instead of being the enemy, can be the launching point for a deeper conversation.

Why is the universe here? Does it have a purpose? Why are we here on this particular speck in the universe? What is our purpose?

Can science and religion exist together? Can they work together?

I hope this opens up more conversation. Please click on “comments” below and join the discussion!

Genesis or evolution? Why do scripture and science seem to conflict with each other?

I am a scientist… and a disciple of Christ. I believe that geology, biology, and other sciences provide compelling evidence on the origin of earth, life, and the universe. I also believe that God created the universe and all that is in it. And I don’t consider these to be in conflict with each other. Some say that makes me an oddity. 

I faced the conflict between creation and evolution early in high school. When we studied evolution in biology class, the girl behind me opened her Bible to Genesis. I looked at her, puzzled. She pointed to her Bible and said, “This is the only book that’s right.” I asked, “How do you know God didn't use evolution to create us?” She didn't actually say anything but her look said it all: “Heretic! How dare you say that!” That wasn't the last time I got that look... and sometimes it has come from scientists. 

Is the Bible so truly at odds with science (and visa versa) that we are forced to choose between the two? Or is it the way we choose to interpret the Bible? 

Some Christians take the creation account in Genesis as a literal explanation of how God created the world and refuse to believe the scientific body of evidence that suggests the earth took a little longer to form. In the worst instances, they have declared that Christian faith depends on believing the 7-day creation story and the concept of an earth that is no more than 6-10,000 years old. In their view, evolution is a threat to Christian faith. 

On the other end of the spectrum are those who say the Bible is filled with legends that are incompatible with scientific thought or reason. Both sides, interestingly, make their case using a literal translation of Genesis and other passages in the Bible. 

But others (including me) believe that science and religion are not at cross purposes and that creation vs. evolution and faith vs. science are false dichotomies. Science focuses on answering “How?” (How did life originate? How do things work?) while religion focuses on “Why?” (Why are we here? What is our purpose?). They’re not incompatible. 

Several years ago, Rev. Jay Click led a Bible study using the book The Mighty Acts of God (Arnold B. Rhodes, rev. by W. Eugene March). The authors describe the creation stories in Genesis as a statement of faith:

“When a person grasps the fact that this account of creation [Gen. 1:1-2:4a] is neither a fairy tale nor the kind of history that is literally viewed in process by human eye, but a theological confession placed in the literary framework of the Jewish week, many worries about the so-called conflict between science and religion will vanish into thin air…. The biblical writer used the worldview and thought-forms of the time to express faith in God as Creator for all days.” [p. 17]

God is not confined to a box, a book, or a set of observations and theories. God is bigger and more mysterious than all of that and we miss a lot when we begin to think that our narrow perspective is all we need to know God. We create trouble when we insist that our narrow perspective is all anybody else needs to know God. 

I put the book The Language Of Science and Faith on my reading list when I read a review [http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/book-review-the-language-of-science-and-faith] that included this quote from the book: 

“…all Christian positions on origins share a commitment to a mysterious and transcendent divine action, and we might as well acknowledge that we are all in that boat together. The conversation needs to be about what is revealed in the details of the creation, not who can explain exactly how God works (for nobody can). We should all start with the affirmation that the world is the product of a transcendent intelligence and then inspect that world to see what we can find out.”

More often, instead of a conversation we find a false dichotomy that is driving many young, intelligent people away from faith. I have friends who left church because they felt they were being pushed to choose between faith and science. I know people who felt betrayed when they discovered that the creation accounts in the Bible are not supported by science as we know it. If that’s not true, they argue, what else is not true? 

Is that what our faith is about? Where in the good news of God’s love and reconciliation for the world does Jesus say “You have to believe the earth was created in 7 24-hour days”? Are we losing the message by getting wrapped up over distractions? Does it really matter what you believe about how the earth was created? After all, what we believe doesn't actually change what God really did. 

Do you see a conflict between the creation accounts in the Bible and the scientific explanations of the origin of the universe and of life? Do you feel there’s a tension between science and faith? How do you think we could better open a dialogue between science and faith? Is it something you even care about?  I do because I work among scientists who feel the conflict and tension, some so much they no longer consider themselves part of a faith community, but it may not seem as big an issue for people who aren't scientists. 

In trimming down the original draft of this post (yes, it was even longer), I managed to cut out all responses to the question How do we reconcile the two different creation stories presented in Genesis 1 and 2? in Banned Questions about the Bible[p. 68-72]. They touch on some of what's here.

I also cut out a lot of other material. If you’re interested in reading more, here are some background links I used:

A recent article summarized in Science Daily describes the origins of modern-day creationism and notes that faith and science haven’t always been at odds on the Earth’s age and origin.

The review for The Language Of Science and Faith can be found here on the Internet Monk. The authors of the book also run the BioLogos Forum, which promotes dialogue on faith and science. Among other things, I learned that the controversy between creation and evolution is largely an American issue that breaks along conservative and liberal ideologies.   

Peter Enns wrote a post on reading Genesis like an adult in which he say that some of the stories in Genesis are legends used to help explain the inexplicable. I was following that track until veering off, but may come back to it later this week.