Tag: Bible

Christian living, religion, World Religions

Christian Reflections on Muslim Hospitality

Posted on by Jay Givens

Whenever I have been in an Muslim country, I have always noticed the hospitality offered to me as a traveler.  When I visited Turkey, I assumed it was because I was with a tour group.  In Palestine, it was more obvious. As I entered homes with my Palestinian Baptist friends, we were always greeted by the host (whether Muslim or Christian) with whatever food and drink they had readily available.  This summer, my wife and I were completely unprepared for the generosity we experienced in Morocco visiting one of our former exchange daughters.  Her family was so gracious that we hardly spent any money during our ten day visit as they provided food, accommodations, and entertainment!

Hospitality is an ancient concept.  Both the Hebrew Bible and the Qur’an describe it in the positive, when Abraham welcomed travelers, unaware they were angels (Ge 18:1-8; Qur’an 11:69) and in the negative, when the men of Sodom wished to abuse these same angels disguised as travelers (Ge 19:4-10; Qur’an 11:78-79). It is no wonder, then, that the call to hospitality is found in Jewish, Christian, and Muslims scriptures.  So what can a Christian learn from the Muslim understanding of hospitality? (Ali Zohery’s “Prophet Muhammad: the Hospitable” helped me find the stories of Muhammad in the Hadith.)

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

Al-Bukhari tells us that Muhammad taught that one should give “a superior type of food” to a guest (traveler) for a night and a day, then continue to host them for three days with food.  This is the duty of every person.  Beyond that, any continuation of hospitality is an offering, an act of charity, not a duty.  Muhammad also warned it was not permissible for a guest to stay to the point of critically impacting their host’s resources.

Notice how Muhammad emphasized the need to give the best (the “superior”) first.  This is significant, as you are making a good first impression.  His emphasis is not the same as the master of ceremonies at the wedding in Cana, who said people give the best wine first so their guests will not notice when the cheap stuff is served later—after they are inebriated (Jn 2:7-10).  No, Muhammad is saying we give more than expected as a way to honor our guest.  Whether given as charity or as hospitality due a visitor, you are to give your best—not “worthless things . . . you yourselves would only accept with closed eyes” (Qur’an 2:267). It is God’s gift to you, not your possession, so share it freely.

A second thing to notice is that Muhammad viewed going beyond the requirements of the culture or law as a voluntary act of charity.  This charity reflected the mercy and grace of God, but it was not compulsory to do so.  Jesus, however, made going above and beyond compulsory for his followers.  “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Mt 5:40-42).  This was not just to the traveler, but even to the “evil person!” (Mt 5:39) It was a way to “love your enemies” (Mt 5:44) rather than to treat them as they were treating you (“eye for eye”—Mt 5:38).

According to Al-Bukhari, some of Muhammad’s followers once said to him that when they were traveling and entered a home, the hosts did not provide hospitality to them.  They asked him, how should we handle this situation?  If they show you hospitality as a guest should be treated, Muhammad said, accept it.  If they do not provide for your needs, however, you should take “the right of the guest” from them.  (You could forcibly demand hospitality, in other words.) This is a very different response from what Jesus instructed his disciples when he sent them out to the villages of the Galilee.  “As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” (Mt 10:12-15).  Even before you receive any hospitality, Jesus tells his followers, speak a blessing of peace upon the house.  Then, if hospitality is shown, let the blessing remain.  But if hospitality is not shown, Jesus’ disciples are not to demand it as a right.  Instead, they are to simply to revoke the blessing pronounced on the home, shake the dust from their sandals, and trust God to judge the injustice in his own time.

Finally, Tirmidhi tells us someone asked Muhammad, “If I come to a man who gives me no entertainment or hospitality and he afterwards comes to me, shall I give him entertainment or treat him as he treated me?” Muhammad replied, “No, give him entertainment.” In other words, do not repay evil with evil but honor your duty as a representative of God.  Similarly, Jesus said to do to others as we would want them to do to us (Mt 7:12).  Not only is it the right way to treat those created in the Image of God, but Proverbs tells us, “If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you” (Pr 25:21-22). For Paul tells us we can never defeat evil with evil, but evil can only be conquered by good (Rom 12:9-21).  Hospitality can turn an enemy into a friend.

0
Bible, sermon, Uncategorized

Nunc Coepi (Now I Begin!)

Posted on by Jay Givens

Judges 13-16

Philip Rivers was an eight-time Pro Bowl Quarterback who primarily played for the San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers. A Roman Catholic, Rivers frequently referenced a phrase he attributed to a nineteenth century priest: Nunc Coepi, which roughly translates as, “Now, I begin.” Rivers said this phrase helped him do his best. Whether he had a bad play or a good play, he would say, “Nunc Coepi!” (I must begin again.) Whether he threw a touchdown or an interception, he had to begin again. Nunc Coepi! He applied this to his work, to his faith, to his relationships, and to his life. So can we.

In the book of Judges, Samson is the person most discussed—four chapters. Jdg 13:2-5 begins with a great promise. Though his mother was barren and childless, the angel told her she would have a son. Nunc Coepi–she must begin again! This child was to be set apart as a Nazirite from birth. If a Hebrew took a Nazirite vow, they set themselves apart until the vow was fulfilled. Samson, however, was to be a Nazirite even from his mother’s womb. This meant he was never to drink wine or any fermented drink; he was never to touch anything dead; and he was never to cut his hair. (Normally, Hebrews would cut their hair at the fulfilment of their vow.) Samson had a divine call on his life. He was set apart to deliver the Israelites from the hands of the Philistines.

Yet throughout the chapters detailing the events of his life, we find that Samson denied his divine call. Instead of leading the fight against the Philistines, we always read about him being with the Philistines, especially Philistine women (his wife, a prostitute, Delilah). Slowly through the story, he violated his set apart status, cavalierly flaunting the rules given to him from birth. Though we are not explicitly told he drinks wine, the town of the woman he fell in love with is specifically said to have vineyards (Jdg 14:5). A few verses later, we read about what sounds like a bachelor party for his impending wedding (Jdg 14:10-11). In many other places in the Bible, we are told that feasting included drinking. It is hard to imagine this feast didn’t also include Samson drinking.

He joked and even bragged about touching dead things! He found bees making honey in the mouth of a lion carcass he had killed earlier. He ate some without telling his parents (obviously knowing they would rebuke him), thus touching an unclean dead body. But then he joked about it during the wedding feast in the form of a riddle to outwit his Philistine companions. Later, when the Philistines were attempting to kill him, he picked up a fresh donkey jawbone and used it as a club to kill a thousand Philistines. He then bragged about this feat by composing a verse and naming the place Jawbone Hill (Jdg 15:15-17)!

Finally, to get Delilah to quit nagging him, he told her the truth about his hair, the one remaining thing that set him apart as a Nazirite. If his hair was cut, he would be like any other man (Jdg 16:16-20). Sometimes, people think his hair was the key to his great strength, but it was only the final surrender of the things that set him apart to the Lord. His strength was from Lord (Jdg 16:20) through the empowering of the Holy Spirit (Jdg 13:25).

And so, Samson squandered his great promise. The Lord left him. The Philistines subdued him and gouged out his eyes. They turned him into a blind slave who worked for them. They would bring him out for entertainment in order to mock and insult him.

Samson’s story was intended by the author of Judges as a cautionary tale for the Israelites. Like Samson, they were born of great promise. The opening of Sarah’s womb was like the opening of Samson’s mother’s womb. The Exodus story was about the sudden birth of a new people of God who would enter a land promised to their ancestors. The Israelites were also set apart. Samson was to be a Nazirite. The Hebrews were rescued by God from slavery to be his treasured possession. As the Nazirite vow had rules to obey, so the Israelites were to obey the covenant to show their thankfulness to God for redeeming them from slavery (Exod 19:4-6). Like Samson, they violated the covenant (eventually losing their set apart status in the exile). They also had a divine calling. They were to be a kingdom of priests and a holy (set apart) nation. Through their communal life, they were to bless all the nations of the earth (Gen 22:18). Yet over and again, they wanted to be like all the other nations (1Sa 8:19-20).

Samson’s story is also a warning to the church! We were birthed in great promise through Christ Jesus’ defeat of death in his crucifixion and resurrection and his outpouring of life through the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:22-24; Rom 8:9-11). We are set apart through the filling of his Holy Spirit to love one another and to live as one body (2Cor 5:5; 1Jn 3:23-24; Eph 3:6). We have a divine calling to be his witnesses, to make disciples, and to labor for his kingdom (Acts 1:8; Mt 28:18-20; 1Tim 4:10). We must remember the great promise, maintain our set apart status, and live into our divine calling.

But even if we fail, hope remains. We are told in Judges 16:22 that Samson’s hair began to grow again. The hair is not magical or embued with power. It is simply a sign that he can reclaim his Nazirite status. Finally, at the end of his life, we read that Samson for the first time prays to God! It is never too late to turn back to God or call out to him (Jdg 16:28)! “Nunc Coepi!,” Samson thought. “Now I begin!” He placed his hands on the pillars of the temple filled with mocking Philistine crowds, pushed with all the might God bestowed upon him, and we are told his attempt to fulfill God’s call was greater in his death than it had been throughout his life (Jdg 16:29-30). So his tragic life ended in a tragic, though victorious, death.

But turning to God or rededicating yourself to him doesn’t have to have a tragic end. King Josiah found a scroll announcing the destruction of his nation. He was told by a prophetess that what was written there would only happen after his death, because he had repented on hearing the words. Did Josiah say (like King Hezekiah before him), “at least it won’t happen in my day!”? No. He said, “Nunc Coepi! Now I begin!” and started a massive reform movement throughout the land, attempting to change God’s mind! Though he wasn’t successful in stopping God’s destruction of Judah, he did delay it. And we are told that there was never a king before or after him who turned to the Lord with all his heart, soul, and strength (2Ki 23:25)! In the New Testament, Saul persecuted the early Christians, arresting many and standing in support of their death. One day, Jesus called him. Saul could have followed Jesus in a quiet manner but allowing his past actions to hold him back from service. But Paul instead said, “Nunc Coepi! Now I begin!” He became the most influential of the apostles, writing thirteen of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament.

In church history, just two examples more will suffice. Ignatius of Loyola was a military soldier known for womanizing and living a worldly life. A cannonball shattered his leg during one campaign. While convalescing, he began to read the lives of the saints and to reflect on the image of Jesus on the crucifix hanging on his bedroom wall. Suddenly, he said, “Nunc Coepi! Now I begin!” He not only became a committed follower of Christ but young men began to gather around him to learn from him of his way of devotion. This group eventually became the Society of Jesus (aka, Jesuits), which launched the first truly global missionary movement. John Newton was an English slave trader. After many years, he became a Christian. He said, “Nunc Coepi! Now I begin!” and studied to become an Anglican priest. He also an active abolitionist, helping to end the slavery in England. He is probably best known for writing the words to the hymn “Amazing Grace.”

Whether in your own life, your relationships with family or friends, your church, or your community, it is never too late to start something new. The venerable Bruno Lateri was the nineteeth century Roman Catholic priest Philip Rivers so often quoted. His full statement was, “If I should fall even a thousand times a day, I will with peace in my heart turn to God, ask his forgiveness, and begin again.”

Nunc Coepi! Now I begin!

0
Bible, Christian living, current-events

Whose Land Is It, Anyway?

Posted on by Jay Givens

I recently saw a meme floating around social media: “Israel doesn’t occupy the land.  They OWN it. Gen 15:18-21.” There were multiple amens attached.  Certainly, the intent was to show support for Israel in response to the horrific attack on civilians by Hamas last October.  While there is a promise made in Genesis 15, it is curious that a verse referencing “everlasting” was not used, such as Genesis 13:15.  “All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever.”  This promise to Abraham was restated to him (Gen 17:8), then confirmed to Isaac (Gen 26:3) and Jacob (Gen 35:12). 

The main problem with the meme, however, is that it assumes God’s promise was without condition.  That’s certainly the response of many to the meme: “God does not break his covenants;” “Truth!” “Of course!” “I stand with Israel.”  Yet the Bible itself does not support the idea that God gifted the land to Abraham’s descendants in perpetuity without condition.

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

Before we consider these conditions, however, we must first address the wording of the meme.  God’s promises to the Patriarchs does not mean Israel “owns” the land.  God explicitly rejects such a concept in Leviticus 25:23.  “The land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers.”  God is the only owner of the land.

God set conditions that the people must not sin but obey his commands in order to remain in the land (Deut 4:1; 5:33; 11:8-9; Josh 23:16; 2Chr 7:19-22; 33:7-9; Jer 11:5; 32:21-23).  Abraham, though a foreigner at the time, was told by God that the land was an everlasting possession for him and his descendants, and they must keep God’s covenant (Gen 17:8-9).  As Abraham was a foreigner in the land he possessed, so his later descendants were also foreigners.  Before entering the land, God warned Israel that if they did not keep his commands, the land would vomit them out as it did the Canaanites (Lev 18:25-28; 20:22).  By the monarchy’s end, God tells them, “You came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable” (Jer 2:7).  These detestable acts included idolatry (Deut 4:25-27; 11:16-17; 30:17-18, Josh 23:16; 1Ki 14:15-16; Jer 16:13-15) and unethical treatment of their fellow human beings.

If Israel wanted to remain in the land, they were to follow the way of justice, treating people fairly and without partiality (Deut 16:18-20).  They were not to mistreat the foreigner living among them, but were to treat them as native-born.  “Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt,” God commands (Lev 19:33-34).  Israel was driven from the land because of violence and bloodshed (Ezek 7:23-25), because they did not care for the orphan and the poor (Jer 5:28). 

Many American Christians think they are called to unwavering support of Israel, regardless of the civilian casualty count.  Some even believe Israel is entitled to the whole land, to expel the Palestinians.  This, however, contradicts the statements above (love the foreigner, care for the orphan and poor).  I believe it also misreads the biblical story, as the New Testament authors continuously spiritualized the return to the land and the restoration of Israel, reading these as the gathering of Jews and Gentiles in Christ.  For instance, the writer to the Hebrews says we don’t look toward the earthly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22; 13:11-14), but join with the Hebrew faithful, who lived as foreigners and strangers on the earth . . . longing for a better country to come (Heb 11:13-16).  Remember, he’s writing to Hebraic Jews, saying the land and temple are no longer important.

Now God can give the land to whomever he wants, whether Israeli or Palestinian.  That is up to God.  But as Christians, we should not turn a blind eye to the suffering of Palestinians—both Christian and Muslim—who did not take part in nor condone October 7.  We should not encourage Israel to violate the command of God, to limit retribution to no more than an eye for an eye (Exod 21:23-25).  1,200 died in Israel that day; why is it okay for 35,000 civilians to die in Gaza? (Even if these deaths have been overreported by 90%, that is still 3 “eyes” to 1!)

Even if the restoration texts apply to the modern state of Israel, they are not living by these texts.  The return described by the prophets were of a people with the law written on their hearts (Jer 31:31-34) of flesh, filled with God’s Spirit to obey the commands (Ezek 11:14-21; 36:22-32), and wholeheartedly fearing the Lord (Jer 32:36-41).  Isaiah says, strangers would be united to those returning (Isa 14:1-2).  Ezekiel adds that they would treat the foreigner residing in the land as a native-born and give them an inheritance in the land in whatever tribe they resided (Ezek 47:21-23).  God the shepherd would gathers his lost sheep, caring for the weak and injured but destroying the sleek and strong (Ezek 34:15-16).  It would seem Israel should strive to find a way to leave in peace with their Palestinian neighbors, not take their land nor prosper at their expense, lest they themselves be destroyed. 

The modern secular state of Israel does not live the righteous life described within the Hebrew Bible.  In many ways, their response is far more like the people of Ezekiel’s own day than his vision of the future people of God.  Just after Jerusalem’s fall to Babylon, the attacked people say to themselves: “Abraham was only one man, yet he possessed the land.  But we are many; surely the land has been given to us as our possession” (Ezek 33:24).  Yet God tells them they violated his commands, worshiped idols, shed the blood of the innocent, defiled their neighbor’s wives, and relied on their own sword rather than on him.  “Should you then possess the land?” (Ezek 33:25-26) asks the God who was, and is, and is to come (Rev 1:8).

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

0
Bible, Christian living, Jesus

When the Prodigal Son Met Esau and Cain

Posted on by Jay Givens

Luke 15; Genesis 4:1-16; 32:3-33:17

In Luke 15, Jesus tells a parable to the Pharisees and scribes, who were complaining that he hung out too much with tax collectors and sinners. Although many modern translations add subtitles to imply this chapter contains three distinct parables, Jesus really tells a single parable composed of three stanzas—a parable that ends without resolution. Jesus stops short of telling us the older son’s response to his father’s admonition, forcing the hearer/reader to reflect on what his or her own response would be in similar circumstances.

The repetitive framing of the parable suggests what the proper response should be.  A shepherd, who loses one sheep, will leave the ninety-nine until he finds that one, after which he throws a party to celebrate with friends.  A woman who loses one of ten valuable coins searches for it until she finds it, after which she throws a party to celebrate with friends.  Jesus ends both stories by comparing these earthly celebrations with the rejoicing of the angels in heaven when one sinner returns to God.

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

In the final story of the parable, however, Jesus adds a sudden twist, breaking this frame of reference. Instead of ending with heaven rejoicing, Jesus creates a new scenario: “meanwhile, the other son . . .” The older brother represents Jesus’ critics, who have a choice. Will they be an older son like Adam’s older son Cain or like Isaac’s older son Esau? You see, Jesus embedded allusions to these two stories about rival siblings, which his religious critics would surely have noticed.

The younger son demands his inheritance and leaves for a far country, echoing the story of Jacob. Jacob stole his brother’s birthright and blessing, making Esau so angry with Jacob that the younger sibling had to flee for his mother’s homeland to avoid death. Jacob prospered in that foreign land, not (as he supposed) because of his many schemes, but because of God’s grace. In contrast to Jacob’s prospering, the prodigal threw wild parties until he sunk into abject poverty. When his hunger became so great he thought of eating with the unclean pigs he was tending, the prodigal suddenly realized his father’s servants were well fed and cared for, without having to do such humiliating work. When the prodigal left home, he had arrogantly demanded his rights as a son. Perhaps if he returned home renouncing those “rights,” his father would accept him as a servant. Knowing he deserved nothing, he humbly returned home with the hope his father would show mercy.

Jacob, on the other hand, returned home content with his wealth and family . . . until he heard his older brother Esau was coming with a large force of men. In terror, Jacob prayed, acknowledging for the first time that he was nothing more than God’s servant, unworthy of all the blessings he had received. The next day, when he went to face Esau, he fearfully and humbly bowed to the ground seven times as he approached. Fear motivated Jacob’s approach. Hope motivated the prodigal. As he journeyed, he rehearsed a speech over and over to himself: I am not worthy to be called a son. No doubt there was a little fear that his father would not accept him, but the prodigal’s hope persisted. We are told that, while the prodigal was still a long way off, the father responded to him just like Esau responded to his younger brother Jacob. Both ran to the one who had formerly affronted them. Both threw their arms around the returning wanderer and kissed them. Both rejoiced because, at last, they were reconciled. We are not told the father wept as Esau did, but likely this was part of the compassion that filled him upon seeing his son returning to him on that dusty road.

And then there is the older son in the prodigal story. When Jesus introduces him, he says that he was “in the field.”  Jesus wants us to think immediately of Cain, who took his younger brother out into the field in order to murder him.  Both Cain and the prodigal’s older brother lose face in relationship to their younger brothers.  For Cain, it was when God looked favorably on Abel’s sacrifice of the fat portions of the firstborn of his flock, but did not look favorably on his own offering of some of his produce.  In Jesus’ parable, instead of the younger son offering his heavenly father the fattened animal, Jesus says the prodigal’s father ordered the fatted calf to be killed so everyone could celebrate the younger son’s safe return.  The older son believed the father was dishonoring him through this misplaced celebration. Like the Pharisees and scribes, who thought Jesus was squandering his time with the riffraff, Cain wanted God’s attention and did not think his younger brother deserved what should rightly go to the older son.

Just as Cain became very angry over God’s response to Abel, the prodigal’s older brother became angry and refused to enter the house to attend the party.  Yet the older son is not exiled like Cain.  Instead, the father “exiles” himself from the party in order to plead with the older son to come into the house. He is like the shepherd, leaving the ninety-nine to find the one.  The older son refers to his daily duties at his father’s home as “slavery.”  Where are the blessings of sonship he deserves? Where is the party thrown in his honor for “never disobeying” the father’s “orders!”  The older son’s insistence on his right to be honored as a (slaving!) son is the opposite attitude of his younger brother, who wanted to be accepted only as a servant because he believed he no longer deserved to be called “son.”  The older son was like the servants in a later teaching of Jesus. He wanted to be praised, rather than saying what Jesus told us all to say: “We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty” (Lk 17:7-10).  Like Abel, the younger brother was honored because he came with a better gift.

So the question for the Pharisees and scribes was what type of older brother would they be to these tax collectors and sinners?  Would they be like the father, who followed the example of older brother Esau?  Both lost material wealth to the younger son, but ultimately both valued restoration of relationship far more than earthly treasures.  Neither accepted the returning one’s offer to become a servant; both restored the returning brother’s status as sons and heirs.  Or would the Pharisees and scribes be like the older brother, who patterned his response after Cain?  Both felt God/the father didn’t honor their firstborn status.  Both thought their service deserved more praise than it received.  The question Jesus leaves hanging is whether we (not just the Pharisees and scribes long ago) will respond like Esau—rejoicing that the lost one has been found and restored—or like Cain—angry at the other and prideful about our own self-worth.  Even if we don’t murder these younger brothers and sisters, do we sin against them in our heart (Mt 5:21-24)?

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

Painting: The Return of the Prodigal by Pompeo Batoni (1773), public domain, accessed 4 January 2024 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son#/media/File:Pompeo_Batoni_003.jpg

0
Bible, Movie review

Young Messiah (Movie Reflections)

Posted on by Jay Givens

I love movies, the larger than life stories it can create (e.g., the Star Wars mythos), the liberties it can take at times with alternative realities (e.g., superhero movies) or creating new twists for old stories (e.g., flipping the climatic scene from Wrath of Khan in the Star Trek reboot Into Darkness).  There certainly are new twists in the new movie, Young Messiah, and it certainly attempts to be larger than life in the telling of the story that is Life itself.  I went to see the movie primarily because I thought I might have some students watch it and ask questions about it.  (Or worse, just accept the story within the movie without question.)  As a warning, the remainder of this blog will contain spoilers.

My biggest concern isn’t with the movie itself.  Yes, the pacing of the movie is poor and the acting isn’t much better.  I’ve never enjoyed an other-earthly Jesus.  As much as there are some images of him laughing and playing, overall he seems detached.  (Ignatiy Vishnevetsky’s review effectively and humorously deals with the pacing/acting issues.)  If you are looking for a better paced/better acted movie, see the almost concurrently released Risen.  On the other hand, the visuals of the Young Messiah were very good.  The costumes were well designed and the scenery was much more authentic than the constant desert landscape offered in Risen.  (Who could farm in the Galilee if it truly was as desolate as one sees in that movie?  Its filmmakers seem to envision the Judean wilderness as definitive for all Israel!)

Now, please note that any attempt to imagine the silent years of Jesus will require imagination and creativity.  I think that is fine and enjoyed the premise of viewing the gospel from a different perspective, but it needs to be done within a biblical and historical framework.  I don’t even have a problem per se with how it seems modified versions of stories from the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas (IGT) are used in the movie.  After all, I see no reason for Anne Rice to create a new story whole cloth when  she could weave a new story around elements of preexisting legends.

In fact, I entered the theater expecting so much worse than what I found.  Knowing the stories from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, I feared Jesus would be portrayed as the impish wildchild found therein–a boy unchecked in his emotions with powers far beyond his control.  For example, the movie picks up the idea of Jesus being bullied, raising dead children back to life, and making dead birds live.  In IGT, Jesus curses a bully who shouldered him roughly in the street and the bully falls dead.  The parents react in fear and tell Joseph to move away or at least teach his son not to kill children.  Joseph reprimands Jesus, who then causes his accusers to go blind!  (This is hardly turning the other “shoulder” or going the extra mile, is it?)  Joseph then tries to find a teacher for Jesus, but Jesus confounds these teachers with obscure statements about the nature of letters before cursing one, striking another dead, and laughing at a third (though he seems pleased with this one’s realization he has been bested by Jesus).  At some point in the stories, Jesus will undo the curses he has brought upon the people, but he seems to be power-mad in these stories, using miracles to invoke fear and/or worship.  (There also seems to be some anti-Semitic undertone running through parts of them.)  Jesus does raise some to life in IGT: a boy who cut his foot with an axe and bled to death, a playmate who fell from a roof (though Jesus mainly raises this boy as a character witness that Jesus hadn’t pushed the boy off to start with!), an infant in his mother’s arms, and an old man who then worshiped Jesus.

In the movie, by contrast, Jesus is much closer to the adult Jesus we find in the four gospels.  It is the Demon shadowing Jesus who causes Jesus’ bully to trip on an apple, crack his head on a stone, and die.  Yes, the crowds react in fear and demand Jesus’ family leave, but Jesus doesn’t strike them blind.  Instead, he sneaks past them, into the dead boy’s room, and raises the bully back to life.  So the movie blends these resurrection stories with the bully story, presenting Jesus as a concerned and compassionate little boy, not a wildchild acting in anger and demanding worship.  Similarly, the dead bird on the beach seems to be a revisioning of the IGT story of Jesus playing in the mud making clay pigeons on the Sabbath.  In that story, he brings the dead birds to life to “show off” in response to the criticism of a rabbi who asks Joseph why his son works on the Sabbath.  In the movie, it is again the compassion of Jesus that drives his restoration of life to the dead bird.

My biggest concern about the movie is actually how many leading Christian voices have embraced the movie as “orthodox” or “biblical” despite important differences that exist between the movie’s view of first century Judaism and Jesus and what we know from history and from the four gospels.  (Again, the imaginative approach is fine with me, if done within an historical context with biblical themes.)  I think the portrayal of Jesus himself as a compassionate child growing and enjoying life nicely fit Luke’s statement about Jesus’ growth as a child.  I also agree with the movie’s view that Jesus wasn’t aware of his unique status as Son of God.  My problem is with the movie’s portrayal of all the people around Jesus knowing this “secret”–Mary and Joseph, Salome and Cleopas, as well as James and Miriam.  I would even be ok with that if their view wasn’t that Jesus was a divine being, “more than human” as I recall Cleopas saying to Joseph at one point.

You see, the first century conception of the Messiah was not that he would be divine at all.  The Jews expected God to raise up a human descendant of David to re-establish Israel and deliver the Jews from their enemies.  The idea of Messiah as conquering king is properly mentioned in the movie, but their belief that Jesus was divine simply because of the virginal conception doesn’t fit with the gospel stories.  In Mark, for instance, Mary and Jesus’ brothers thinks Jesus is out of his mind and goes to take charge of him .  When Peter makes his great confession, “You are the Messiah, the Son of God,” we can see that Peter does not mean by this that Jesus was a divine being.  For immediately after this confession, Jesus begin to teach his disciples for the first time that he will suffer and die.  At this new teaching, however, Peter rebukes Jesus!  If Peter believed Jesus was divine, he certainly would not think Jesus could err.  Instead, Peter believed Jesus would be a great conquering human king.  Jesus’ response is to rebuke Peter (get behind me, Satan!) for thinking of Messiah as humans conceived him (the conquering king) and not as God (the suffering servant).  This idea that the King of the Jews was the Son of God goes back to the time of David.  God promised David a dynasty, where his son would reign.  “I will be his Father and he will be my son,” God says, but then he continues, “when he does wrong . . .”  How could it be a divine son if he does wrong and must be disciplined by God?  From what we can tell, every king of Israel was proclaimed Son of God at his coronation through the use of  Psalm 2, especially verse 7.  Even after the resurrection, the disciples still conceive of Jesus as the one to bring in a restored kingdom.  It is only after the Spirit descends on them at Pentecost that they begin to understand that Jesus was more than a human being.  He was indeed God made flesh.

In addition, the four gospels do not indicate Jesus had miraculous powers as a child.  The movie has him doing miracles, yet wouldn’t this have called attention to him if he had?  (The movie itself indicates that it did.)  The only thing unusual about Jesus in the gospels is that he talked to the teachers in the temple at age twelve and impressed them with his questions and answers.  Yet even this isn’t the “shocking” knowledge Jesus displays in the movie at age seven or eight, when Joseph goes to a rabbi and asks him to take Jesus on as a disciple.  Instead, the Bible indicates Jesus grew as any other child and “discovered” his divine calling as Messiah at the baptism, around the age of thirty.  Mark says the heavens were torn open (the same word used for the temple veil at Jesus’ death).  In the movie, Mary tells Jesus he heals because he is divine.  But Elijah and Elisha perform miracles such as Jesus and the Bible never says those men were divine.  The response of people at the time of Jesus to his miracles was not, “Look!  A divine being!”  Instead, their response was that he was a prophet (like Elijah).  As opposed to the movie, the gospels emphasize the role of faith the people had as being the key to healing, not anything intrinsic to Jesus himself.  For example, Jesus wasn’t able to heal when people didn’t believe (in him?).

Closing on a related but somewhat random thought . . . did anyone else notice the Harry Potteresque ending to the movie?  (Even though Chris Columbus was producer for both films, I don’t mean to imply this was intentional.)  You have the climatic confrontation between the Boy (from Bethlehem) Who Lived and his “enemy” named Severus, a man who apparently serves a master fascinated/tormented with serpents yet in the end Severus is revealed to be an ally who protects the boy.  Unlike the presentation in the movie, however, the people weren’t spreading rumors about the “Boy Who Lived” nor were authorities trying to hunt him down.  Jesus, the young boy who would one day be revealed as Messiah, grew up in obscurity as any other human, for he was like we are yet without sin.

0